House of Representatives
13 December 1911

4th Parliament · 2nd Session



Mr. Speaker took the chair at 10.30 a.m., and read prayers.

page 4251

QUESTION

EIGHT HOURS PRINCIPLE

Mr W ELLIOT JOHNSON:
LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– As the House has recently been sitting any, number of hours, from twelve upwards, and the Prime Minister has expressed the determination to make us sit still longer, I ask him whether we may take it for granted that the Government and the Labour party have abandoned their belief in the eight hours principle.

Mr FISHER:
Prime Minister · WIDE BAY, QUEENSLAND · ALP

– The Government has not abandoned its belief in theeight hours principle for others, but Ministers are prepared to sacrifice themselves when necessary in the interest of the country.

page 4251

QUESTION

SEARCH FOR DERELICT

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:
HUME, NEW SOUTH WALES

– It is stated in the newspapers that the trawler Endeavour has returned to Port Adelaide after an unsuccessful search for the reported derelict, and that the Minister has not given instructions for sending her out again, although the derelict has again been reported within the last few days, and is a great menace to shipping. I ask the Minister if he will reconsider the matter, and give instructions for a second search.

Mr TUDOR:
Minister for Trade and Customs · YARRA, VICTORIA · ALP

– The Endeavour made an exhaustive search over 1,700 square miles, according to the best system that could be followed, and it is reported to me that there is no chance of seeing the derelict unless one is withinhalf-a-mile of it.

Sir John Forrest:

– Other ships have seen It.

Mr TUDOR:

– Not one of every forty ships that have passed it has seen it. If it is so great a menace to shipping, it is strange that some of the vessels which have sighted it have not towed it in.

Mr KELLY:
WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Does the Minister not regard it as a matter of importance that the derelict should be removed from its present position? Do I take him to suggest that the only persons interested in its removal are the shipping companies? Is it not a fact that the lives of the passengers carried by their vessels are of importance?

Mr TUDOR:

– The fact that I sent out the trawler is a reply to the honorable member’s sneer.

Mr BAMFORD:
HERBERT, QUEENSLAND

– Has the duty of searching for derelicts now devolved on the Commonwealth Government, and, if so, whose duty was it prior to Federation ?

Mr TUDOR:

-The duty has not devolved on this Government, but as the derelict in question is considered a menace to life and property, I, after consultation with the Cabinet, sent out the trawler Endeavour to search for it. Were there any likelihood of finding the derelict, I should not have the slightest hesitation about sending the trawler out again. Some of the States which are complaining should be able to do something to assist in the search.

Mr HEDGES:
FREMANTLE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– When the derelict was first reported, I asked the Minister of Trade and Customs if he did not consider it advisable to offer a reward for its discovery. I ask him now, whether if that had been done the derelict would not have been found ?

Mr TUDOR:

– I do not think it would.

Sir JOHN FORREST:

– Is it not a fact that the derelict was sighted again the other day, and its latitude and longitude correctly ascertained, and is it not possible, by comparing these data with the first position given, to ascertain its drift, and to search for it with some prospect of success ?

Mr TUDOR:

– I can show the right honorable member a chart on which is marked the position of the derelict when first seen, and the second position in which she was noted. The third position now given shows that she has apparentlydrifted back almost to the place at which she was when first reported.

page 4251

QUESTION

LABOUR PARTY AND POLITICAL LABOUR COUNCIL

Mr RYRIE:
NORTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

– It is stated in this morning’s Age that at a meeting of the Port Melbourne branch of the Political Labour Council, held last Saturday, it was unanimously resolved that the conference of the Political Labour Council be asked to pass a resolution requiring the Parliamentary Labour party to consult the central executive whenever an interpretation of policy was necessary. I ask the Prime Minister what answer he will make when that resolution has been passed and conveyed to him ?

Mr FISHER:
ALP

– I have neither seen nor heard of the report, nor shall I hear of it officially. If the honorable and gallant member wishes to know how I would treat such a resolution if it were presented to me, let me say that I would treat it as I would treat a similar .application from him.

Mr Ryrie:

– I do not know now how the Prime Minister would treat it.

page 4252

QUESTION

PUBLIC WORKS

Mr FULLER:
ILLAWARRA, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I understand that the Minister of Home Affairs proposes to have works carried out by the Commonwealth, instead of by the State officials who have hitherto supervised them. In what States does he propose to establish the new system?

Mr KING O’MALLEY:
Minister for Home Affairs · DARWIN, TASMANIA · ALP

– Only in New South Wales and Victoria.

Mr GROOM:
DARLING DOWNS, QUEENSLAND

– Will all Commonwealth works undertaken in these States be supervised by Commonwealth officers, or in outlying districts will inspections be undertaken by State officials co-operating with Commonwealth officials?

Mr KING O’MALLEY:

– Where possible we shall use the State officials if that should be necessary.

page 4252

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH BANK

Mr THOMSON:
COWPER, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I desire to ask the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to a Melbourne telegram in Monday’s issue of the Sydney Daily Telegraph which refers to the position of the Commonwealth Bank in regard to private institutions, and concludes in these terms -

As the Commonwealth Bank cannot be taxed by the State or municipality, it should deduct from its earnings the sums it would have to pay to taxpayers if it was a private institution.

The Prime Minister says that he does not think much of the suggestion. “ We have not provided for any such thing in the Bill,” he said, “but he was rather surprised that the Opposition did not make the point. The only comment I need give is that the Commonwealth Bank will be the people’s bank.”

Does not the right honorable member recollect that during a speech which the honorable member for Darling Downs delivered on 24th November, he made reference ‘to this matter?

Mr SPEAKER:

– Is the honorable member asking a question ?

Mr THOMSON:

– I am, sir. Does the Prime Minister recollect that during that speech the honorable member for Darling Downs stated that the matter of the bank having to pay taxes and the unfair competition had been thought out? And is he correctly reported as having stated thai the Opposition had never raised the point ?

Mr FISHER:
ALP

– I absolve the Opposition from all blame in the matter.

page 4252

QUESTION

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

Mr SPEAKER:

– I would point out to the House that if questions of this nature are permitted, there will be no finality to them. I ask honorable members generally to put their questions in a more direct manner.

Mr Kelly:

– On a point of order, sir, may I ask what chance Oppositionists will have of correcting statements of alleged fact made by Ministers of the Crown in regard to our procedure in the House, unless we can produce public records to show that we have taken the steps which we are accused of not having taken ?

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order ! I would point out to the House generally, and it will apply to the honorable member’s question, that if I were to enforce strictly the rules of parliamentary procedure many ot the questions which are asked would be ruled out of order. For instance, honorable members have no right to found questions on paragraphs in the press. The honorable member has asked me to state what opportunities honorable members would have to correct any statements which might be made. I would point out that if an honorable member is affected, he can take the proper course of making a personal explanation, which gets over the whole difficulty. It appears to me that a bad practice is growing up. A question is asked without notice, and a reply is given, and then a number of questions are founded on the reply. So far as I have been able to gather from reading and the records of the Parliaments with which I have been connected, I have never known so many questions to be asked without notice, nor have I found a record in any Parliament of so many questions being asked without notice, as are asked in this Parliament. I must confine honorable members to asking questions in a legitimate way.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– I rise to a point of order, sir. I hope that this statement is not intended as an intimation that you propose to curtail the rights and privileges of honorable members so long as they are in order. I take it that an honorable member may ask as many questions as he chooses for as many hours as he pleases ; that it is ‘ for the Ministers themselves to say whether they will answer them or not ; and that your function in the chair ceases when you see that they are in order. I have yet to learn that we may not ask questions concerning current events.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The honorable member for Parramatta only entered the chamber when I was finishing my remarks, and therefore he could not have heard all that I said ; otherwise, I do not think that he would have raised this point of order. Every honorable member will have the fullest possible latitude to ask any question which he may desire. It is not my intention to curtail the right of asking questions in the slightest degree, but it is a function of my office to see that the privilege is not abused. In such circumstances I must intervene.

page 4253

QUESTION

TARIFF

Mr KELLY:

– Following up your ruling, sir, I wish to refer to a matter by way of personal explanation. In this morning’s Age, I am quoted as having stated, in the course of the speech of the honorable member for Bendigo yesterday, “ Will the honorable member be able to show us what dividends were paid by the companies that imported the various articles?” I did not say that, but the contrary. I asked the honorable member whether he was in a position to show us what dividends were paid by companies manufacturing in Australia under the protection of existing duties where the imports had been increased.

