House of Representatives
12 November 1907

3^rd Parliament · 2^nd Session

PETITIONS
MANUFACTURES ENCOURAGEMENT BILL
QUESTION
- EXCISE TARIFF (AGRICULTURAL MACHINERY) ACT
QUESTION
- MAIL SERVICE TO EUROPE
QUESTION
- COMMONWEALTH OFFICES IN MELBOURNE
QUESTION
- NEW PROTECTION
TELEPHONE CHARGES
- Sydney-Melbourne and Sydney-West Maitland Lines
QUESTION
- FREIGHTS ON STATE IMPORTATIONS : NEW ZEALAND
QUESTION
- ADDITIONAL EMPLOYES : SYDNEY POST OFFICE
LEAVE OF ABSENCE
PAPER
- Public Service Act - Substituted Regulation No. 74 (Provisional) Statutory Rules 1907, No. 114
QUESTION
- PROMOTION OF TELEGRAPHISTS
QUESTION
- TARIFF

Mr. Speaker took the chair at 3 p.m., and read prayers.

page 5801

PETITIONS

Mr. EWING presented two petitions, from fishermen of the Richmond and Tweed Rivers, praying the House to remit the duties on fishing nets and cork floats.

Mr. MAHON presented a petition from importers, merchants, traders, and dealers engaged in the importation and distribution of phonographs, gramophones, graphophones, records, and all accessories thereto, praying the House not to consent to an increase of duty on those articles.

Petitions received.

page 5801

MANUFACTURES ENCOURAGEMENT BILL

Mr. SPEAKER reported the receipt of a message from His Excellency the GovernorGeneral, recommending an appropriation for the purposes of this Bill.

page 5801

QUESTION

EXCISE TARIFF (AGRICULTURAL MACHINERY) ACT

Mr FISHER:
WIDE BAY, QUEENSLAND

– In view of the decision of Mr. Justice Higgins, that fair and reasonable wages have not been paid by Mr. H. V. McKay in his harvester works, what action does the Government intend to take to give effect to the law passed last session to insure that fair and reasonable wages shall be paid to employes engaged in manufacturing harvesters ?

Mr DEAKIN:
Minister for External Affairs · BALLAARAT, VICTORIA · Protectionist

– A notice - a copy of which will be laid on the table to-morrow or next day - has this morning been served upon the firm in question.

page 5801

QUESTION

MAIL SERVICE TO EUROPE

Mr FRAZER:
KALGOORLIE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– Is the Prime Minister yet in a position to take the House into his confidence with regard to the proposed mail contract ?

Mr DEAKIN:
Protectionist

– I am awaiting a final intimation on the last point in issue, which is expected at any time.

Mr THOMAS:
BARRIER, NEW SOUTH WALES

– In view of the protracted negotiations with shipping companies re the mail tenders, I desire to know from the Prime Minister if it would not be more in accordance with the dignity and honour of the Commonwealth - which proposes by preferential trade to save the British Empire - that the Government should break off all negotiations with the companies, and, without delay, proceed to obtain a Commonwealth line of mail steamers ?

Mr DEAKIN:

– I envy the honorable member his happy gifts of humour and condensation, enabling him to put so large a policy into so small a space. I shall take the matter into consideration.

page 5801

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH OFFICES IN MELBOURNE

Mr WILKS:
DALLEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

– In view of the reports which have appeared in Melbourne newspapers, and in the Sydney press, to the effect that the Government is entering into an arrangement with the Government of Victoria to lease certain offices for a period of ten years or more, will the Minister responsible be good enough to give to the House a full explanation of the transactions in question, so as to allay the suspicion in New South Wales that another attempt is being made to delay the settlement of the Federal Capital Site question ?

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:
Treasurer · HUME, NEW SOUTH WALES · Protectionist

– In consequence of a statement in the Argus the other day, I, this morning, went through the papers, and find that an arrangement was made by my late colleague, the right honorable member for Swan, to occupy the buildings which are being erected near the Victorian Treasury Buildings; but there is no binding agreement to occupy them a moment longer than they may be required.

Mr DUGALD THOMSON:
NORTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906

– Will a forfeit have to be paid if they are given up?

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:

– No. The State Government is erecting the buildings partly for its own use, and arranged with the right honorable member for Swan that the Commonwealth Government should occupy two floors until we desire to move. We have not agreed that notice shall be given of the termination of the tenancy, or that any penalty shall be paid.

Mr Wilks:

– It is merely a tenancy from month to month.

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:

– I should think from week to week. In reference to the additions which are to be made to the building now occupied by Commonwealth Ministers, I. find that it is intended to raise it two stories in one part, and one story in another. The new accommodation will be occupied by the Commonwealth, and we shall pay rent for it, I believe, in proportion to that now paid, while it is proposed that if the building be vacated within ten years, the sum of£1,000 be paid. That recommendation of the Department of Home Affairs was before me for approval. If we moved to the Federal Capital to-morrow we should have to retain certain offices in Melbourne, and these offices would be used.

page 5802

QUESTION

NEW PROTECTION

Mr CROUCH:
CORIO, VICTORIA

– In the published list of trades to be brought under the proposed Excise Act, which has been referred to as the new protection, the salt workers are not included. Is that omission made designedly ?

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:
Protectionist

-No authentic list has been published.

Mr CROUCH:

– Will all protected trades be included?

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:

– It is difficult for me to say, but the proposed legislation will be made to apply to all trades to which the Government may think it should apply, and the list will be submitted to Parliament, so that if honorable members wish to extend its application, other trades may be inserted.

page 5802

TELEPHONE CHARGES

Sydney-Melbourne and Sydney-West Maitland Lines

Mr LIDDELL:
HUNTER, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I wish to draw the attention of the Postmaster-General to the following paragraph, which appeared in last Saturday’s Argus: -

With the advent of Cup week, the boom in the use of the Melbourne to Sydney telephone probably reached its height. Ever since the spring racing campaign opened, the receipts on the line have steadily grown week after week. Last week was a record - a long way ahead of the previous week, which was up to that time also a record. Last week there were 426 calls over the line, as against 391 the week before. This is the first time since theinauguration of the line that the number of calls has gone over 400. The receipts last week were £96, as against£91 for the previous week. With the average receipts as large as this, the line would pay handsomely. Indeed, if there were any prospect of last week’s business being maintained, there is little doubt that the Postmaster-General (Mr. Mauger) would again cut down the charges made for using the line.

I desire to ask the honorable gentleman if the Department has taken it upon itself to reduce the fee which was fixed for holding a conversation over the trunk line between Sydney and Melbourne, and, if so, whether the Minister cannot now take it upon him self, contrary to the regulations, to reduce the charge which was fixed in respect of the telephone line from West Maitland to Sydney ?

Mr MAUGER:
Postmaster-General · MARIBYRNONG, VICTORIA · Protectionist

– The honorable gentle- ‘ man supposes a case and then proceeds to knock it down. There has been no change, either in the policy of the Department or in the charge for using the trunk line between Melbourne and Sydney, or the trunk line between West Maitland and Sydney.

page 5802

QUESTION

FREIGHTS ON STATE IMPORTATIONS : NEW ZEALAND

Mr THOMAS:

– In July last I asked the Acting Prime Minister whether he would obtain from New Zealand some information as to the amount of freights paid by its Government for State importations in its subsidized boats. I desire to know whether the Prime Minister has received a reply from the Government of New Zealand, and, if so, whether he will give the information to the House ?

Mr DEAKIN:
Protectionist

– A reply has been received to the query. I shall either lay it upon the table or hand it to the honorable member.

Mr THOMAS:

– Lay it upon the table.

Mr DEAKIN:

- Mr. Speaker, I hand in the following correspondence -

Melbourne, 31st July, 1907.

Sir,

I have the honour to inform you that references have already been made in the Parliament of the Commonwealth to the arrangement that exists between your Government and the line or lines of steamers that receive subsidies for carrying mails to New Zealand.

It is understood that in all cases of goods imported by any of your Government Departments such steamers receive a preference over other lines of vessels. Will you kindly inform me if this is so, and if you will add the amount of freight which is annually paid in connexion with such importations I shall be further obliged.

I have the honour to be,

Sir,

Your most obedient servant,

For the Prime Minister.

The Right Honorable

The Prime Minister of New Zealand, Wellington.

Prime Minister’s Office;

Wellington, 21st August, 1907.

The Hon. the Prime Minister of the Commonwealth of Australia.

Sir,

I have the honour to acknowledge receipt of your letter (P.M. 07/3305) of the 31st ult., regarding references having been made in the Commonwealth Parliament to a preferential arrangement said to exist between the New Zealand Government and a line of subsidized mail steamers.

In reply, I have toinform you that the only arrangement of this kind which has been entered into is in connexion with the contract between the New Zealand Government and the New Zealand and African Steam-ship Company, for a cargo steam-ship service between New Zealand and the West Coast ports of the United Kingdom. The provision in the contract affecting the matter as referred to by you is as follows : - “ In consideration of the premises the Government undertake to ship one-half of all cargo under their control from the West Coast ports of the United Kingdom, and one-half of such cargo coming forward from London by the Contractors’ line of steamers, provided that the Contractors give sufficient public notice of the sailing dates of such steamers, and that should any cargo at any time be shut out, the Government shall be at liberty to make other arrangement for the shipment of such cargo.”

This line of steamers received no subsidy from the Government. . The only consideration given was in respect of goods shipped under the above clause of the contract.

I am at present unable to say what amount in freightage was paid to the contractors, and it would entail considerable labour to get the figures. If, however, these are of importance to you, please let me know, and they will be prepared and sent to you as early as possible.

I have the honour to be,

Sir,

Your obedient servant,

Ward,

Prime Minister.

page 5803

QUESTION

ADDITIONAL EMPLOYES : SYDNEY POST OFFICE

Mr LIDDELL:

– Prior to asking the Postmaster-General a question, without notice, I desire to quote a paragraph which appeared in Saturday’s Argus, and which reads as follows -

The Postmaster-General recognises that the only way to effectually deal with sweating isby the employment of more hands. In this, however, he has been blocked by the Treasurer (Sir William Lyne), and the Public Service Commissioner (Mr. D. C. McLachlan). The employment of a number of temporary hands was sanctioned by them. Mr. Mauger instructed the Deputy Postmaster-General in Sydney toat once engage as many as have been allotted to him.

I desire to know whether it is a fact that the Deputy Postmaster-General in Sydney has applied for 600 additional hands, of which number only one-half has been allotted ?