Sir John Forrest:

– That is right.

Mr KELLY:

– That is my explanation, sir. Shall I be in order in asking a question ?

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order !

Mr KELLY:

– I shall resume my seat, sir, and ask a question later. “Later -

Mr KELLY:

– With a view to facilitating public business, I wish to ask the Minister of Trade and Customs whether, during the consideration of the Tariff, he will be in a position to inform honorable members of the actual profits now derived by companies which are operating under the duties recently repealed, and, further, what conditions of labour have applied in connexion with the industries for which further duties are asked?

Mr TUDOR:
ALP

– I shall be pleased to give the House all the information that I have. I have not the dividend list showing the profits that have been made by any companies in Australia which are manufacturing here or importing.

page 4253

QUESTION

NORTHERN TERRITORY : RAILWAY

Mr GORDON:
BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

asked the AttorneyGeneral, upon notice -

  1. Has he, as stated elsewhere, “ informally expressed the opinion” that under the Northern Territory Acceptance Act the Commonwealth Government can deviate the proposed Transcontinental Railway into Queensland ?
  2. Has he read the opinions on this subject given by Mr. E. F. Mitchell, K.C., Melbourne, and the Crown Solicitor of South Australia, together with a concurring statement made by Senator Sir J. H. Symon, K.C. (Hansard, 17th August, 1910, page 1591); and will he inform the House whether, in his opinion, the proposed railway line can be constructed outside the boundaries of the Northern Territory, now the property of the Commonwealth?
Mr FISHER:
for Mr. Hughes · ALP

– The answers to the honorable member’s questions are as follow : -

  1. Yes.
  2. I have read the opinions referred to. I have given an opinion on the matter, a copy of which I shall be glad to show to the honorable member.

page 4253

QUESTION

POSTMASTER-GENERAL’S DEPARTMENT

Staff Hours - Allowances - Wireless. Telegraphy

Mr WEBSTER:
MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the PostmasterGeneral, upon notice -

  1. Whether it is a fact that the tentative arrangement of staff hours in the Sydney Telegraph Branch has been re-arranged?
  2. Is it a fact that since the re-arranged arrangement officers have had to work for twelve and a half hours without a break?
  3. Are any arrangements being made to provide additional officers on the staff, temporary or otherwise, to meet the Christmas rush ?
  4. Is it a fact that the re-arranged arrange ment further lengthens the hours of duty?
Mr FRAZER:
Postmaster-General · KALGOORLIE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

– Inquiries are being made, and the desired information will be furnished as early as possible.

Mr WEBSTER:

asked the PostmasterGeneral, upon notice -

Whether the increments of fifth-class officers receiving salaries up to £200 per year (to be paid as allowances, pending amendment of the Public Service Act) will be paid before Christmas ?

Mr FRAZER:

– This will depend on the date on which the Estimates are passed by Parliament.

Mr CARR:
MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the PostmasterGeneral, upon notice -

With reference to the Minister’s announcement last Friday that the Government were about 10 adopt an independent wireless telegraphic system on the suggestion of Mr. Balsillie, will he say -

  1. Is this Mr. Balsillie the engineer who was responsible for the wireless system adopted by the Radio-Telegraph Company in England?
  2. Was this system held to infringe existing patents?
  3. Does the Government intend to adopt that or a similar system?
  4. Was the Government offered any bank or other guarantee as to the validity of any known system. ?
  5. Tf so, by whom was it offered, and how much?
Mr FRAZER:

– The answers to the honorable member’s questions are as follow : -

  1. Yes.
  2. Yes.
  3. No.
  4. Yes. A bank guarantee in respect of any successful action or actions.
  5. Australasian Wireless Company Limited, £20,000.

page 4254

QUESTION

TARIFF

In Committee of Ways andMeans (Consideration resumed from 12th December, vide page 4183) on motion by Mr.

Tudor :

That Schedule A to the Customs Tariff 1908- igio be amended as hereunder set out, and that en and after the first day of December, One thousand nine hundred and eleven, Duties of Customs be collected in pursuance of the Customs Tariff as so amended.

Mr OZANNE:
Corio

.- Notwithstanding the fact that there are some seventy items of the Tariff of a technical character included in the amended schedule submitted by the Minister of Trade and Customs, and that they have been classified in their proper sections, the amended Tariff proposed is not quite so innocent as it looks. I stand here as an out-and-out Protectionist, even to the point of prohibition, and as such, though it is rather late in the day, I welcome the amendment of the existing Tariff which has been proposed. It is agreed that Australia has indorsed the Protectionist policy, and I venture to say that there is no member of this House who has the courage to object to the principles of the new Protection. The honorable member for Illawarra has claimed that the Liberals are entitled to be considered the fathers of all the advanced legislation passed by this Parliament. I remind the honorable member, however, that if it had not been for the support given by the twenty-seven Labour members to the Liberal party much of this Liberal legislation would not have been passed. The Leader of the Liberal Government had only twelve direct followers, but with the support of twentyseven Labour members he commanded the necessary numbers to carry this advanced legislation. The measure to give effect to the principle of new Protection was one of the most important measures passed by the Liberal and Labour forces combined.. It is remarkable that, although the Government party was composed of many men of legal ability, they were unable to foresee that the High Court would later on decide that the principles of new Protection were ultra vires of the Constitution. My idea of scientific Protection is that, as industries grow under its operation, the receipts per head from the Customs should decrease. We find that the contrary has followed the operation of our Tariff. In 1904-5 our receipts from Customs amounted to over£8,000,000 ; in 1905-6 they were increased by . £300,000. They were further increased in 1906-7, and in 1910-11 they had increased to over £12,000,000, whilst for the current financial year the Prime Minister has estimated the receipts from Customs at £13,800,000. From the Protectionist point of view, therefore, there must be something radically wrong with our Tariff. Either our manufacturers have been unable to get the necessary labour to extend their industries or our Protection has been ineffective. Last year our imports reached a total value of £60,014,000, or an average per head of the population of the Commonwealth of £13. Such a record of importations is absolutely absurd for a Protectionist country. If we turn even to Free Trade Great Britain we shall find that the imports per head of the United Kingdom amount to only £11 19s.11d. In the United States of America, a highly protected country in which a permanent Tariff Board is established to look minutely into all questions affecting the Tariff, the imports average £3 3s. 4d. per head ; in Germany, the average is £6 6s. 1d. per head; Austria, £2 2s.1d.; Italy, £3 9s. 5d. ; and France, £6 18s.11d. We naturally expected that under the operation of a scientific Tariff our revenue per head would decrease. As a matter of fact, whilst six years ago it was £2 3s. 5d., last year it was , £2 18s.9½d., and during the current financial year, according to the estimate of the Prime Minister, it will be £3 2S.4½d. I am anxious that Australia should be self-contained. In order that she may become so we must establish our own industries, so that we may be able to’ make in Australia all that we require to supply our wants. We can do so if we apply ourselves to the task. We have the ability, the land, climate, and natural resources necessary for the purpose, and it is absolutely essential that we should place our Tariff on such a basis as will encourage our manufacturers to extend their industries, and, at the same time, see that the workers engaged in them are given a living wage. The honorable member for Parramatta told us that when the present Minister of Customs was not in office his chief concern was the Tariff. I think that to-day the honorable gentleman is just as anxious as he ever was that we should have an effective Protectionist Tariff. From conversations I have had with him, I believe that he has a very thorough grasp of the situation, and I know that he is very anxious indeed to see the principles of the new Protection fully carried out. Whilst I do not agree with all that he has proposed, I am satisfied that he is still trying to do his best in the interests of the manufacturers of Australia. The honorable member for Parramatta told us that protection was granted to Mr. McKay, of the Sunshine Harvester Works. He pointed out that the endeavour to bring him under the operation of the principles of new Protection would be a failure. I quite agree that Mr. McKay absolutely broke an honorable promise given to the Tariff Commission, but we should not sacrifice the innocent with the guilty. There are numbers of manufacturers in Australia who are dealing fairly and honestly with their men. I know, from conversations with men engaged in industries in my own district, that they are getting a fair deal from the employers. I say that we should not sacrifice manufacturers who treat their men fairly because one manufacturer broke his word.

Mr Page:

– Are there any of these factories in Geelong?

Mr OZANNE:

– Yes, .plenty of them. Let me say that even the duty imposed to encourage Mr. McKay to establish his industry on a better basis has served a useful purpose. It is only necessary for honorable members to travel on the Bendigo line to see the gigantic works established by Mr. McKay. The protection granted under the Tariff has enabled him practically to establish another town in Victoria.

Mr Riley:

– At the expense of his workers.

Mr OZANNE:

– It is all very well for the honorable member to talk in that way, but at the present time the men engaged in the works referred to are being paid the wages fixed by a Wages Board. I have admitted that Mr. McKay did not keep his word, but I still contend that if we had not granted the protection which was given to the industry it would not be in the position it occupies to-day. The honorable member for Parramatta appeared to be very, anxious about the welfare of the workers. It is remarkable that when these gentlemen are in opposition they suddenly awaken to the fact that the workers of Australia are the producers of the Commonwealth, and should be recognised as such. It was all very well for the honorable member to speak sarcastically of the efforts made by the Minister of Trade and Customs on behalf of the workers; but when the honorable member for Parramatta was in office, he seemed not only to forget that we require a Protectionist policy, but to overlook the needs and requirements of the workers themselves. The policy of Protection has an important bearing on that of immigration. [ indorse the view that we need a larger population. Australia, which is a continent as big as Europe, has a population of only 4,500,000, whereas she ought really to be carrying a population of over 80,000,000. If we are going to indorse Free Trade principles, however, our population, instead of growing, must decrease. There is one matter which, if dealt with iti a scientific manner, would tend to increase the number of our manufacturers. We have in force a Patents Act, in which it is provided that if an article patented in Australia is not manufactured here within four years of its registration, it shall be open for any person, irrespective of the patent so granted, to enter upon ‘its manufacture in Australia. A large quantity of goods now coming into Australia might well be made here, and next year perhaps we might take steps to make our patent laws still more stringent so as to compel those who obtain patents in Australia to manufacture here the goods in respect of which those patents are granted. In that way we should keep the money in the country. Notwithstanding the opposition of some honorable members, I believe that we are taking a step in the right direction by imposing a duty of 25 per cent, on flannelette. We have in

Australia a number of woollen mills with whose output flannelette is a serious competitor, and, as a matter of fact, I do not think die duty is yet high enough. In order to give effective protection to some of our local industries, it may be necessary to raise the duty to 50 per cent. The cement industry is making rapid strides in Australia, and the proposal now before us to impose upon cement a duty of 2s. per cwt. will, if adopted, lead to its making still greater strides. Then, again, the proposed duty of 25 per cent, on oil paintings, whilst not affecting the importation of real works of art, will have a very valuable influence in shutting out the “ daubs “ which are being introduced at the present time, and are purchased by many men who, by reason of their training, are unable to distinguish between them and true works of art. This duty will confer a benefit on Australian artists, and will enable them to obtain a fair return for their work. I am pleased that it is proposed to increase the duty on strawboard to 2s. per cwt.

Mr J H Catts:

– The proposal is an outrage.

Mr OZANNE:

– In common with other honorable members, I have received a circular from P. J. Firth Limited, cardboard box manufacturers, of Sydney, who, instead of seeking to advance good reasons why the duty should not be imposed, make a scurrilous attack on local manufacturers of strawboard.

Mr W ELLIOT JOHNSON:
LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– Surely the boxmakers have as much right to be considered as has a strawboard manufacturer down Geelong way.

Mr OZANNE:

– Certainly. But the point I make is that this firm which objects to the imposition of the duty, instead of attacking a local industry, should have attempted to show good reasons for its opposition to the proposal. In the circular before me it is stated by P. J. Firth Limited that a local firm which is desirous of receiving this protection would not concede to its employes the principle of the new Protection. That is a reference to an occurrence of some years ago. I may briefly explain the reason why the proprietors of the Australian Paper Mills then opposed the granting of a Wages Board in respect of their industry. At “the time in question they were the only manufacturers engaged in the industry in Victoria, and therefore under the State Act would not have been entitled to representation on the board proposed to be appointed. In other words, the employes would be represented, but the manufacturers, since they comprise only one firm, would not.

Mr Riley:

– Do the workers want a Wages Board now?

Mr OZANNE:

– Yes, and they are going to get one.

Mr Riley:

– That shows that the conditions are not too good.

Mr OZANNE:

– The men are receiving a minimum wage of 7s. a day, even although there is no Wages Board in the industry. Mr. P.. J. F’irth asks why a Wages Board was not appointed years ago, and why a certain proprietary petitioned the Legislative Council of Victoria against the appointment of a Wages Board. I was present at a recent meeting of the proprietors and the men of the Australian Paper Mills, at which the employes said that thev were- satisfied with their present condition, believing that the industry was paying then as much as it could pay under existing conditions. Wilh this duty, however, it would be possible for the mills to pay a higher wage, and the proprietors have no objection to their employes forming a union, and obtaining the appointment of a Wages Board.

Mr J H Catts:

– How many men are there in the industry?

Mr OZANNE:

– I admit that there are not very many.

Mr J H Catts:

– There are not fifty men in the industry, and yet the duty will prejudicially affect .5.000 employes in other industries.

Mr OZANNE:

– This increase of duty will cause the industry to expand.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– Does the Victorian Wages Board system carry out the honorable member’s idea of the new Protection ?

Mr OZANNE:

– During the recent referenda campaign the honorable member for Parramatta toured New South Wales in opposition to our request that the Parliament should be granted power to carry out the policy of the new Protection, and since we have not that power, the next best thing for us to do is to accept the Wages Board system. I believe that Wages Boards have done a vast amount of good.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– Do they carry out the honorable member’s idea of new Protection ?

Mr OZANNE:

– They do not; but we must be content with them until the people of Australia give the necessary power to carry out the principle of new Protection.

Mr Groom:

– What is the substitute the (honorable member proposes for the Wages Boards to carry out the principle?

Mr OZANNE:

– The substitute is arbitration. There is one item I am pleased to see in the Tariff, but at the same time I think the Minister has made a slight mistake in regard to it. Gramaphones are protected to the extent of 35 per cent., but all machines under £5 in value are admitted free. It is possible, in my opinion, to manufacture gramaphones in Australia, and those in more general use are the cheaper varieties. I do not believe in making any class distinction, but such a ^distinction is certainly made in this instance ; and all these machines ought to be subject to. the duty. Pianos and pianola pianos are dutiable in the general Tariff, and subject to a duty of £14 and £7, or 35 per cent., whichever rate returns the most revenue; and the Minister was wisely advised in having a fixed duty, though it is possible that it is not high enough. The other day 1 saw in an English journal an advertisement - that of new pianos, which looked very well indeed in the illustrations, at £10 each, walnut overmantles at 12s. 6d., suites at 30s., and extension tables at ros. Under our Wages Board system and the conditions here, it is absolutely impossible for any manufacturer to compete with such cheap productions ; and it is necessary that our protection should be -made effective. The Minister has, however, taken a step in the right direction, and, perhaps, next session he will find it advisable to increase the duties. Another item of importance to Australia is that of hides, which, limed, fleshed, or split, are subject to a duty of 5s. each. This is a heavy impost, but it is necessary ; and in this connexion I have received a circular from the J. P. Howe and Company Proprietary Limited, containing the following :- ….. the imposition of a duty such as 5s proposed will prevent the further importation of any hides in the condition above referred to, regardless of the consequences.