Mr MAUGER:
Protectionist

– The honorable gentleman is again wrong in his facts. The Deputy Postmaster-General did not “apply for 600 hands; and everything pertaining to the permanent employment of those officials was stated by the Treasurer and also by myself on two or three occasion’.; in the House.

“COUNSELS OF THE EMPIRE.”

Mr DUGALD THOMSON:
NORTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906

– I draw the attention of the Prime Minister to the following passage in the report of a speech which he recently delivered- -

Only then would they be able to obtain a population proportionate to their resources, and be able to speak in the counsels of the Empire - a right to which Australia was entitled - and only then would they be able to break through the official ties and bandages once helpful, but now hindering.

As the passage is delightfully vague, I should like to know whether the honorable gentleman is prepared to take the House into his confidence as to what form of Imperialism is there proposed, and as to what are the “ ties and bandages once helpful, but now hindering ‘ ‘ ?

Mr DEAKIN:
Protectionist

– The report is as complete as one can expect. It naturally is not quite as comprehensive as my statement; but it applies clearly enough to what I was referring. Speaking of the relations of the Colonial Office with Australia in particular, and the Dominions in general -the relations which were discussed at the Conference, which have been, particularly in this State while it was a Colony, a frequent subject for discussion - I took exception to their present character. The proposal that this Government submitted for the establishment of a connexion between Conference and Conference by means of an office in which all the Dominions should be represented at one joint cost is our remedy. The “ bandages “ are the old relations which are now official obstacles in the way of that ideal.

page 5803

LEAVE OF ABSENCE

Motion (by Mr. Deakin) agreed to -

That leave of absence for one month, on account of ill-health, be granted to the honorable member for Adelaide.

Motion (by Mr. Reid) agreed to -

That leave of absence for two months, on account of ill-health, be granted to the honorable member for Wentworth.

page 5803

PAPER

Mr. MAUGER laid upon the table the following paper -

Public Service Act - Substituted Regulation No. 74 (Provisional) Statutory Rules 1907, No. 114

page 5804

QUESTION

PROMOTION OF TELEGRAPHISTS

Mr THOMAS BROWN:
CALARE, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the PostmasterGeneral, upon notice -

Is it proposed to make any alterations in the present scheme of staff promotions as affecting the telegraphist section of his Department, and, if so, what is the nature of such proposals?
Has any provision been made in the current (1907-8) year’s Estimates for the promotion of telegraphists in the several classifications of the service, and how many officers in each class will be thus provided for?

Mr MAUGER:
Protectionist

– The Public Service Commissioner has furnished the following information -

Yes. By increasing the number of telegraphists in Class IV.
Yes. Provision has been made for the pro motion of eighty-five telegraphists from Class V. to Class IV.

page 5804

QUESTION

TARIFF

In Committee of Ways and Means (Consideration resumed from 7 th November, vide page 5745):

Division V. - Textiles, Felts and Furs, and Manufactures thereof, and Attire -

Mr WATSON:
South Sydney

– May I ask the Treasurer whether he has any statement to make to the Committee as to when he is likely to bring in the Manufactures Encouragement Bill ?

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:
Treasurer · Hume · Protectionist

– I have taken action already. A message from the GovernorGeneral has been brought down to-day, and I shall proceed to-morrow to move for leave to introduce the Bill. At the last sitting of the Committee I stated that, in consequence of the reduction of the duty on woollens, it would be necessary to reduce the duty on piece goods by the same amount and in the same proportion, that is, 10 per cent. lower than the duty on woollens, which we decided a few nights since.

Mr Tudor:

– What the honorable gentleman means is that he proposes to leave a margin of 10 per cent.

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:

– Yes. The honorable member for Melbourne has given notice of an amendment which the Government do not intend to oppose, and . which will cause a re-adjustment of the whole of this item. I therefore propose to divide the item into one or two more paragraphs. I propose to add after the letters “n.e.i.” in paragraph a the words - “ and rubbered waterproof cloth of any material ad val., (General Tariff), 30 per cent. ; (United Kingdom), 25 per cent.

Honorable members will see that the item as it stands provides for duties of 35 per cent. and 30 per cent., and that in accordance with my promise I propose to reduce it so as to allow of a margin of 10 per cent. between this item and that of woollens, which was dealt with a few nights ago. I do not intend to go further than I have indicated, because the honorable member for Melbourne has given notice of a further amendment providing for the insertion of the paragraph -

Piece goods, woollen or containing wool, namely, women’s and children’s dress goods not weighing over 4 ozs. per square yard, ad val., (General Tariff), 20 per cent., (United Kingdom), 15 per cent.

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:

– Jute will be on the free list. At present woollen rubbered waterproof cloth is dutiable . under item 124 paragraph a, but cotton rubbered waterproof cloth can be dealt with only under the present sub-item 124e, at io per cent, or 5 per cent., according to the country of origin. As that is an anomalous position, the amalgamation as set out in the words of the amendment is necessary. I therefore move -

That after the letters “n.e.i.,” paragraph a, the following words be inserted : - “ and rubbered waterproof cloth of any material.”

Mr FULLER:
Illawarra

.- I have here a copy of a letter dealing with this matter, which was addressed to the Minister of Trade and Customs by S. Weingott & Sons Ltd., Wallace & Co., Perdriau Rubber Coy. Ltd., M. Golomb, and J. Sampson and Son. Perhaps I had better read the whole letter to the Committee -

We, the undersigned waterproof clothing manufacturers, Sydney, respectfully draw your attention to the impossibility of carrying on our business under the existing Tariff of 30 per cent. ad val. on waterproof cloth, and in support r.f our application for a reduction to the old rate, 15 per cent, ad val., invite your earnest consideration to the undermentioned facts : -

The manufacture of waterproof clothing in Australia finds employment for close on 500 hands.

Local proofing would be impossible for the following reasons : -

Mr Watson:

– It is not impossible, be cause it is done here.

Mr FULLER:

– These are the reasons given. It will be for honorable members to determine whether or not they are sufficient.

The local proofing firms are our competitors in the trade of waterproof garments, and if they did our proofing would derive an unfair advantage over us, in knowing all our patterns, and what we were doing, generally speaking, besides which they would naturally give a preference to their own materials; furthermore, there would be nothing to prevent them making a prohibitive charge for the proofing whenever it suited them to do so, knowing that we would be entirely in their hands.
It would not be feasible for any one of us to start a process of proofing cloth on account of the excessive cost of the necessary plant. An estimate from a reputable English firm puts down the cost of a small plant (capable of proofing twenty-five pieces per day), at £3,000 ; this expenditure is exclusive of the import duties on the machinery and the erection of the buildings, &c.
So rapid is the process ofwaterproofing cloth, that it would not pay any manufacturer to start a factory for this purpose alone, for a small plant working constantly for two months could proof all the cloth used in Australia for twelve months.

Sir William Lyne:

– The writers of the letter are importers of waterproof cloth, I think.

Mr Reid:

– They are manufacturers also.

Mr FULLER:

– They are importers and manufacturers, I take it.

Sir William Lyne:

– I do not think they have much to do with manufacturing.

Mr FULLER:

– These firms give employment to 500 hands. They are manufacturers who use waterproof cloth.

Sir William Lyne:

– They use the imported cloth.

Mr FULLER:

– Yes.

The waterproof trade is at any time a very capricious one, owing to the uncertain climatic conditions and the droughty nature of Australia generally speaking, so that no encouragement is afforded for expenditure of large sums for proofing plant.
We would respectfully submit that if cloth made waterproof with Indiarubber were made a special line with a duty of 15 per cent. ad val., it would afford an ample protection for firms proofing cloth locally, whose interests are guarded by item 124 (page 49 of the schedule), and we might mention that in New Zealand, a strong protectionist colony, waterproof cloth is actually admitted free of all duty.

Sir John Forrest:

– What is the value of the imports?

Mr BRUCE SMITH:

– They are fairly substantial. There is a big industry concerned. I do not think the honorable member for South Sydney does justice to the authors of the letter when he says that it is absurd on the face of it. They do not say that it is impossible to manufacture the material here, because they admit that it is done. They state that there is already at least one substantial firm manufacturing it, and that enough can be manufactured by from twelve to twenty men in two months to supply the whole of the Commonwealth. There is another raw material in the shape of the woollen or cotton fabric, in addition to the water-proof. Upon that fabric the indiarubber surface has to be placed. It is very probable that this can be done by machinery at a very rapid rate.

Mr Watson:

– I saw the material being made. The process is not very rapid. The number of men mentioned is ridiculously small.

Mr BRUCE SMITH:

– I should say that the application of the indiarubber to the fabric is done almost wholly by machinery under the guidance of one man. The honorable member for Illawarra has placed in my hands a schedule showing that the value of cloth-made water-proof imported has been as follows: - 1902 , £22,000; 1903,£32,000;1904,£53,000;and 1906, £39, 000. Whilst I regard with great scepticism these ex parte statements made by manufacturers on the one side and by importers on the other - always in their own interests and not too carefully drawn for the guidance of honorable members - the statement which has been put before the Committee is one to which there is practically no contradiction, and although it may appear improbable, it is due to those who have made the statement for the’ information of the Committee and addressed it to the Minister that it should be met by some authoritative counter-statement. If, as they say, the water-proof material can be made for the whole of the Commonwealth by such a small number of people, and the industry of manufacturing the cloth into garments is so substantial, we ought to be very careful before we dismiss off-handedly and without information their statement as to the hardship which will accrue to the four or five substantial firms engaged in the industry.

Question - That the words “and rubbered water-proof cloth of any material” be inserted after the letters “n.e.i.,” paragraph a (Sir William Lyne’s amendment) - put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 0

NOES: 0

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr JOHNSON:
Lang

– I move -

That after the words “35 per cent.,” paragraph A, the words “ and on and after13th November, 1907 (General Tariff), ad val., 20 per cent.,” be inserted.

The question of the duties which should be levied upon woollens was fully debated when the item of apparel and attire was under consideration, and I do not propose to add much to what was then said. I merely wish to point out that the arguments which were then advanced apply with equal force to this item in so far as the conditions of labour under high and low Tariffs are concerned. From a return which has been prepared I find that in 1878, when a duty of11per cent. was operative upon woollens, there were 736 hands employed in the Victorian woollen mills. But when the rate was increased to 44 per cent. in 1892-3, the number of hands declined from 736 to 659.

Mr Watson:

– The Bank smash occurred in 1893.