In my opinion we ought to absolutely prohibit the importation of hides Mr. Knibbs informs me that in 1909 there were imported into Australia 136,375 hides, and in 1910 .the number was 119,408. It will be seen that, notwithstanding the fact that Australia is one of the leading countries for the production of hides, the importa tions are very large. The circular further points out - ….. we can assure you that the cost of unhairing, fleshing, and splitting hides does not exceed the sum of is. gd. per hide, and this work could be carried out. by our present staff.

If all this work were done in Australia it would certainly be necessary for those engaged in the industry to increase the number of their employes. At present, throughout Australia, there are only 179 tanneries employing 2,980 persons; and that seems ridiculous in a country of the size and possibilities of Australia. Notwithstanding the heavy importations, Australia, in 1909, exported hides to the number of 286,973, valued at £239,539 ; and it ought to be possible for this raw material to be turned into the finished article in Australia and sent out to compete with the productions of other countries. We have only £484,859 invested in plant and buildings in connexion with the industry ; and the total number of hides dealt with last year was 1,148,000. As a matter of fact, there ought to be £2,000,000 or £3,000,000 invested, seeing that Australia is considered one of the chief countries in the world for the production of hides. Another item to which I desire to refer is that of Kraft brown paper, which does not appear in the Tariff proposals before us. The honorable member for Illawarra pointed out that whereas a few years ago about 150 persons were employed in this industry, there were now over 200, and submitted the fact as proof that this could not be said to be languishing. In my opinion, however, the small increase in the number of employes shows that there must be something radically wrong. In Geelong, owing to the insufficient protection, one mill, where this brown paper was manufactured, has already been closed down ; and the output of the Australian Paper Mills Company has decreased from 1,800 tons to 1,400 tons. I can assure the Minister that if sufficient protection is not afforded Australian Kraft brown paper will be driven out of the market.

Mr Groom:

– What sort of paper do those mills manufacture?

Mr OZANNE:

– Ordinary white paper, such as that used in the Electoral Branch, book covers, and so forth. Only a limited quantity of brown paper is manufactured, but, as I say this is being gradually driven out of the market. It has been complained by several honorable members that they are practically in the dark in dealing with this revision of the Tariff; and in that I have to agree with them. The Minister of - Trade and Customs circularized all the manufacturers asking them to provide him with certain data ; and while some complied, others absolutely refused. However, I have the data in connexion with the manufacture of this brown paper. So far as the Australian Paper Mills Company is concerned, the paper is manufactured out of imported pulp. The cost, delivered to the mill in Australia, is made up as follows : - Cost, insurance, and freight, pulp, £8 ios. per ton; wharfage, ios. per ton; other costs, 5s. per ton.

Mr Groom:

– Where does the pulp come from ?

Mr OZANNE:

– From Scandinavia. So that the total cost of the raw material delivered at the mill is ,69 5s. per ton. The cost of production per ton is as follows : - Pulp, £9 5s. ; wages, ^5 7s. 6d. ; other costs, £5 17s. 6d ; total, £20 ios. Now the Australian paper mills are selling their paper at £23 per ton. The imported Kraft brown paper pays in freight 22s. 6d. per ton of 40 cubic feet. On the other hand, a ton of pulp occupies 80 cubic feet, which is equivalent to 2 tons ot space from the stand-point of the finished article. Thus the cost of the pulp in Scandinavia is 5s- per ton. The Scandinavian manufacturers pay in wages and all other expenses £11 per ton. Deducting the cost of the pulp, their expenditure is £4 15s. per ton. That covers .everything, so that our mills pay in wages alone 12s. 6d. per ton more. But when we take into consideration that in Australia £5 17s. 6d. per ton has to be expended, upon coal, starch, colouring, &c, it will be seen that we are in a worse position than foreign manufacturers of Kraft brown paper by j£6 ios. per tori. When we realize that we are importing 6,000 tons of this paper annually, it will be seen that if we had’ an effective duty upon it, we should be able to keep in Australia .£36,000 a year which would be divided amongst the workers, to the great benefit of the industry. The existing duty is £5 per ton, which makes the total cost of the Scandinavian finished article £20 11s. od. per ton. That article is sold in Australia at £22 ios. per ton, so that, practically, the Scandinavian manufacturers, notwithstanding that they pay only half the wages that are paid by our manufacturers, are making less than £2 per ton profit. There are a great many other matters connected with the Tariff with which I might deal.

Mr Groom:

– These are matters which should be sifted by a board.

Mr OZANNE:

– I agree with the honorable member. There are a number of items in the schedule before us which I’ intend to support simply because I am a Protectionist and have confidence in the Ministry. But, as I have already pointed out, the protection which is afforded to certain industries is not sufficient. We have heard a good deal about Wages Boards and the new Protection. We have been told that the Wages Board system has not resulted in any good. But whilst that system may not be perfect, I claim that it has brought about infinitely better conditions than obtained in Australia prior to its introduction. Despite the fact that Wages Boards have increased the cost of production, I believe that the condition of the worker in Australia to-day is 25 per cent, better than it was ten years ago. If one travels round Melbourne he cannot fail to be impressed with the fact that it is a paradise now compared with what it was then. These improved conditions are the result of the introduction of the Wages Board system and arbitration. Of course, we cannot hope to secure perfection in a day. I would rather see the workers of Australia in receipt of good wages and paying big prices for their commodities than I would see them getting poor wages and cheap goods. No body of workers is justified in complaining of the cost of production in other industries while they themselves are getting high wages. No body of employers is justified in sweating their workmen in order to produce cheap goods. I know that in many industries> manufacturers are making a larger profit than they are entitled to make. At the referendum we were refused power to deal with them, so that, at present, we have no authority to do so. The honorable member for Parramatta referred last evening to a delegation of British workmen which visited the town of Gorz, in Germany, for the purpose of inquiring into the conditions which’ obtained there. He stated that one section of that delegation had reported very adversely upon those conditions. I wish to say that I saw the report of a section of that delegation, and it was of a very eulogistic character indeed. It practically indorsed the statement of the honorable member for Melbourne that it was impossible to find slums there, and the workers were living in comparative comfort. Of course, we must all recognise that the Tariff is a very complicated piece of mechanism. We cannot hope to sift all the questions relating to it in a day and to arrive at a correct conclusion. Although we may have every confidence in our Minister, it is absolutely essential that we should have some body which can watch the operations of the Tariff, see if the protection is effective, or if it is too great, take care that the manufacturer is not fleecing the public, and that goods are not being dumped into Australia to the detriment of our own industries. We, as members of Parliament, cannot know all about these things. Personally, I have done my best to- ascertain what anomalies exist in regard to the various industries mentioned in this schedule. In some cases I have succeeded, but in the great majority I am working in the dark. To the Geelong Chamber of Commerce I sent a letter asking to be provided with a list of anomalies, but even that body could not name one. We should follow the example of America, which has a permanent Tariff Board to go into all these questions. So successful has it been that, whereas in Australia the value per head of imports is £13 011 a verv small population, in America it is only £3 odd with a population of about 110,000,000. It would be to the interest of the Government and the people to have a board with the Minister as its head, to sift Tariff evidence, and place it before members, as I Have done in the case of Kraft brown paper. I have here quite a number of letters from manufacturers, particularly in Victoria, one manufacturer making one statement, and another making a statement diametrically opposed to it. When manufacturers disagree in that fashion, it is no wonder that honorable members, not having the information, cannot arrive at a just conclusion. Members sitting on this side are absolutely in favour of the principle of new Protection, although some of them may be divided regarding the old Protection. When the Leader of the Opposition the other night stated as a Protectionist that the Tariff now before the Committee did not go far enough, the honorable member for Lang, the Opposition Whip, absolutely repudiated the Protectionist principles of his leader. He was very honest in his announcement that he would not accept from the Leader of the Opposition dictation as to how he should vote. Subsequently the honorable member for Illawarra and others with Free Trade views also attacked the Tariff amendment now before us. The honorable member for Wilmot interjected last night that all the members sitting on the Government side of the House were “ drivers.” I agree with him’ to this extent, that we have no time for a “ passenger.” Notwithstanding the taunts of the Opposition that we simply follow the dictates of our leader, and must do whatever the Government tell us to, the fact remains that every man on this side of the House is entitled to express his own opinion on all questions outside the platform. I have this morning indorsed the Advisory Tariff Board principle. A number of other members may not favour it, but I believe it is absolutely essential in the interests of the Protectionist policy of Australia. I hope the Minister before the Tariff passes from this Chamber will take into consideration! the item of Kraft brown paper which I have brought before him. I am specially interested in the matter from a Protectionist stand-point. It means much to the industries of Australia, and the industry in my electorate.