Mr JOHNSON:

– Then I will select some other years for the purpose of instituting a comparison. In 1888, when the duty was increased to 22 per cent.-

Mr Reid:

– -That was a boom year.

Mr JOHNSON:

– That is so. In 1888, when the duty was increased from11 per cent. to 22 per cent., the number of employes in the industry fell from 736 to 704. In 1892, with the duty of 22 per cent. in 1888 increased to 44 per cent., the number of hands employed fell off to 552. In 1899the duty was considerably less than half of this, the highest then being 271/2 per cent. and the lowest 161/2 per cent., and under the operation of the lower duty the number of hands employed increased from 552 to 917. Last year the hands employed increased to 1,315 under a161/2 per cent. duty. It will be seen, therefore, that just as the rate was increased employment in the industry decreased, and vice versa. I would also point out that Mr. Grainger, of the Ballarat woollen mills, stated in evidence before the Tariff Commission, in answer to questions 10719-10721, that three Victorian mills had closed within a year or two of 1896, when the duty under the highest Victorian Tariff was 44 per cent. Again, in answer to question 10722A-10726, he mentions two other millswhich commenced operations under the first Commonwealth Tariff, which imposed a very much lower rate than that levied under the old Victorian Tariff.

These facts show that under a high Tariff the industry suffered,’ whilst under a low Tariff it progressed. I have been asked by the honorable member for Moreton to bring before the Committee a letter which has been forwarded to him by a clothing manufacturer, and which enclosed several samples of woollen material. The writer says -

I have just returned from the Old Country after a very short stay. But, before returning, I sent a wire to have certain goods bonded, owing to the increased Tariff from15 to 30 and 35 per cent. I enclose samples of similar goods. Note. - They are now classed with woollens and tweeds and there is not a yard being made in any State in the Commonwealth, and cannot be made for the next fifty years. Indeed, some of the samples cannot be made in England, but are made in France and Germany. .. I spoke to one of the directors of the company, who told me that the Board had no idea that light dress materials were included in the new Tariff. The bonded warehouses, are full of the class ofgoods that I have sent samples of, and many of us would prefer sending them back sooner than pay the higher duty.

Mr Maloney:

– The Minister has promised to take a note of that.

Sir William Lyne:

– That is so.

Mr Glynn:

– I saw the Minister about that this morning.

Mr POYNTON:

– The goods an; still being charged at ‘the higher duty.

Mr Watson:

– That has not been done for some time.

Mr POYNTON:

– It is being done at Adelaide.

Mr GLYNN:
Angas

– I may say that I received a letter similar to that which has been quoted by the honorable member for Grey, and I .saw the secretary on the subject yesterday. I find that sometimes one can get a thing done more quickly by informing the Department beforehand of what one intends to move in Committee. The departmental officers are thus given an opportunity to look into the somewhat complex questions, and make up their minds in advance of the action taken in the Committee, thus facilitating the speedy settlement of the Tariff. This matter is as stated in the letter which the honorable member for Grey has read, but I understand that the Minister promises to reconsider it in the light of the suggestions made.

Mr Watson:

– He promised to. do .so last week.

Mr GLYNN:

– This morning I received a letter from Dr. Wollaston, who- has looked into the matter carefully. I quote a short extract from his letter in reference to items 108 and 118. He writes -

Relating to the effect of the items 108 and 118 of the Tariff as passed by the House of Representatives, I beg to state that 118 specifically includes articles of furnishing drapery and napery, whereas 108 refers to articles not elsewhere included. As articles of furnishing drapery and napery are elsewhere included, they are not affected by 108.

I am not sure that that is an answer to the letter quoted by the honorable member for Grey, but it is as well to have the statement on record, as the letter itself has been read. With respect to the general item, 1 may say that in my district there is a woollen factory, which has battled against a good deal of difficulty, and in which the colonial material has been brought to a pretty high state of perfection, judging by the evidence given before the Tariff Commission. The company strictly fulfils the scriptural injunction against mixing, because I find that Mr. Moore, the manager, has said that they never mix cotton with wool. They prefer to trust to quality. I mention this fact because last week, when the manufacture of blankets was being discussed, a good deal was said about the admixture of cotton with wool. .

Mr EDWARDS:

– I will not go quite so far as the honorable member in that belief. Another resolution of the tailors reads as follows -

That since Australian woollen manufacturers are unable to fill requirements, we are of opinion that if this Tariff is passed inferior woollens will be imported into the Commonwealth.

That is their opinion, which, of course, they are entitled to hold. I have in my hand one or two paragraphs in a communication from the ‘Queensland Warehousemen’s Association. After referring to the duty on woollen piece goods they state that the classification is not correct. They point out that a distinction ought to be made between piece goods used for men’s clothing and piece goods used for women’s dresses. They say -

In classing woollen piece goods a distinction should be drawn in goods that are made or can be made in Australia, and those which cannot be produced under existing conditions.

All agree, I think, that goods which we cannot produce) if not placed on the free list, should be allowed to come in at a very low rate of duty. The writers go on to say -

The piece goods which can be made include heavy tweeds and serges, chiefly for men’s wear.

We suggest a duty of 20 per cent, on this class. . The goods which cannot be made may be describe’d generally as fine texture,- light weight all wool, woollen and silk, Or woollen and cotton mixtures used in making up of ladies’ apparel or for lining men’s apparel. They include fabrics in endless varieties of designs and colourings, which ever-changing fashion demands, and they are known as cashmeres, voiles, delaines, nun’s veiling, fine twills, amazons and face cloths, Italians, Venetians, Sicilians, lustres, Biegesm Eoliennes, silk and woollen mixtures, Panama cloths, hopsacs, and similar goods under various names. For reasons well understood in the trade, many of these goods are not made in Great Britain, and the same reasons in a much greater degree will prevent their being made in Australia. The public taste demands these goods, and the Tariff cannot alter this. The high rate will hinder or prevent the making up in Australia of garments made up from these materials, the duty on ready-made articles being a very little more.

I hope that the Minister will not ask the Committee to pass higher duties than 25 and 20 per cent, respectively. I am quite prepared to support those rates.. The honorable member for Angas has referred to the mixing of wool and cotton in the manufacture of piece goods. .1 have here a sample which the Ipswich Woollen Company sent to the honorable member for Moreton, who has been obliged to pay a visit to Queensland, and who otherwise would have, exhibited it to honorable members. I have had considerable experience in connexion with this kind of ‘ industry, and I assure the Committee that, I have not seen a better sample, than this one. The goods are guaranteed by the company to be all wool. They are quite prepared to allow their goods to be analyzed with a view to discover if any cotton has been mixed with the wool. They are really most beautiful goods. I think that duties of 20 and 25 per cent, respectively will be fair to both the manufacturers and the workers.

Mr HEDGES:
Fremantle

.- I. take it that this item includes the woollen piece goods from which our clothes are made. Until a day or two ago I was under the impression that cloth was being made in Australia.

Mr Mauger:

– It all depends on what the honorable member calls cloth.

Mr HEDGES:

– I was under the impression that cloth for making the clothes we wear was being made in Australia.

Mr Storrer:

– Tweed, the honorable member means?

Mr HEDGES:

– I am glad -to hear the honorable member say that it is being. made here, because I have some information which I think will astonish the Committee. I find that we are only weaving into cloth the yarns which are made in other countries.

Mr Tudor:

– Does the honorable member mean to say that no yarn is spun here?

Mr HEDGES:

– If the honorable member will keep quiet, ;he will learn something. Both here and outside, we hear a lot of “hifalutin” about what we can do in Australia. I stand here with a mind as open as that of any one in the chamber. I want to see Australia develop and forgeahead. But I aim . astonished to learn that such things have been going on as have been mentioned to me. I am informed that the weft and the warp for making cloth are imported.

Colonel Foxton. - Where?

Mr HEDGES:

– Those figures refer solely to yarn made partly or wholly of wool. An honorable member has assured the Committee that the manager of a factory has stated that he did not add cotton. If he did not add cotton, he may have bought stuff into which somebody else had added cotton. It was not necessary for him to buy the cotton - he could buy yarn, consisting partly of cotton, for use in his factory.

– Then they are not making what is in the true sense of the term Australian cloth. I hope that the Committee will reduce this duty as much as possible, and that later on the duty on yarn will be increased.

Colonel FOXTON (Brisbane) [4.48].- I do not question the figures which the honorable member for Fremantle has submitted, but I would suggest to him that a solution of the problem is probably to be found in the fact that these yarns are used very largely for the manufacture of stockings, sweaters, and other goods of that class.

Mr johnson:

-We want population, not protection.

Colonel FOXTON.- We need both. Unless I am very much mistaken, the whole of the yarns used by. the Ipswich Woollen Company- which is the only woollen factory in Queensland - are spun by themselves. It is of no use to say that it is not Australian wool that is manufactured. I have been through the factory frequently. One can see there the wool as it has come off the backs of the sheep; and everything that it is necessary to do is done on the premises until the wool comes out in the shape of cloth, samples of which are now before us, and which are of a quality not to be beaten anywhere in the world.

Mr Mauger:

– Within a mile from this building, some of the finest yarns in the world are being spun.

Colonel FOXTON.- As to the amendment immediately before the Committee - for the reduction of the duty to 20 per cent., with a view of making the duty on goods from the United Kingdom 15 per cent. - I say at once that I am not prepared to go so far. The honorable member who has moved this amendment must surely realize by this time that it is futile to attempt such a reduction. If, instead of doing that, he and those who think with him would join with those who are more moderate than the ultra-protectionists and endeavour to come to an arrangement to support less drastic duties, we should get on with the Tariff much quicker.

Mr Fuller:

– If there are only three or four members who think that duties should be reduced considerably, they are entitled to express their opinion.

– We do not. Honorable members opposite attack Australian industries; and it is just as well that they should be given these particulars. If honorable members expended as much ardour in exposing, imported shoddy as they do in talking about Australianmadearticles, the result would be much better for our industries. I was delighted tohear the honorable member ‘ for Brisbane say that woollen goods were manufactured within his State from Australian wool, and I have it on authority that all, or nearly all, the manufacturers in Australia make their own yarn. In England, the cloth makers do not need ‘tq. make their ‘own yarn, because it is turned ‘ out by special mills. I must express my admiration for the -way in -which the re-, presentatives of Queensland fight for the industries of their State; and I desire to put in a little plea for a woollen mill in New South Wales. I have a letter, written, neither to me nor to a member of this House, but in the ordinary way of business, by Messrs. James Bergan and Sons, . woollen manufacturers, of Granville, New South .Wales, from which the following is an extract -

Unless the present Tariff on woollens, flannels, and blankets becomes law, we must close our mill. For the last ten years the woollen industry has been dead, so far as profit is con- ;cerned, in New South Wales. “ Moderate protection “ is no “ protection.” A tariff, unless sufficiently high to check British and foreign imports, is, in the protective sense, inoperative, and, therefore, no aid to local industry.