Mr Fairbairn:

– That is where the shoe pinches.

Mr OZANNE:

– I believe the industry also exists in New South Wales. I may tell the honorable member for Fawkner that I want to see our own men employed, and not walking about the streets doing nothing, while men in Scandinavia are getting the benefit of the energy of the Australian public. We want to see the population of Australia grow. Instead of being a little over 4,000,000, we want to see it 80,000,000, because it is absolutely necessary if we desire to keep our own country that we should build up manufactories and secure a large population.

Mr W ELLIOT JOHNSON:
LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– From the nature of the proposals which we are now considering one would imagine that we were at the beginning of a parliamentary session instead of nearing the close. I do not think there is another instance on record of a Government introducing a new Tariff measure, ripping up whole sections of the Tariff under the guise of rectifying anomalies, and thus creating material for an extensive debate, in the closing days of a session. The Government appear to have gone out of their way to invite those who hold differing fiscal opinions to extend the session far beyond the date on which they have declared their intention of closing it. Ministers must not complain if honorable members on both sides, of opposite fiscal opinions, who object to the re-opening of the Tariff at this stage, are forced into the position of attacking these proposals and trying to prevent further injustice being inflicted upon the whole community.

Mr Fenton:

– You do not call this a reopening of the Tariff, do you?

Mr W ELLIOT JOHNSON:
LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– I do. It is practically a ripping up of the whole Tariff, because the whole Tariff may come under review. The Minister may not have had that in his mind at the time, but as soon as we begin to rip open the Tariff, even under the guise of correcting anomalies, what happens? The Minister himself has had some experience. He has been deluged with deputations. They have come upon him like an avalanche, asking that this little industry or that big one, as the case may be, shall receive special consideration. There is no end to the appeals that will be made for alterations of duty through the Tariff. We might very well be kept employed for twelve months dealing with nothing else than the correction of anomalies. But the Labour party at the present time, I suppose, wants to maintain the unenviable reputation that it has succeeded in establishing all over Australia as the heavy taxation party. It is astonishing that a party which might reasonably be looked to, if we may judge from its name, to lighten the burdens upon the people, has, in our experience of it, always been the party that has been associated with the imposition of the heaviest burdens upon those who are least able to bear them - the workers of the community. On every side we hear protests and agonizing cries going up about the increased cost of living. That heavy cost has been brought about by the Labour party in this House. Yet we have proposals made now which will certainly not tend to diminish the cost of living, which has been increased to its present limit largely through the action of those who were returned as the direct representatives of Labour. If it had not been for the votes of members of the Labour party we should not have had the present Protectionist Tariff in operation.

Sir William Lyne:

– Hear, hear.

Mr PARKER MOLONEY:
INDI, VICTORIA · ALP

– That is a very candid admission.

Mr W ELLIOT JOHNSON:
LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– And if, again, it had not been for the Protectionist votes of so-called Free Trade members of the party the cost of living would not have increased to the present abnormal proportions. The workers have little to thank the Labour party for in so reducing the purchasing power of their wages, that to-day it costs 30s. to buy goods which a few years ago would have cost only a pound or a little less. A man or woman - and, unfortunately, it is the housewife who feels the pinch, because she has to manage the domestic purse - finds as a consequence that the weekly earnings do not go nearly so far as they did before the cost of commodities was increased all round.

Mr Roberts:

– The honorable member had better square his opinions with thoseof his leader.

Mr W ELLIOT JOHNSON:
LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– My leader has his own opinions on these matters, and they are diametrically opposed to mine. Honorable members opposite, however, are in the same unenviable position. Some of them hold extreme views on the fiscal question, which are directly opposed to those of other members of the party. Even members of the Ministry are in that position. Some are extreme Protectionists, and others are extreme Free Traders. Yet they sit side by side in the same Cabinet, and are co-responsible for bringing in these alleged protective duties. I say “ alleged “ advisedly, because Protectionists say they fail in their object, and we have here Tariff proposals which are repugnant alike both to honest Free Traders and honest Protectionists.

Mr Higgs:

– Will the honorable member give us some items in regard to the cost of living?

Mr W ELLIOT JOHNSON:
LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– The honorable member has only to examine any grocery and clothing lists, for example, to find sufficient facts to satisfy even his rapacious appetite. The party in power, notwithstanding that there are in the Cabinet men holding opposite fiscal views, are responsible for this attempt, which I am afraid will be only too successful, still further to increase duties which are already abnormally high. Protectionists and Free Traders, if they are honest, must alike be opposed to such proposals. Those who, like myself, believe in Free Trade as a principle, and others who look to the Customs House merely as a source of revenue, must dislike this amending Tariff; Protectionists also must dislike it, because they object to the Customs House as a revenue-raising institution. If a Free Trader is true to his principles he has no use for the Customs House for revenue. He has no use for .it as a means of imposing duties on commerce, the tendency of which must, in proportion to the rise in duty, be to make trade intercourse less and less free. Protectionists, on the other hand, if they are true to their principles, can have no use for duties which simply extract revenue from imports, and do not give the desired protection to local industries which is the basic idea of their policy. Honorable members who reflect must see that Protection itself is an anomaly, because it differentiates between one class of citizens and another. It gives to one class an advantage which the rest of the community do not enjoy, but for which they have to pay. Not only is it an anomaly, but it necessarily gives rise to innumerable other anomalies, and the more we try to correct them as they become apparent the greater the number of anomalies which we create in the process. It has been pointed out by a number of those who are interested in the various items of the Tariff, that fresh anomalies will now be created by the action of the Ministry hi this amateurish attempt to correct what are alleged to be existing anomalies.

Mr PARKER MOLONEY:
INDI, VICTORIA · ALP

– Does ‘ the hon.orable member favour a Tariff Board?

Mr W ELLIOT JOHNSON:
LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– I should like to call attention to the peculiar attitude which the Age newspaper has now taken up in regard to the matter suggested by die interjection of the honorable member for Indi. It will be remembered that a proposal was made by the Fusion Government for the appointment of an InterState Commission - practically a Tariff Board - to make inquiries into the whole ramifications of trade and commerce and their bearings in connexion with profits, wages, and all industrial considerations which arise out of a Tariff. The Age newspaper at that time very severely condemned the proposal. But I observe that within the last two or three days it has -taken up the idea. It is now urging, in its usual forceful way, the very proposals which it condemned in no unmeasured terms at the time when they were originated by the late Government.

Mr Wise:

– I never could understand why the late Government did not carry out that Inter-State Commission idea.

Mr W ELLIOT JOHNSON:
LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– Because the late Government were turned out of office, and had not an opportunity.

Mr Wise:

– Why did they not go on with the proposal when they introduced it?

Mr W ELLIOT JOHNSON:
LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– They - went to the country with their policy and were not returned with a majority. Consequently they had no opportunity to carry those proposals into effect. The Age even attacks the honorable member for Hume this morning, and strips from his shoulders every shred of Protectionist reputation, though if any man has tried to do his best for Protection it is the honorable member.

Sir William Lyne:

– The Age was of the same opinion as myself when it referred previously to the Inter-State Commission.

Mr W ELLIOT JOHNSON:
LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– Now it turns on the honorable member. While I am opposed to his fiscal principles, I give him credit for trying to carry out his Protectionist views when he had the opportunity. Under this very high Tariff-

Mr Sampson:

– Would the ‘honorable member call this a high Tariff?