If we are to protect any industry, we certainly ought to protect the woollen industry, native as it is to the soil. Although I am an ardent believer in Australian tweeds, the number of patterns that can be turned out locally has come as an absolute surprise to me. My own . opinion is that if- manufacturers would take more trouble to advertise and place their goods before the public by means of the tailors, the sale of Australian tweeds would be vastly increased. In important towns in New South Wales,’ tailors are found to be without Australian tweeds, and customers are told that people will not buy them. What nonsense* it is to talk of people not buying goods which they have never seen ! Seeing that we produce all the raw material, the sooner we encourage the production of Australian tweeds, the sooner will people get good and cheap clothing in the place of imported shoddy.

Mr KING O’MALLEY:
Darwin

– I agree with every word uttered bv the honorable member for New England. Many years ago, in the United States, it was impossible to buy American cloth in any tailor’s shop; customers were told that only imported goods were kept. The same thing is going on in Australia, and it would be worth our while to impose a duty of 15 to 20 per cent, to teach Australians to respect and love their own country. For my part, . I should make the duty prohibitive.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– Are the honorable member’s hats made in Australia?

Mr KING O’MALLEY:
DARWIN, TASMANIA · ALP

– Yes; the hats I now wear are made at the Denton Hat Mills. Some of the finest woollen goods of this kind are made in Australia, but the importing habit has prevailed so long that people are ashamed to tell their friends that they wear locallymanufactured articles - it is deemed a sort of disgrace to be dressed in Australian material. I would make the Tariff so high that people would be only too glad to try Australian goods, when, I am sure, they would never dispense with them.

Mr Johnson:

– But how could we make people who can afford to buy imported goods buy Australian goods ?

Mr KING O’MALLEY:

– We are all descendants of English, Scotch, Irish, German, and other people, who would climb a thirty-feet greasy pole to save a pound. Heretofore, the local manufacturers have had no chance ; and now that we are putting on a Tariff, we ought to determine to make the people of Australia respect their own country. If we cannot make them respect it, we can make them obey its laws.

Joseph Cook. - What about the McKay case?

Mr KING O’MALLEY:

– The world was not made in a day. McKay will come in time to recognise that, to be a Christian man he must do his Christian duty in a Christian country. We ought to impose a duty on every article that can be manufactured in Australia, and thus enable Australian manufacturers to pay Australian wages, based on civilized conditions. The differentiation ought to be high enough to enable local manufacturers to compete against the cheap-jack wages paid in foreign countries. That is the kind of Tariff that I shall vote for. I am following the Government throughout these proposals. I only hope that the Opposi-tion, staunch free-traders as many of them, are, will, like Saul of Tarsus, fall down in front of the great light of protection, ; and thank God for their conversion.

Sir PHILIP FYSH:
Denison

– Let us attempt to get back to something serious; because we are dealing under this, division, which begins with woollen piece goods, with an enormous portion of the imports into this country. Taking our. total imports at about £42,000,000, and writing off .£2,000,000 for spirits and narcotics, and another £5,000,000 for free items, we get a total of £35,000,000 of dutiable imports. Under this division we, deal with one-fifth of those goods, for ;£7, 000,000 worth of goods were imported last year in association with it. It is because we are dealing now with so large a proportion of our imports, and because the purpose of the Government is to add so seriously to the duty which is to be chargeable thereon, that I desire the attention of the Committee while I investi-gate the figures given by the Treasurer. I was astonished when he told us that the reduction of 5 per cent, which he proposes to make in the rate proposed in the schedule will mean a reduction of £75,000 per annum in the revenue, and that the loss of revenue would be ,£125,000 per annum if the proposal of the honorable member for Lang -were accepted. I im- . mediately went for my papers to see how far those statements are borne out by the actual circumstances of the case. The duty received last year, not on woollens only, but on the whole of the ,£7, 000,000 worth of goods imported under this division, was £650,000. I call attention to the great discrepancy between the actual facts and the statement which the Treasurer, I think, fell into an error in making. I understood him to state that a loss of revenue to the extent of £125,000 would result if the proposal of the honorable member for Lang were accepted.

Sir William Lyne:

– Two hundred and seventy-five thousand pounds.

Sir PHILIP FYSH:

– Then am I right in saying that if the rate proposed in the schedule is reduced by 5 per cent., the doss to the revenue, according to the honorable gentleman, will be £75,000 ?

Sir William Lyne:

– That is what my officers tell me.

Sir PHILIP FYSH:

– I am always sorry to find myself at issue with the Treasurer, or with what his officers say, but I am quite sure that in some of the calculations made by the officers the figures are dealt with in a manner which covers, as I am’ sure that the Comptroller-General would at once admit, a far larger area than the question before the Committee. We are dealing in this item with woollen piece goods only; but the whole division covers all classes of piece goods. The duty paid on the total value of the imports, under a maximum duty of 15 per cent, in the old Tariff, was, as I have stated, £650,000 last year, but in this one item the duty is increased to 30 per cent., or doubled. The average rate of duty under the old Tariff taken at 20 per cent, gives £650,000, and 5 per cent, of the portion represented by the amendment of the honorable member for Lang would be nearly £32,500.- Five per cent, of £650,000 would be only £32,500. There is a great discrepancy between that and the Treasurer’s estimate of £75,000. If the reduction of the proposed duty by 5 per cent, will mean a loss of £75,000 to the revenue, then the revenue estimated to be received from the whole of this division for the current year must be nearly £1,500,000, as against £650,000 last year. It must also be apparent that the Treasurer’s estimate applies to the ‘whole division, arid not only to woollen piece goods, which form but a small portion of it. I have previously asked the attention of the Committee to the question of who is to pav for the enormous increase in the duty from 15 per cent, to 3<T per cent, on these goods.

Sir William Lyne:

– The A section of the Tariff Commission recommended a duty of 30 per cent.

Sir PHILIP FYSH:

Mr BRUCE SMITH:

– I heard that in 1866, and I have heard it ever since. It is a hollow argument; and I use that adjective as the one which best describes it. These industries have been established now for forty-one years, and they are still calling out for higher duties. If a child helped up to manhood by the support of his mother’s or father’s arms said, “.I require stronger crutches now,” he would be pronounced a cripple, and if the people engaged in these protected industries cannot, after forty-one years, by educating labour, importing improver! machinery, and overcoming local prejudice, hold their own against importations from other countries, we should begin to consider whether they have not had a fair chance, and whether the unfortunate consumer should not be given some consideration.

Mr Mathews:

– We have had civilization for a good many years, but we still have the policeman.

Mr Salmon:

– Does the honorable member think it is fair to use general arguments of that kind on this item?

Mr BRUCE SMITH:

Mr. -Maloney. - Then the right honorable member had better consult Mulhall.

Mr REID:

– I must not speak too positively, because I have not the figures beside me. It is absurd to make any statement without reference to the authorities, but I know that no man can describe the millions of persons who are employed in the factories of England as if they were in the position of paupers. The honorable* member for Laanecoorie spoke of the added value which would be given to Australian wool by a development of our woollen industries. I am sure that he spoke at random, because if we can use only a small quantity of the wool which we produce, the price of the article is governed by the world’s market, and not by our market.

Mr Salmon:

– Last year we imported £2,000,000 worth.

Mr REID:

Even in the cases where the payment is at the very low rate of 6d. a dozen - that is,1/2d. each?

Her reply was -

Yes. I think, perhaps, that an individual case illustrating that might be interesting to the Committee. It is typical of a large number of these outwork cases, but it may be interesting.

Mr CARR:
Macquarie

.- I desire to clear the air a little in regard to the construction placed by the leader of the Opposition upon what I said a little while ago. With that aptitude for which he is so famed, he twisted my remarks into a misrepresentation of my meaning.. He knows as well as I do that to speak of “ pauper labour “ is to use a well understood economic term, and conveys no reflection upon the labour per se, although it may be a reflection upon the conditions which make it imperative for people to work for wages which force them to live in a state of pauperism. The fanfare of the right honorable member - or the pyrotechnical display with which he favoured the Committee - were simply indulged in with a view of diverting the attention of honorable members from the solemn and sorry facts which I brought under their notice. The right honorable member, I think, traduced the dignity of the Committee when he proceeded to ridicule statements which showed how the life-blood of human beings and the welfare of the nation are concerned in such facts as have been disclosed to honorable members. Then, again, the right honorable member twitted me with placing secondary industries before primary industries - with putting the roof on before the foundation of the building is laid. But he knows better than any one present how difficult it is to stimulate the primary industries of this country, thwarted as we are by landlordism and by the abominable land laws of the States. It is for that reason that we cannot deal with our primary industries as we can with our secondary industries. As we cannot legislate with regard to the land as I should like to see it dealt with, we are compelled to do what we can to develop our secondary industries. The attitude of the right honorable member is that of one who has apparently grown weary in well-doing and upon whom the lassitude of age has fallen, so that if we adopted ‘his point of view we might assume to be written up over the portals of Parliament, ‘ ‘ Abandon hope all ye who enter here.” Are we to refrain from doing anything to improve the condition of the people of this country because the leader of the Opposition is tired? Are we to make no political move forward and to say that there shall be no experimental legislation because the leader of the Opposition is weary of well doing? If the right honorable member had seized the opportunities which presented themselves to him in years gone by, Australia would have been in a better position than she is in today. He might have placed himself at the head of the democratic forces of this country, instead of attempting to block their path. Instead of endeavouring to keep back the march of democracy, he might have been the man -

Who makes by forcehis merit known,

And lives to clutch the golden keys,

To mould a mighty State’s decrees,

And shape the whisper of the throne.

But instead of that, we have him supporting a policy which would degrade the worker, and put a stumbling block in the path of the young Australia party which is trying to improve the condition of the people. The right honorable member might surely find some more useful scope for the exercise of his abilities than in endeavouring to prevent us from doing what we desire to do for the development of Australia. We, I take it, are here to -

Ring out a slowly dying cause,

And ancient forms of party strife ;

Ring in the nobler modes of life

With sweeter manners, purer laws.

That is what I meant by the remarks to which the right honorable member has taken exception.

Mr SAMPSON:
Wimmera

.- I think that in laying down a policy for this country, it may be profitable to look to the condition of affairs that obtains in other countries. What Tariff has been found necessary there in order to establish their industries? In Canada, according to Kelly’s Tariffs of the World, the duty on woollen clothing is from 25 to 35 per cent., and in the United States from 40 to 50 per cent., while the duties in both France and Germany are very high. We are only a young country, and, in’ laying the foundations of the Tariff, we ought to draw some valuable lessons from the experience of older countries.

Mr TILLEY BROWN:
INDI, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC

– Has the honorable member any figures showing the comparative production?

Mr SAMPSON:

– Any such comparison would be in favour of the country which produces least. After all, fortunes are not made on high prices, but on the general turnover. Importing houses in Australia have succeeded, in many instances, in making large fortunes, not because of excessive prices, but because of an immense turnover. I find from the report of the

– That I quite understand ; this may be a technical matter, but the proposal seems worthy of favorable consideration, though how far I may be able to agree with the proposal I am not prepared to say at this point. These are my reasons for voting for duties of 30 and 25 per cent. ; and my action is consistent with my votes on the items of clothing and blankets. Whilst I have not been able to follow the Commission in every instance, I think that in this case their recommendations are worthy of consideration; and I shall vote for a reduction of 5 per cent, in favour of Great Britain in this and other instances in this item of woollens.

Mr. FULLER (Illawarra) [6.25J. - I fail to see any justification on the part of either the Treasurer or his supporters for doubling the duty on the item under consideration. No arguments have been submitted to justify the action of the Treasurer; but it would appear that arguments are of no use in this Committee. Seeing that the Treasurer has failed to justify his action, I invite the Postmaster-General, who has been continually interrupting, to show some grounds for the increase of duty.

Sir William Lyne:

– I have justified my position absolutely.

Mr FULLER:

– The Treasurer has justified his position just as much as he has in regard to other items. The PostmasterGeneral is a well-known protectionist, and has been secretary of the Protectionist Association of Victoria for years. According to his interjections he knows all about the woollen tirade of Victoria; and I think’ he ought, under the circumstances, to show some reason for the duty which the Government propose. The honorable member for Bourke, who is the Government whip, has been in close association with the PostmasterGeneral in fiscal matters’; and from that gentleman,- too, we are entitled” to some statement.

Sir William Lyne:

– The protectionist section of the Tariff Commission recommended a duty of 30 per cent.

Mr FULLER:

– I regret exceedingly that the Chairman of the Tariff Commission is not here to justify his position, because his absence prevents those who took an opposite view from speaking as strongly *s they otherwise might do. The free-trade section of the Tariff Commission were quite prepared to sign a report which gave a fair presentation of the case to Parliament and the country, but they could not possibly sign a report which did not honestly do so. Under the circumstances the free-trade section were forced into drawing up a report of their own.

Sitting suspended from 6.30 to 7.45 p.m.

– Some of the Victorian manufacturers to-day are feeling the pinch of the competition from New South Wales. I wish now to refer to the condition of the woollen industry . since Federation. One would imagine from the statements which are made m various quarters that in consequence of the operation of a duty of 15 per cent, the industry was languishing. But Mr. Grainger, of the Ballarat Woollen

Mills, himself admitted that the inauguration of Inter-State free-trade had benefited his firm. Indeed the whole of the evidence presented by the Victorian manufacturers was to the effect that they had derived a very great benefit from the establishment of Inter-State free-trade by reason of the extended market which was made available to them. Mr. Grainger stated -

The effect of the reduction of the duty to 15 per cent, had been to cause them to look very much sharper after their affairs, to work at increased pressure and to turn out more goods in order to decrease the cost of production.

The fact is that under the high duties which had been previously levied in Victoria, the woollen manufacturers of this State had become very careless in the management of their businesses. They had allowed their machinery to become obsolete. The result of the opening of the Australian markets, in spite of the reduction of the duty to 15 per cent, from the high duty previously in force in Victoria, was that those engaged in the industry had to look very much sharper after their affairs and to work at increased pressure. Why had they to do so? It was in order to enable them to supply the larger demand for their goods. To-day a number of the woollen mills in Victoria, as well as in other parts of Australia, are unable to supply the demand for their goods by merchants and retailers. Mr. Grainger was asked if he had any explanation to offer as to why certain Victorian mills, which had enjoyed . so large a measure . of protection under the State Tariff, had ceased to work, and he said -

One reason was that the industry was carried oi more irregularly and without that dash which now characterises it.

– Some of the mills went in for the production of worsteds, because of the large bonus offered by the Victorian Government for the manufacture of that article.

Mr FULLER:

– I do not pretend to be thoroughly conversant with the relations between the Victorian Government and the local woollen mills, but the figures which I have quoted disprove the assertion- that it was in consequence of the introduction of the first Commonwealth Tariff that the Victorian mills began to produce flannels rather than tweeds. As a matter of fact, the mills now manufacturing flannels have more work to do than .they can perform, and will not take orders, commissions given to them six to twelve months ago being yet unexecuted. What justification is there then for the proposed increase of duty ? The honorable members for Batman and Macquarie spoke of the difference between (he rates of wages here and those prevailing in the Old Country. I shall not deal with what was said about pauper labour, because those statements have been finally answered. According to the Statistical Register of New South Wales, the rates of wages in that State are similar to those in Victoria, the average wage being 20s. 5d. in New South Wales as against 20s: 9d. in Victoria. Since Federation, the tendency has been for wages to fall in New South Wales, while in Victoria, under the operation of the Wages Boards, they have risen slightly. Still, we may take it that in the two States the prevailing rates are practically the same. Examined on the subject’ of rates of wages in the woollen industry in the Old Country, Mr. C. J. Ripley, a Sydney warehouse manager, gave evidence which the protectionist members of the Tariff Commission were unable to upset. He said -

You have been informed that Australian, rates of wages are 50 per cent, higher than those ruling in Great Britain, but it is not so. Two years ago I was speaking to some of the largest manufacturers in Great Britain, who showed me their wages sheets, and I am convinced that there are plenty of mills turning out the same kind of material as is made in Australia, whose rates of wages are not 10 per cent, below the Australian rates.

The hours of labour in this industry are in Australia forty-eight, and in Great Britain fifty-six per week, the- difference being equivalent to eight weeks in the year. The free- trade members of the Tariff Commission, after careful consideration of all the circumstances, reported that -

In every £100 worth of goods produced in ‘Australia the value of the labour is £30 as against ^20 paid by the British manufacturer. Therefore,’ on an extreme estimate, the total Australian labour disability is not more than 10 per cent, of the value of the goods produced.

Putting it in another way, from a protectionist stand-point, and ignoring the natural protection of freights, a duty of 10 per cent. on the goods in question would equalize all the alleged disadvantages of the Australian manufacturer in respect of higher wages and shorter hours.

AYES: 0

NOES: 0

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Amendment negatived.

Mr POYNTON:
Grey

– I move -

That after the words “35 per cent.,” paragraph

A, thewords “and on and after13th November, 1907 (General Tariff), ad val., 25 per cent.,” be inserted.

Amendment negatived.

Amendment (by Sir William Lyne) agreed to -

AYES: 0

NOES: 0

AYES

NOES

That after the words “35 per cent.,” paragraph a, the words, “and on and after13th November, 1907 (General Tariff), ad val., 30 per cent.;” and after the words “30 per cent.” the words “and on and after 13th November, 1907 (United Kingdom), ad val., 25 per cent.,” be inserted.

Mr MALONEY:
Melbourne

.- I move -

That the following new paragraph be inserted : - “ai. Piece goods, woollen or containing wool, viz., women’s and children’s dress goods not weighing over 4 ozs. per square yard, ad val. (General Tariff), 20 per cent. ; (United Kingdom), 15 per cent.”

The amendment which I now move differs from that of which I have given notice in one or two particulars, which I will explain. It proposes an increase of 5 per cent. against the foreigner, whilst the duty in regard to the United Kingdom would be the same as under the old Tariff. Perhaps honorable members would like me to indicate to what goods the amendment will apply. I will not attempt to explain them; I will simply give the names of the goods. They are - Bengalines, cashmeres, cashmerettes, cheviots, clan tartans, crepalines, cordehines, chenilles, crepe de Chine, dress serges, dress tweeds, delaines, French flannels, hopsacks, lustres, nun’s veiling, Silicians, taffetas, voiles, and winseys. These goods all contain more or less wool. It is very difficult to see how to differentiate between the heavier textiles worn by women and the lighter textiles, such as men use in our northernlatitudes - in Queens land and Northern New South Wales. I think it would be better to take an example from the United States Tariff, which, I. dare say, honorable members will agree is, perhaps, more systematic than our own, and, it may be, a little more scientific. I propose to quote a few figures to show that what I propose is a light duty in comparison with that charged in the United States. I quote from the Stepping World YearBook, page 1443. Notwithstanding the high duty in America 45,000,000 square yards of these light materials were imported from Great Britain. If the cloth is of the value of1s. 8d. per yard, the duty is is. 41/2d. per lb., with 50 per cent. added ; and I think the honorable member for East Sydney will agree with me that our duties are very mild in comparison. In the United States, if the value is from1s. 8d. to 2s.11d. per yard, the duty is is.10d. per lb., with 50 per cent. added, and if over 2s.11d. per yard the duty is1s.10d. and 55 per cent. To show how careful the Customs authorities are in the United States, I may say that in regard to women’s materials, if they are of the value of 71/2d. per yard the duty is reduced from1s. 41/2d. to 31/2d. per lb., with 50 per cent. added, and if the value is over 71/2d. per yard, the duty is reduced to 4d. per* lb. with 50 per cent. added. But recognising the difficulty, which honorable members will admit, if the square yard of material does not weigh more than 4 oz. it is admitted in the United States at the reduced rate, and that is in accordance with the amendment I have moved.

Mr Crouch:

– How does the duty proposed by the honorable member compare with the duty in the United States?

Mr MALONEY:

– The duty I propose is very mild in comparison.

Mr Crouch:

– Could the materials not be manufactured in Australia?