Mr W ELLIOT JOHNSON:
LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– It is one of the highest known to the world, but notwithstanding the duties, our imports have been increasing yearly by leaps and bounds, and are still doing so. The Customs revenue for 1904-5 was about £8,600,000, and for the present year will be about £13,800,000, and next year probably £15,000,000. There has been an increase of about £5,250,000 in seven years. During the same period the Customs revenue per head of population has increased from £2 3s. 3£d. to £3 2s. 4jd., or nearly £1 a head.

Mr Fenton:

– That shows that more protection is needed.

Mr W ELLIOT JOHNSON:
LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– The logical Protectionist must be a prohibitionist. The only way in which Tariff anomalies can be effectually removed is by abolishing duties. Directly you impose duties to protect local industries you create anomalies, and the more you tinker with Tariffs, and the higher you make the duties, the greater and more numerous these anomalies become. If it is bad to have trade with other countries ‘ it should ‘be prohibited altogether, but if it is good there should be the greatest freedom for it. I am a Free Trader because I believe in freedom to produce and exchange. Free Trade is the policy which I have supported ever since I began to take an interest in- political questions, and I stand for it now. I have no use for the Customs House ; I would sooner see all revenue raised by direct taxation. That is the more honest and proper form of taxation. Under it every member of the community knows what the Government of the State costs him, but with indirect taxation, although the people know that money is niched from them, and that at the end of the year they are poorer than they were at the beginning, they do not know how much they lose, because it is taken from them by stealth in purchasing commodities.

Dr MALONEY:
MELBOURNE, VICTORIA · ALP; FLP from 1931; ALP from 1936

– Did the honorable member vote against the land tax?

Mr W ELLIOT JOHNSON:
LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– I do not consider that a land tax should be imposed in addition to Customs taxation; it should be in substitution of it, and that is the only land value taxation I favour.

Mr BRUCE SMITH:
PARKES, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– And should not be a class tax.

Mr W ELLIOT JOHNSON:
LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– That is so. No one has the right to answer for me on the fiscal question, nor to control my speeches or votes in regard to it or any other matter. Every man on this side is free. No doubt on the other side there are wide differences of opinion on the fiscal question. That is made evident when we see the honorable’ member for Calare and the honorable member for Capricornia sitting together, or the Attorney-General and the Minister of Trade and Customs. Yet the Minister, speaking the other day for his Government and party, declared to a deputation that they were Protectionists. That makes me wonder whether the Free Traders in the Labour party have recanted their fiscal opinions. If he spoke for the whole of his party, I take it that they must have recanted their Free Trade principles, notwithstanding that they had been very strong. I desire to refer to some statements which have been made by honorable members on each side. In the course of his speech the honorable member for Kooyong said he thought that there should be an inquiry into the operation of the Tariff. We had a Royal Commission appointed for that very purpose. It sat for a great many months, went carefully into the pros, and cons, of almost every industry in Aus tralia, and drew up a voluminous report. But with what result? Although the report was made available before the revision of the Tariff in 1907, and had cost the country an enormous sum, yet the Ministry of the day set it on one side, and took its own course, with the honorable member for Hume in charge of the Trade and Customs .Department. I do not know whether if another Royal Commission were appointed we would get a different result. The honorable member for Kooyong also said that the revision of the Tariff is never finished with, but that rectifications must go on all the time. That shows very clearly that there is no finality to this Protection. When first we heard the cry for Protection the argument used to induce Free Traders to vote for Protectionist duties was, “ We only want a small amount of protection just to give the industries a start. As soon as they get a fair start they will be able to stand alone, and to be quite independent of the Tariff, and then we can afford to get rid of the duties.” The cry used to be the same when proposals for the grant of bounties were brought down. A bounty was only wanted for the purpose of tiding an industry over the preliminary stages, and then it could be done without, but in both cases our experience, and, I believe, the experience of the world, has been that, so far from any industry being satisfied, the Tariff protection which it received in the beginning has always created an appetite for more assistance, so that there never was any limit to the protection which an industry, once it was stimulated and spoon-fed by a Customs duty, would be able ultimately to demand and absorb. Duties have been raised and raised until the power of the public to bear further taxation is pretty well exhausted. I think it will only be a very short time before we shall find that the whole of the public will be so incensed at this continual increase in the cost of living which is so largely contributed to by Tariff protection that there will be a reversion once more to something in the nature of Free Trade, at any rate there will be a pretty universal demand by the consumers - by the term consumers I mean largely the wage-earning classes who after all are the majority of the consumers - for at least a very substantial reduction in the rate of duties.

Mr Roberts:

– I have just looked up the division. The honorable member did vote against the land tax.

Mr W ELLIOT JOHNSON:
LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– Very likely, against the Labour party’s apology for a land tax. My speech would show my attitude and explain any vote of mine.

Mr Tudor:

– I thought that the honorable member walked out as he usually does.

Mr W ELLIOT JOHNSON:
LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– If I did not vote for the discriminating and emasculated land tax it will be found that there was a good and substantial reason. I shall not depend on the honorable member for Adelaide, but will look it up.

Mr Roberts:

– I have marked it for your special benefit.

Mr W ELLIOT JOHNSON:
LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– I am extremely obliged to the honorable member. I shall have a look at it presently.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– If you did vote for a land tax you would have voted against your lifelong professions; but that was not a land tax.

Mr W ELLIOT JOHNSON:
LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– I am quite sure, that I made my attitude quite clear. The honorable member for Hume stated that if we did not have Protection we should approach to the level of the blackfellow. I might remind the honorable member of the days when he was a Free Trader - though not, of course, since he has been in the House - and held very different views. When Sir George Reid was Premier of New South Wales he practically abolished the Customs House; he only retained the duties on narcotics, stimulants, and a few other items. During his tenure of office we had as near an approach to absolute Free Trade, coupled with the principle of land value taxation as has ever been known in Australia. There never was up to that time a greater period of prosperity. People got more for their sovereign then than they can possibly get to-day. There was a general lowering of prices, a general increase of the amount of employment available, a general increase in wages, and a very much greater degree of domestic comfort, especially among the poorer sections of the community than can be found anywhere in Australia to-day. That is my answer to the honorable member for Hume in that regard. Furthermore, I would call his attention to the fact that Free Trade British wages are very much higher than Continental Protectionist wages. If we compare wages in Great Britain with the wages, not in a new country like Australia,

America, or Canada, but in some of the older countries in Europe, where the comparison will be much fairer ; if we compare the conditions, the wages, the general cost of living, and the general comfort of the working classes of Great Britain with those of the working clasess in the most highly’ protected Continental countries, the answer is one unmistakably in favour of Great. Britain and her policy of Free Trade.

Dr MALONEY:
MELBOURNE, VICTORIA · ALP; FLP from 1931; ALP from 1936

– I strongly differ with you.

Mr W ELLIOT JOHNSON:
LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– The honorable member has not travelled all over the Continent, but he has merely travelled in one or two countries, and taken one or two cities. Last night he spoke particularlyof Berlin, but I saw by a recent cable that at the present time no fewer than between 80,000 and 90,000 artisans and mechanics are unemployed in that city. So much for that illustration.

Dr MALONEY:
MELBOURNE, VICTORIA · ALP; FLP from 1931; ALP from 1936

– In London alone there are 1,000,000 people within reach of starvation.