Mr MALONEY:

– It would be absolutely impossible to manufacture the materials here, not because there is not the ability, but simply because it would not pay to do so.In Canada they have modelled their Tariff in this connexion on that of the United States. But in the former case the weight of the stuff is reckoned at 6 oz. for the square yard, which admits of a larger range of material than in the United States. In Canada the duty is 171/2 per cent. as preference to the United Kingdom, the intermediate duty is 221/2 per cent., and the duty against the outside world is 25 per cent. It will be seen, therefore, that the duty proposed is that levied by

Canada against the outside world. A journalistic lady, who has gone into this matter, has supplied me with some data, and as she puts the matter more trenchantly than I could, I cannot do better than read her words -

Women’s dress goods - I asked Lincoln Stuart to give me an estimate for a coat and skirt, saying that I absolutely refused to take any material which was not of Australian manufacture. They could not take my order, ha’d nothing in stock, and thought that I would1 find the material, of which a small quantity has been turned out locally, quite unsuitable for summer wear. I then asked to see some Australian tweeds or serges for men’s suitings, and was offered a choice of more than a hundred very attractive patterns of beautifully finished tw’eed. Buckley and Nunn were also unable to give me anything for my own wear, but would make me up anything from their stock of men’s tweeds. But I want something cool and light, and also less expensive than the men’s stuff, although it seemed to me to be excellent value for the price asked. So, not being able to afford the really good Australian product, there is nothing left me, but to buy a woollen material, which never has been, and most likely never will be, made here, and pay the extra cost.

I did not confine my inquiries to the city shops, I tried Geo. Stirling and Sons, and Love andLewis, in Richmond, so as to get a fairly representative idea of how. all sorts and conditions of women fare under the Tariff. At the last-named place, I was shown dress lengths, of which an enormous quantity are sold, and the price has ad’vanced from 7s. 6d. to 10s. . . .

With reference to the dress stuffs question, it appears that because our mills have been able to turn out an excellent suiting for men which pays them well, every woman in the Commonwealth is to be penalized, though she is not even given the chance of refusing the local product. The reasons given for the infinitesimal output are as follows : - The fashions change so rapidly, that it is only the great European manufacturers, with their enormous production, and practically world wide markets, who can afford the expense involved in the multiplicity of patterns, designs, and colours, which have become a recognised necessity of even the lowest priced goods.

America, in 1905, imported from Great Britain and Europe 45,000,000 square yards of dress material, and as her fiscal policy cannot possibly be construed into a leaning towards foreign products at the expense of her home industries, this fact may reasonably be considered to have some bearing on our Tariff. Buckley and Nunn’s manager assures me that the Albion Mills’ representatives fully recognise the fact that in the interests of the wage-earners there ought to be a difference in the duty upon men’s tweeds and women’s dress stuffs, in favour of the latter, and more, they are prepared to support such a proposition. I am sending; in concrete form, the response to my’ request at Buckley’s for patterns. The Australian material is not procurable, except in the shape of a suiting tweed, whilst the choice offered by the imported goods speaks for itself. My observations, necessarily limited as they have been to a couple of hours’ time, point strongly to one conclusion. The retailers are practically unaffected’ by the duty. Clothes will continue to be bought, and the woman who goes shopping with 20s. of her husband’s wages in her purse will hand it over just the same. The difference will be that she will get very much less for it than she used, which inevitably means, in the case of diminutive incomes remaining stationary, much real hardship and privation.

Mr Crouch:

– Does the honorable member mean to say that the Geelong mills cannot turn out women’s dress goods ?

Mr MALONEY:

– I do not say that the Geelong mills cannot turn out ladies’ dress goods, but they cannot turn out the variety that fashion dictates. Fashion is queen; and I suppose there as many patterns as there are inhabitants of the United Kingdom. None of the materials to which I refer could possibly be manufactured in Australia.

Women’s Dress Stuffs.

– Not under present circumstances.

Mr THOMAS:

– The honorable member went so far as to state that the British manufacturers were unable to make some of the materials which were produced on the Continent. If it is impossible to make them in England, it is reasonable to suppose that, for a time at least, it will be impossible to make them in Australia. The honorable member for Melbourne has stated that he would be prepared to advocate the admission of these articles free if it were not for the Braddon “ blot.” What the Braddon “ blot “ has to do with the question of free-trade or protection, I cannot understand, especially in view of the fact that the honorable member is in favour of direct taxation. I therefore move -

That the amendment be amended by leaving out the words ‘* ad valorem (General Tariff), 20 per cent. ; (United Kingdom), 15 per cent.”

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:
Treasurer · Hume · Protectionist

– I hope that honorable members will not agree to place these articles upon the free list. The duty proposed by the honorable member for Melbourne is merely a revenue duty-

Mr Tudor:

– What was the rate, which was previously operative?

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:

– It was 15 per cent. The honorable member for Melbourne merely proposes that the duty shall be 20 per cent, against the foreigner, and that the old rate shall operate in regard to the manufactures of Great Britain.

Mr Frazer:

– But the Treasurer admits that it is merely a revenue duty, and not. a protective dutu

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:

– It is a revenue duty, no doubt. I am willing to meet the honorable member for Melbourne by substituting 5 ozs. for 4 ozs.

Mr Maloney:

– Would it not be better to make it 6 ozs., as is done in Canada? ‘”

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:

– No: -‘‘The moment that I give way in the slightest degree, the honorable member asks me to go further. ‘ ‘

Mr Maloney:

Mr HUGHES:
West Sydney

– There is one phase of this question which seems to be in danger, not of being overlooked, but of causing some honorable members to vote in a direction in which, perhaps, they should not vote. It is quite certain that a very large proportion of honorable members have been returned in favour of a protective Tariff for one purpose, and one purpose only, namely, to establish industries. They are not in favour of Customs duties for the purpose of raising revenue at all, and if they had their way that would be the last means to which they would resort for that purpose. It has been admitted by the Treasurer that that is the only reason why he asked the Committee to agree to this item.

Sir William Lyne:

– I did not say that it was the only reason.

Mr HUGHES:

– I utterly fail to see how any man who was returned on a ticket in favour of protection for the sole purpose of stimulating native industries, or who was returned in favour of, if he had a choice, raising revenue by direct means, can, no matter who else may do so, vote for this particular item. The honorable member for Bass has said that the Commonwealth has been built up under a protective or revenue-producing Tariff. But the Treasurer came into the House to destroy that Tariff. It is his every-day boast that he is not a “ shandy-gaff” protectionist, and that he came here to establish protection on a scientific and glorified basis. From time to time he advocates a duty of 40,or 30, or 25 per cent., and if he had his way he would propose still higher duties. Therefore, the Treasurer wants to destroy the Tariff of which the honorable member for Bass is so proud. He comes here now for the purpose of promoting protection and destroying a revenue Tariff. I must remind him that at the last election he was not averse, if necessary to imposing a tax on the unimproved value of land for certain purposes, and I was very glad to hear it. I do not know that he is averse to direct taxation in other forms; I am not, and never have been. A great many other honorable members are in exactly the same position. When the honorable gentleman gets up, and says that this duty is proposed, not for protective purposes, but simply for revenue purposes, I claim the vote of every honorable member who was not returned on a revenue Tariff basis. In view of that statement, every honorable member of that class must vote directly with the honorable member for Barrier. It is clear that no honorable member who believes in direct taxation can for a moment cast his vote in favour of an item when the honorable member for Bass has declared that the very purpose for which he wants it is not to build up protection, but to get revenue. That destroys the very purpose for which we, as a party, came into Parliament. It destroys the very purpose for which the Treasurer and his party came in, and that was to establish industries. He says that this duty will not establish an industry, but will raise revenue. That is the last method of raising money for which I shall vote.

Question - That the words “ ad. val. (General Tariff), ‘ 20 per cent. ; (United Kingdom), 15 per cent.,” proposed to be left out, stand part of the ‘ amendment - put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 0

NOES: 0

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Amendment of the amendment negatived.

Mr POYNTON:
Grey

.-I move -

That the amendment be amended by adding after the words “ 15 per cent:” the words “ and on and after 13th November, 1907 (General Tariff), 10 per cent. ; (United Kingdom), 5 -per cent.”

The CHAIRMAN:

– If such words are in order they can be moved, but until I know what the words are I cannot say whether they will be in order or not.

Mr Watson:

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– I submit that the Committee would-be quite in order in attaching any condition it chose to the proposal now before us. In Division VI. a and Division VI.b, for instance, the conditions are laid down- under which the duties shall operate, and, therefore, in the present instance, it would be quite in order to lay down any condition so long as it is , revelant.

Mr Fisher:

– This is a matter which ought to be discussed without ill feeling on either side. In my opinion, the arguments that have been used in support of the Chairman’s ruling are not sound. It is said that if the ruling be not adhered to, it will be possible for members to move an indefinite number of amendments. I remind the Committee, however, that, without any such ruling, it is possible for any honorable member to move that the duty be 1 per cent., 1 1/4 per cent., and so on into the smallest fraction.

Colonel Foxton. - After a blank has been created.

Mr Fisher:

– I am not dealing with the question Before the Chair, but with the arguments in support of the Chairman’s ruling. In my opinion, the Chairman had no option under the circumstances, but to give the ruling he has given ; and I am merely pointing out that the consequences, which it is feared will result from the upsetting of that ruling, may follow, even if the ruling be adhered to. Whether the amendmen before us can be withdrawn-

Mr Salmon:

– If it is voted on, we shall vote it out.

Mr Fisher:

– If that is to be the spirit displayed, there will be an end of all progress. Hitherto amendments have been withdrawn whenever a misunderstanding has arisen. I admit that there is something in the argument of the honorable member for Laanecoorie ; but, at the same time, it has not yet been decided which duty the Committee prefer, and, apparently, some honorable members have determined that the opportunity to decide shall not be given.

Mr Bamford:

– I should like to point out that, although the Chairman put the question that certain words proposed to be omitted should stand part of the question, he never put the question that the amendment be agreed to.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The amendment has not been put. The honorable member for

Grey moved his amendment, and the point of order was then raised.

Sir Wiliam Lyne:

– I do not desire to cause any difficulty in connexion with this item. I have said that I am prepared to accept the duty of 15 and 10 per cent. I do not regard this item as I do some others; and I am quite agreeable to allow the proposal for 20 per cent. to be negatived provided that the other motion be moved. I think, however, that I ought to have some fair grounds for supposing that a duty of 15 and 10 per cent. will be agreed to.

Mr Reid:

– The Treasurer cannot bargain on a point of order.

Sir William Lyne:

– I shall trust the Committee, and agree to the striking out of the duty of 20 per cent. in the hope that we shall agree to a duty of 15 per cent., which will cause not quite so great a loss to the revenue as would the other duty.

Mr Reid:

– The suggestion of the Treasurer will remove the difficulty, but it must be perfectly understood that every one is left at liberty to vote as he chooses.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The procedure will be that, if this amendment be negatived, and any honorable member desires to move a lower duty than that which has been indicated, I shall first put the question of the lower duty.

Amendment (Mr. Maloney’ s) negatived.

Amendment (by Mr. Poynton) proposed -

That the following new paragraph be inserted’ : - “a1. Piece goods, woollen or containing wool, viz., women’s and children’s dress goods, not weighing over 5 ozs. per square yard, ad val. (General Tariff), . 10 per cent.; (United Kingdom), 5 per cent.” .

Mr Wilson:

– We are in a still more peculiar position. You, Mr. Chairman, put to the Committee the words as well as the figures of the amendment moved by the honorable member for’ Melbourne, and it has therefore been negatived. I am anxious to facilitate business and to allow the honorable member for Grey to have an opportunity to move for the duties which he advocates. But as the whole item has been negatived, we are in a worse position than before.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The amendment is perfectly in order. The Committee has negatived an amendment including duties of 20 and 15 per cent. Another honorable member now moves similar words with duties of 10 per cent. and 5 per cent. That isquite a different amendment from the one which has been negatived.

Question put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 0

NOES: 0

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Amendment negatived. .

Amendment (by Mr. Maloney) agreed to-

That the following new paragraph be inserted : - “a1. Piece goods, woollen or containing wool, viz., women’s and children’s dress goods, not weighing over 5 ozs. per square yard, ad val. (General Tariff), 15 per cent. ; (United Kingdom), 10 per cent.”

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:
Treasurer · Hume · Protectionist

– I move -

That paragraph b be left out.

I wish to point out that there are two classes of denims. One is a striped and fancy denim, with which it is very difficult to deal owing to the fact that it so closely resembles woollens.

This, the Department would like to place in a separate item. The other class consists of plain denims, which I propose shall be admitted at .10 per cent, under the General Tariff, and at 1 5 per cent, under the Tariff of the United Kingdom. The only difficulty experienced by the Department is in deciding between fancy denims and cloth. The loss of revenue involved in my proposal will not be large. I am of opinion that it would be very much better to include all denims in a separate item, and to make them dutiableat the rates I have indicated.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr REID:
East Sydney

.- It seems to me that it is proposed to admit silk at a very low rate, seeing that woollens, which are a necessary of life, have been taxed at 30 per cent, under the General Tariff, and at 25 per cent, under the TarifF for the United Kingdom.

Mr Carr:

– We do not grow silk in Australia.

Mr REID:

– But surely it is a luxury, upon which we can impose a good stiff revenue duty. Certainly it does not stand in the same category as does woollen goods.

Amendment (by Mr. J. H. Catts) proposed -

That after the figures “ 15 per cent.,” paragraph C, the words “ and on and after 13th November, 1907, free,” be inserted.

Mr TUDOR:
Yarra

.- The Treasurer’ should certainly take into consideration the duty that has been imposed upon silk used by umbrella workers. If we retain the rate which was agreed to the other night, when a majority of honorable members were under the impression that the item had been postponed, the manufacturers of umbrellas will be very seriously handicapped. It may be suggested that the difficulty can be remedied by allowing silk which is cut in bond to be admitted free. But that would mean - that each umbrella manufacturer would have to pay the cost of the attendance of a Customs officer there, which would probably amount to £250 a year. Needless to add, such a burden could not be borne by the small manufacturers. If the Treasurer will agree at a subsequent stage to recommit the item to which I refer, I shall be satisfied.

Mr MALONEY:
Melbourne

.- I wish to add a few words to the remarks of the honorable member for Yarra, because I take it that, irrespective of whether we are free-traders or protectionists, we desire to extend fair play to manufacturers. We do not wish to charge them a higher duty upon their raw material than we levy upon the finished product. ‘

Mr Mauger:

– The Treasurer says that if the difficulty cannot be overcome in any other way, he will agree to recommit the item.

Amendment negatived.

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:
Treasurer · Hume · Protectionist

– I do not wish to promise to recommit items where it may not be wise to adopt that course. I do not think it would be wise to admit silk free. It is a luxury, which produces a good deal of revenue, and, in addition, the duty upon it tends to stimulate an industry.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– Besides, all parasols are not made of silk.

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:

– It would be a great pity if we did not impose a fair duty upon silk, “for the purpose, of stimulating the growth of the silkworm and the production of silk. But I can quite understand that the raw material for the making of umbrellas should be dealt with in some way which will not handicap the manufacturers. That is why I wish to provide in respect of the silk used by umbrella manufacturers, and also in regard to the handles-

Mr Fisher:

– The handles are already provided for.

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:

– I think I shall be able” to deal with the silk required for umbrellas in some way other than by providing for its admission free. Otherwise, I should be disposed to allow item 123 to be recommitted.-

Mr MALONEY:
Melbourne

.- I move -

That after the word “ Plushes,” paragraph d, the words “’ Sealette and Cloths imitating Furs, Astrakans “ be inserted, and after the word “piece” the word “Italians” be inserted.

I shall be glad if the Treasurer can see his way to accept the amendment, as none of the materials referred to are manufactured here.

Mr MATHEWS:
Melbourne Forts

– I do not wish to move a further amendment, but perhaps the honorable member for Melbourne will agree to insert the word “all” before the word “Italians”? These goods, are used for linings for men’s and women’s clothing, and are not manufactured here.

Mr Maloney:

– I have no objection to accept the suggestion.”

Sir PHILIP FYSH:
Denison

– I should like to ask whether the honorable member for Melbourne understands exactly what he is proposing to do? It seems to me that he is proposing to insert in paragraph d some goods which are included in paragraph e, and dutiable under that paragraph at 10 per cent. and 5 per cent. By placing them in paragraph d, the honorable member would render them liable to duties of 20 and 15 per cent., and I am sure that is not what he desires. The Italian cloths referred to would be introduced as cotton piece goods n.e.i.

Mr Mathews:

– Nothing of the kind. Some of them contain wool.

Sir PHILIP FYSH:

– There are not many varieties of Italian cloth that contain wool. Really the honorable member for Melbourne is proposing to increase the duties on these goods. This does not apply to Astrakans and imitations of fur, but it certainly does to Italian cloth.

Mr FISHER:
Wide Bay

.- We should not accept the amendment until the Minister has ascertained exactly what its effect would be. I think there is something in what has been said by the honorable member for Denison. If the amendment wereaccepted, all the cloths which it covers, and which are made of cotton, would be subject to a higher duty than under the item as it stands. I am not prepared to support a higher duty, where, by voting for the Tariff as it stands, I can secure the imposition of a lower duty.

Mr MALONEY:
Melbourne

.- I ask the leave of the Committee to amend my amendment by omitting the reference to “Italians.” I find that they are dealt with under the next paragraph..

Amendment amended accordingly.

Mr DUGALD THOMSON:
NORTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906

– I should like the Treasurer to tell the Committee whether the amendment, if accepted, would not have the effect of raising the duty on some articles dealt with in later paragraphs of the item.

Sir William Lyne:

– I have just asked the Comptroller-General, and he says not.

Mr DUGALD THOMSON:
NORTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906

– Can the Minister tell us what item these goods would come under if they are not dealt with as the honorable member for Melbourne proposes?

Sir William Lyne:

– Woollen piece goods.

Mr POYNTON:
Grey

.- Honorable members will find that Italian cloth containing wool comes under the first item we dealt with to-night, and would be dutiable at 30 per cent.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– I do not see how we can help ourselves in this matter. We have already passed the first item in this division, which will include all woollen piece goods or piece goods containing wool. Therefore, however much we may desire to relieve these goods of the full duty payable on woollen piece goods, we shall be unable to do so.

Mr MATHEWS:
Melbourne Ports

– I understand that the Committee is now dealing with Italian cloths.

Mr Maloney:

– No; that has been struck out of the amendment.

Mr MATHEWS:

– I wish to see Italian cloths left in.. They would not come into competition with any goods manufactured here, and the better classes of Italian cloth are made almost wholly of wool. These goods, even in the old world, have increased in price, and I think honorable members would do well to place them in paragraph d of this item, and make the concession in duty that would involve on articles which are really tailors’ trimmings. I have been assured that it will effect the purpose aimed at, while the Treasurer need not be afraid that he will suffer any serious loss of revenue.

Sir PHILIP FYSH:
Denison

– It is some years since I was associated with importing, but I know that lustres, lustrines, and similar materials used for linings, are sometimes called Italians. These materials were, under the old. Tariff, dutiable at a low rate, in order to assist the local makers of ‘ clothing. They are now dutiable at 5 per cent., but, if put under some other heading, they may have to pay a higher rate.

Mr MATHEWS:
Melbourne Ports

– Nearly all Italians contain a slight percentage of wool, and are, therefore, dutiable under paragraph a at 30 and25 per cent. Dealing with certain materials used by women, we fixed certain rates for weights not exceeding 5 ounces to the square yard. I should have liked to place Italians in the same category, but could not do so since they weigh from 51/2 to 6 ounces to the square yard. If Italians are inserted in the paragraph with which we are now dealing, these goods will be dutiable at 20 and 15 per cent., whereas otherwise they will be dutiable as woollens n.e.i.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment (by Mr. Maloney) proposed -

That after the word “ piece,” paragraph D, the word “Italians” be inserted.

Mr POYNTON:
Grey

.- There are two kinds of Italian cloth, one containing wool and the other made wholly of cotton, of which the first is dutiable at 30 and 25 per cent., and the second at 10 and 5 per cent. The effect of the amendment will be to reduce the duty on Italians containing wool, and to increase the duty on those containing cotton.

Colonel Foxton. - Then amend the amendment by adding the words “ containing wool.”

Mr Maloney:

– I am willing to do so.

Amendment amended accordingly, and agreed to.

Mr CARR:
Macquarie

– I move -

That the words “ Tucked Linens or Cottons,” paragraph D, be left out.

I think that these materials should be dutiable at the lower rates applicable to the materials set out in paragraph e. Linens and cottons are the wearing material of the poor, who cannot afford silks, and if we must raise revenue, let us get it from those who can best afford to pay. When dealing with goods used chiefly by the poor, which cannot be made here, let us make the rates as low as possible.

Mr Liddell:

– Why does not the honorable member always talk like that?

Mr CARR:

– If the honorable member listened to me, he would know that I do. I claim to be more consistent than most honorable members.