Mr W ELLIOT JOHNSON:
LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– I saw as much of London as the honorable member. I regard his statement as a fanciful exaggeration. Speaking just now, the honorable member for Corio said that if it were not for the monopolies existing in Australia we could manufacture more cheaply than is done. I would remind the honorable member that the way to establish monopolies is to create vested interests, and that we could have no better way of creating vested interests than that of giving Customs Tariff privileges to certain manufacturers, who will profit thereby at the expense of the rest of the community. Protection is the father of monopolies, trusts, and combines of that injurious character which the honorable member himself so heartily condemns, and he is helping to build up monopolies in Australia by supporting the imposition of protective duties. What is the underlying principle of Protection, save that of preventing free competition? If free competition is destroyed, monopolies must be created, and the more we increase our protective duties the greater will become monopolies in Australia. The honorable member, and those associated with him, in helping local manufacturers to secure a monopoly of the home market, are doing their very best to build up the very monopolies against whichthey are making such an outcry. Free Trade is the only cure, formonopolies. Where you have free competition, ‘there is nq monopoly, and ifwe desire todestroy monopolies, trusts, and combines,whichtendto restrict the purchasing powerofthepeople, andtofoistupontheminferiorgoods, mustvotefor the abolition pf highly pro tectivedutiessuchasthosewhichhonorable. membersoppositearenowso strongly advocating. The honorablemember for Melbourne, last night, in one of those nights of fanciful oratory in which he sometimes indulges, took us, so to speak, for a trip round the world, and, among other places, to Japan. He went to that country to show us ‘how a monopoly could be destroyed, and told us that Japan’ was the only nation that had been able to successfully attack the American Tobacco Combine. It was able to do so, however, only by adopting the very process that tends to build upmonopolies in America. It defeated the operations of the combine within its own borders by increasing, from time to time, Customs duties on cut tobacco, cigars, and cigarettes until they reached a level of 355 per cent. That having been done., and the tobacco indus.try haying beennationalized, Japan was able, weweretoldtocompetesuccessfulywith, theAmericancombine, in a number of instancesinotherpartsoftheworld. The. honorable member said that it was able, owing to, its, cheap, labour, to undersell the American trustinthosemarketssothat the net result of the imposition of a duty of355per cent.is that the Japanese can. enter into competition with the, American combine in certain places because the Japanese worker receives very lowwages.. The prohibitive duty has not been the means of raising, to any, appreciable extent, the wages paid for Japanese labour.

Dr MALONEY:
MELBOURNE, VICTORIA · ALP; FLP from 1931; ALP from 1936

– It has increased: the wages paid.

Mr W ELLIOT JOHNSON:
LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– It certainly has not increased them tp the rates received by the operatives qf the American combine. The tobacco industry in Japan has been nationalized, and, despite the assertions of honorable members opposite that the nationlization of industry is the only means of securing better wages for the workers, we find that the tobacco operatives of Japan are in no better positipn than they were before with the combined advantages ofa355percent. protection and nationalization. They are still pauper labour men. Like conditions produce like results, and we pave no guaraptee that if we nationalized any industry in Australia we should have any better result, so far as wages areconcerned, than has followed, thenationalizationofthetobacco industry and the imposition, of prohibitive duties on tobacco in Japan. There is only one way in which Prptection. can protect, and that is by checking competition. Thereis but one wayin which monopolies can be. built up, and that is by checking competition. What are the workers to receive as the result of this Tariff revision? What is the consumer to get out of it? The consumers generally, whether; theyare workers or not, are going to pay more than they pay already for their goods. Unless prices are to be increased, the imposition of these duties cannot be of any; advantage to themanufacturers concerned, This is, therefore, a proposal to take more money out of the pockets of the workers to benefit the manufacturers. There is no stipulation that any portion of the benefit to be conferred on the manufacturers, by means of this Tariff, is to. be shared by the workers. What are the Ministry going to do about it? Despite their professions of friendship for. the worker, all that we find in. this Tariff is an advantage to the employers and absolutely none for the employes.

Mr Higgs:

– The honorable member’s party took care that we should not obtainpower at the recent referenda to protect theworker.

Mr W ELLIOT JOHNSON:
LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– Even if the referenda proposal had been carried, the Governmentwould have had no more power in this regard than they possess to day, and any power which they do not. enjoy themselves their confreres in. the State Parliaments have. Between the two thereis no necessity to override State rights in order to secure the protection of the worker. If the Federal Government has not the power to benefit the workers under the Constitution as it stands, why do they go out of their way to benefit the employers ? That is a nut which honorable members oppositewill have some difficulty in cracking.

Mr Higgs:

– The honorable member does not care how much the importer makes, but he does not like the local manufacturer to earn anything.

Mr W ELLIOT JOHNSON:
LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– I havenever posed as. a champion of one class as against another. I have always pleaded for equal justice. I have always demanded that there shall be equal freedom for all and special privileges to none. Those are the principles for which 1 have always stood and which I am still supporting. I am fighting now, and intend to continue to fight, against any attempt to give one section in the community an advantage at the expense of the rest. In my opinion, it is not the function of any Government or Parliament to legislate in the interests of any one section or class in the community. It is their function, on the contrary, to see that no obstacles are placed in the way of equal opportunities to all to earn a living, and to carve out their destinies in the way which may seem to them best. But the party at present in power in this Parliament are prepared to go out of their way to use their powers to legislate in the interests of one class in the community at the expense of all the rest, and to depart from those sound principles of freedom by which I have always been guided in connexion with any legislation m which I have taken a part. In order to give honorable members opposite an opportunity to rectify an oversight - I trust it is only an oversight, and not the result of deliberate action on their part - in excluding the workers from any benefit under the Tariff now proposed, I intend to move later on an addition to the motion now before the Committee in the following words : -

Provided that increased rates of duty shall cease to operate after a period of three months from the date of their imposition unless satisfactory evidence shall be forthcoming that wages have been increased in industries in respect to which increased Tariff protection has been indicated.

I have no wish to restrict discussion at the present time, but later in the debate I intend to move this addition to the motion now before the Committee. It will give honorable members opposite an opportunity to show their sincerity. It will enable them to show that in providing all these special advantages for the employers of labour they have at the same time done their best to secure for the operatives in the industries specially protected a share in those advantages.

Mr BRUCE SMITH:
PARKES, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– I do not know that much is to be gained by embarking upon a discussion of the abstractions underlying Free Trade and Protection. I quite agree with the honorable member for Lang, that if we were to do that we should have to consider that Protection is really a breach of the general principle of human freedom. It is an attempt to control people in the expenditure of their own money, by saying that if they spend it outside their own country, as distinguished from inside the country, they must pay a penalty. I agree that it is inopportune now to go into the principles of Free Trade and Protection, and that at this stage of the session it would be merely a waste of time, but I wish to say, in answer to a number of statements made as to the conversion of the Opposition to Protection, that I do not give up one jot of my convictions as a Free Trader. Adam Smith, John Stuart Mill, and Professor Fawcett are just as sacred to me now as embodying the truth in human affairs as they ever were. I can say candidly .that if I had an opportunity to-morrow, without injuring vested interests, to bring about a return to absolute Free. Trade in Australia, I should take advantage of it. I believe that every country passes through a series of stages, beginning with the pastoral and agricultural, and passing when that has been exhausted to the manufacturing stage. England did not become a manufacturing country until she had almost ceased to command the market as a pastoral and agricultural country. She resorted to manufacturing, which draws the people from the free air of the country into crowded towns, very much to the detriment of their health, when the great territories of America and Russia had flooded the world with agricultural products for the production of which they offered such splendid facilities. England then resorted to manufacturing, with the result that the people, instead of living in the free air of the country, were brought into great .towns like Manchester, Liverpool, and London, where, amid the smoke and fumes of manufacturing industries, their vigour and physical condition generally became enormously deteriorated. I recognise that for a time Australia is committed to Protection, though I remain as ever true to my own convictions. Just as we all have from time to time become reconciled to the existence of a popular opinion different to that which we entertain ourselves, so T have to be reconciled to the popular view on the fiscal question. I believe that the fiscal belief of the people of Australia has been largely influenced by .what I shall always characterize as a great breach of faith on the part of the first Prime Minister of the Commonwealth. Everyone will recollect that when Mir., now Sir Edmund, Barton went to Maitland before this Parliament first met, he assured the people that we could have neither the Tariff of New South Wales, the oldest State in the Common-, wealth, nor that of Victoria, but that we must adopt some compromise between the two as the ultimate policy of the Commonwealth. He came down to Melbourne, and told the people of Victoria that it was quite impossible to adopt the Tariff of either State referred to, and that we should require to adopt a compromise between the two. At that time I know, from personal acquaintance of the men connected with Sir Edmund Barton’s Ministry, that the inclusion in the first Government of the Commonwealth of as many Free Traders as Protectionists was contemplated. But the honorable member for Hume, who had the first call on the position of Prime Minister of Australia, handed over the commission to Sir Edmund Barton, stipulating that he should have a place in the Ministry. We all know very well that the first Prime Minister of Australia chose for his Government the Strongest Protectionists in the Commonwealth, including the honorable member for Hume, who had been Premier of New South Wales, Mr. Kingston, who had been Premier of South Australia, and Sir John Forrest, who had been Premier of Western Australia.