Question - That the words “ Tucked Linens or Cottons,” paragraph d, proposed to be left out, stand part of the item - put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 0

NOES: 0

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Amendment negatived.

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:
Treasurer · Hume · Protectionist

– I submit paragraph e in the following amended form: -

Cotton, Linen, and other piece goods, n.e.i. ; Oil Baize ; Leather Cloth ; Dungaree ; Denims ; Moleskins and Corduroys ad val. (General Tariff), 10 per cent. ; (United Kingdom), 5 per cent.

That the words “ Cotton, Linen,” be left out.

Mr THOMAS:

– If linens can be made in Australia, 10 per cent, is not high enough.’ We should have a much higher duty if it is to be protective in its incidence. But this is only a revenue producing duty. I venture to say that the effect of a duty of 10 per cent, will be to raise the cost of these articles to the consumer.. The English manufacturers will naturally put up the price. So far as printing paper is concerned, within . twenty -four hours of a preference of 5 per cent, being given to the English manufacturer, it was cabled out that the price was to be raised 5 per cent. In regard to linens, there is practically no competition outside England, and consequently the English manufacturer will have so much the better opportunity of raising prices. If linens are placed upon the free list, the tendency will be for more shirts to be made here. Already the Lieutenant-Governor of Victoria has publicly announced that a shirt was made in Australia that fitted him and was suitable for his purposes. That gives hope of the establishment . of a very large shirt-making industry. The cheaper the linen the easier it will be to make shirts in Australia.

Mr LIDDELL:
Hunter

.- If there is an item in the Tariff about which the members of the Labour Party should raise an outcry it is this duty on cottons and linens, which includes dungaree and corduroy. In the northern districts of Australia, the people derive the greatest benefit from wearing linen suits in the hot weather. The goods are brought out very cheaply, and can be obtained at a very low price. The effect of this duty will be to raise the cost to the consumer considerably. Other goods affected are denims, which arc largely used by working men, like painters, to protect their clothes. If any item should be on the free list, it is this.

Mr CROUCH:
Corio

.- I think that there is a great responsibility resting on protectionists in this matter. The new Tariff has occasioned a certain amount of outcry in the country, and for my own part I am not inclined to vote for duties which are not of a protective character. . I do not believe in voting for revenue duties which are advocated by free-traders. ‘ I think, moreover, that in the absence of internal competition, the raising of the duty from 5 to 10 per cent, against the. foreigner will mean that the cotton and linen manufacturers of England who, at present, work upon a margin of only 21 per cent, will be able to exclude the foreigner from the market altogether, and we shall, consequently be at the mercy of British manufacturers who are not above forming rings. Indeed, I would have voted against the duty on silks if I could have got some one to vote with me. Cottons are not luxuries in any sense. We are responsible for this Tariff, and the higher the duties for protection, and the lower the duties for revenue, the better we shall serve the purposes of protection. However,- I shall vote always, so far as I can, for freedom in the case of any articles that cannot be made in Australia.

Mr. JOSEPH COOK (Parramatta) £11.35]. - I” my judgment, as I have already said, this item should be voted on when there is a much fuller attendance. This is one of the most important items in the Tariff, involving, as it does,£3, 500,000 worth of importations. I doubt if there is another item in the Tariff which has the range of this, or which brings in so large a revenue. I think I only make a reasonable request when I ask that the vote shall be taken in a fuller Committee, when members have an opportunity of freely expressing themselves in regard to it. There have been votes taken to-night when pairing with regard to absent members has taken place after the’ division ; and we have not had. the fair play from the Government which we have a right to expect.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order !

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– The least we can ask is that a vote shall be taken when honorable members are present, and not when they have to be paired as they have been to-night on some other items.

Mr J H Catts:

– Why are honorable members not here?

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– Honorable members ought to be here, of course, but all of them are not here. Some honorable members have gone home, under the impression that the House was to adjourn, about 11 o’clock.

Mr Salmon:

– The duty proposed is the old duty.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– It is not the’ old duty j and if there is an item in the whole schedule in which the Committee should stretch a point in favour of Great Britain, this is the item. These goods are not made here, and are not likely to be made here for many years ; and thev are of vital consequence to the inhabitants of the Mother Country. We can very well afford the revenue, having regard to the way in which money is coming in and is likely to come in under this Tariff. Let us recollect that every . modification made in the rate of duties means : so much more revenue. Already the scope and range of the Tariff has been so wide and expansive as to make it just as much a revenue Tariff as it is a protectionist Tariff. The framers of the Tariff seem to have had revenue in their minds as much, if not more, than the protection of an Australian industry. Therefore we could very well afford to abandon this duty, affecting, as’ it does, so large a number of the poorer classes of the community. The proposal- before us is just another instance of sham preference to Great Britain. We are told by the honorable member for Barrier that there is still a margin of £170,000 or £180,000 of imports from foreign countries, but I venture to say that a preference of 5 per cent, will not Have any appreciable effect on these importations. The duty will only have the effect of making it more difficult for the. people to obtain the goods, while it will not give Great Britain and her cotton industry one pound’s worth more. In my judgment, even if we make this Tariff protective, there is no need, in addition, to make it bear more heavily on the people of this country who use these articles.

Mr Fisher:

– Therefore, the honorable member does not favour a revenue duty?-

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– Not on this item, in regard to which I should be prepared to abolish the duty so far as British imports are concerned. I do not think that the matter need be delayed tomorrow.

Sir William Lyne:

– Will the honorable “ member agree to a vote being taken within an hour of the House meeting to-morrow ?

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– So far as I am concerned, I will allow it to be taken within half-an-hour. All I wanted was to have the vote taken in a fuller Committee. I made a reasonable request to the honorable member, and he ought to have met it at once.

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:
Treasurer · Hume · Protectionist

– I am very anxious to make more rapid progress -with the Tariff. It is heart-breaking to have two or three items debated all day and then make no advance of any moment. If we do not go faster than -we have been going, Heaven knows how long it will take. I understand from the deputy leader of the Opposition that he will exert his influence to. allow a vote to be taken on this item within an hour of the House meeting to-morrow.

Progress reported.

House adjourned at 11.47 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 12 November 1907, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1907/19071112_reps_3_41/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant

House of Representatives12 November 1907

PETITIONS

MANUFACTURES ENCOURAGEMENT BILL

QUESTION

EXCISE TARIFF (AGRICULTURAL MACHINERY) ACT

Mr FISHER:WIDE BAY, QUEENSLAND

Mr DEAKIN:Minister for External Affairs · BALLAARAT, VICTORIA · Protectionist

QUESTION

MAIL SERVICE TO EUROPE

Mr FRAZER:KALGOORLIE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Mr DEAKIN:Protectionist

Mr THOMAS:BARRIER, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr DEAKIN:

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH OFFICES IN MELBOURNE

Mr WILKS:DALLEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:Treasurer · HUME, NEW SOUTH WALES · Protectionist

Mr DUGALD THOMSON:NORTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:

Mr Wilks:

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:

QUESTION

NEW PROTECTION

Mr CROUCH:CORIO, VICTORIA

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:Protectionist

Mr CROUCH:

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:

TELEPHONE CHARGES

Sydney-Melbourne and Sydney-West Maitland Lines

Mr LIDDELL:HUNTER, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr MAUGER:Postmaster-General · MARIBYRNONG, VICTORIA · Protectionist

QUESTION

FREIGHTS ON STATE IMPORTATIONS : NEW ZEALAND

Mr THOMAS:

Mr DEAKIN:Protectionist

Mr THOMAS:

Mr DEAKIN:

QUESTION

ADDITIONAL EMPLOYES : SYDNEY POST OFFICE

Mr LIDDELL:

Mr MAUGER:Protectionist

Mr DUGALD THOMSON:NORTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906

Mr DEAKIN:Protectionist

LEAVE OF ABSENCE

PAPER

Public Service Act - Substituted Regulation No. 74 (Provisional) Statutory Rules 1907, No. 114

QUESTION

PROMOTION OF TELEGRAPHISTS

Mr THOMAS BROWN:CALARE, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

Mr MAUGER:Protectionist

QUESTION

TARIFF

Mr WATSON:South Sydney

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:Treasurer · Hume · Protectionist

Mr Tudor:

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:

Mr TILLEY BROWN:INDI, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:

Mr Wilson:

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:

Mr Reid:

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:

Mr Fuller:

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:

Mr Tudor:

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:

Mr REID:East Sydney

Sir William Lyne:

Mr REID:

Sir William Lyne:

Mr REID:

Sir William Lyne:

Mr REID:

Sir William Lyne:

Mr REID:

Mr FULLER:Illawarra

Mr Watson:

Mr FULLER:

Sir William Lyne:

Mr Reid:

House of Representatives
12 November 1907

Mr FISHER:
WIDE BAY, QUEENSLAND

Mr DEAKIN:
Minister for External Affairs · BALLAARAT, VICTORIA · Protectionist

Mr FRAZER:
KALGOORLIE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Mr DEAKIN:
Protectionist

Mr THOMAS:
BARRIER, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr WILKS:
DALLEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:
Treasurer · HUME, NEW SOUTH WALES · Protectionist

Mr DUGALD THOMSON:
NORTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906

Mr CROUCH:
CORIO, VICTORIA

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:
Protectionist

Mr LIDDELL:
HUNTER, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr MAUGER:
Postmaster-General · MARIBYRNONG, VICTORIA · Protectionist

Mr DEAKIN:
Protectionist

Mr MAUGER:
Protectionist

Mr DUGALD THOMSON:
NORTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906

Mr DEAKIN:
Protectionist

Mr THOMAS BROWN:
CALARE, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

Mr MAUGER:
Protectionist

Mr WATSON:
South Sydney

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:
Treasurer · Hume · Protectionist

Mr TILLEY BROWN:
INDI, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC

Mr REID:
East Sydney

Mr FULLER:
Illawarra

Mr DUGALD THOMSON:
NORTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906

Mr DUGALD THOMSON:
NORTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906

Mr DUGALD THOMSON:
NORTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906

Mr DUGALD THOMSON:
NORTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906

Mr DUGALD THOMSON:
NORTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906

Mr DUGALD THOMSON:
NORTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906

Mr POYNTON:
Grey

Mr BRUCE SMITH:
Parkes

Mr WATSON:
South Sydney

Mr STORRER:
Bass

Mr BRUCE SMITH:
Parkes

Mr JOHNSON:
Lang

Mr POYNTON:
Grey