Sir William Lyne:

– He is not a Protectionist.

Mr BRUCE SMITH:
PARKES, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– He is not a prohibitionist, but he is a Protectionist in the sense in which some of the great Protectionist writers are Protectionists, because none of them is a prohibitionist. Sir Edmund Barton included in his Government the strongest Protectionists in Australia, and” introduced a Tariff which, as I showed in 1902, was 6 per cent, higher than the highest Protectionist Tariff that had ever been passed in Victoria. It is impossible to go back to the figures now, but I laid myself out to show that, instead of compromising between the Free Trade to -which the people of New South Wales had been committed for so many years, and the Protection of Victoria, he had gone one better than the Protection of Victoria. I charged the honorable member plainly on the floor of the House with having obtained his majority by political false pretences.

Sir William Lyne:

– Which was wrong !

Mr BRUCE SMITH:
PARKES, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– I remember the incident as if it were yesterday, though it is ten years ago.

Sir William Lyne:

– But it was not true !

Mr BRUCE SMITH:
PARKES, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– The honorable member knows that I said it, and he then, as now, said I was wrong. He is consistent in contradicting me; and I shall now leave the matter as ancient history. I have a keen memory for details, and the facts are as fresh in my mind to-day as they were then.

Mr Archibald:

– The people of New South Wales have changed’ since then.

Mr BRUCE SMITH:
PARKES, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– I. can tell the honorable member that in New South Wales there are just as many staunch Free Traders now as there were then, with the exception of a number, who were importers and who have found themselves forced by the Tariff to become manufacturers, and have set up their personal interests against the interests of the country. A few months ‘ ago I said to one of the largest manufacturers of New South Wales, “ Have you changed your politics”? He replied, “ No; if you ask me what I am from an Australian point of view, I am a Free Trader, but if you ask me what I am from the point of view of my own pocket, I am a Protectionist.”

Sir William Lyne:

– That is what most people are !

Mr BRUCE SMITH:
PARKES, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– I hope there are a few - indeed, I think there are a great many - who look at public affairs apart from the interest of their pockets. God help the country in which the conduct of public affairs becomes a scramble for the pocket as against the interest of patriotism ! I wish to remove an idea that some honorable members opposite seem to have obtained from observations made on this side, that Free Traders here have become Protectionists.

Mr Fenton:

– Does the honorable member desire to convey that Free Trade and patriotism are synonymous terms?

Mr BRUCE SMITH:
PARKES, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– I think they are. However, I do not desire to go into the philosophy of the question. My general view of politics is that life is a race, and that if our race, ;n the other sense, is to be dominant amongst the races of the world, we must cultivate the best form of citizenship. In order to do this we must avoid all legislation which forces the superior man to keep back until the inferior man comes up to him ; we must cultivate a condition of things in which the best man. wins, no matter what the industry or business is. Such proposals as we have had lately, by which men are kept back and told that there is no work for them because they do not happen to join a particular union, are detrimental to the interests of citizenship in every possible way.

Mr Riley:

– What about the barristers’ union ?

Mr BRUCE SMITH:
PARKES, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– The honorable member always looks through a knot-hole; he can never open his eyes wide. Indeed, I doubt if the honorable member has two eyes, for he sees everything from a narrow stand-point because of his party. I know from my experience of him! in another capacity that, if he could open both his eyes, he is as capable as any one of seeing everything from a broad national standpoint. However, I am not going to embark on a broad discussion. Australia, rightly or wrongly, wisely or unwisely, has adopted a Protectionist policy. We have created vested interests, which, however, I think can be got rid of gradually, and will be got rid of some day. The consumer has never been properly considered in this country. When Sir George Reid, as Prime Minister, was proposing to appoint a Royal Commission to inquire into the anomalies of the Tariff, I asked what care he was taking to see that the consumer was represented. After all, the consumer ought to be our first consideration, but it is the manufacturer who has been our care on all occasions. Honorable members will recollect that, notwithstanding the findings of that Royal Commission, the honorable member for Hume, as Minister of Trade and Customs, over and over again proposed duties recommended by the Protectionist minority, and announced them to us as the recommendations of the Commission itself.

Sir William Lyne:

– That is not true !

Mr BRUCE SMITH:
PARKES, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– I think the time will come-

Sir William Lyne:

– It is not true !

Mr BRUCE SMITH:
PARKES, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– I charged the honorable member with it at the time, and I continue to charge him with it.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

- (Mr. W. Elliot Johnson). - The honorable member for Hume must withdraw the expression “ That is not true.”

Mr BRUCE SMITH:
PARKES, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– I do not mind the expression, Mr. Temporary Chairman.

Sir William Lyne:

– I shall withdraw the expression if the honorable member for Parkes withdraws his statement.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN.The honorable member must withdraw the expression unreservedly.

Sir William Lyne:

– I shall if the honorable member for Parkes withdraws his statement.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN.I ask the honorable member for Hume to obey the Chair.

Sir William Lyne:

– Then I withdraw the expression, Mr. Temporary Chairman.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN.If the honorable member for Parkes has made any statement which is offensive to the honorable member for Hume he must withdraw it.

Mr BRUCE SMITH:
PARKES, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– Certainly I withdraw it, Mr. Temporary Chairman. I believe, with the honorable member for Lang, that the time will come when the consumers of commodities produced in Australia will realize that they are simply being milked for the sake of the manufacturers of the country, and when they will rise and demand substantial reductions of the Tariff. I look forward in my own lifetime to the occasion when we shall get back to what are called revenue duties; that is the hopeful view I take. I listened to the honorable member for Corio with some interest, because he represents a type. He says that he is not only a Protectionist, but a prohibitionist; and when we remember the attitude he takes up on this question, one can see that, had he lived in China some years ago, he would have assisted in building the Great Wall. He would have helped, in the first place, to shut out all the products of the outer world ; and, as a party to this Tariff, he would have assisted to keep the Art of other countries out of Australia. He would have kept everybody out who was not prepared to join the particular union to which he belonged; and, in fact, he would have gone back to that condition which has made of the Chinese a thoroughly effete people. The honorable member, as I say, is a type, but I do not think it is a numerous type, because the bulk of Protectionists are rational Protectionists. They base their belief on the well-known theory that it is necessary in a new country to place some restrictions on the importation of. goods from other countries in order to give local industries st chance to get on their feet. We often hear Mill talked of as having justified Protection. I think I know Mill as well as most people ; and what he said was that it might be necessary in some young countries to afford Some protection by means of moderate duties on imports. But he went on to say that there should come a time, not very far ahead, when the industries of a young country had organized their labour and modernized their machinery ; and then the duties should be gradually reduced, and ultimately withdrawn, so that the young industries might be called upon to compete with the industries of the older countries in order to give the people their commodities at the cheapest possible price. But the idea of building a Tariff wall such as the honorable member for Corio suggested, is one which does not occur to a very large number of sane people out of doors. He indorsed what seems to have become a rather popular idea, and one of which I approved many years ago - that oi appointing a Tariff board.

Sir William Lyne:

– Of course the honorable member did.

Mr BRUCE SMITH:
PARKES, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– The honorable member for Hume knows that I did.

Sir William Lyne:

– The honorable member would approve of the appointment of a board at any time in order to get rid of responsibility.

Mr BRUCE SMITH:
PARKES, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– I would do so in order to get rid of a function which it is impossible for Parliament to discharge. We might just as well call upon Parliament to determine the living rates of wage for all the industries of Australia, as to require it to decide the duties which ought to be levied upon the thousand and one commodities which come into this country. That is essentially the work of an outside commission. We cannot ask Parliament to manage our railways. That work must be delegated. We are here as legislators, and we cannot enter into all the details connected with the imposition of the different duties which spring from the laws that we enact. The honorable member for Hume stated the other day that Bismarck had evolved a Tariff from his own brain. I have a work here, however, which shows that the German Tariff was the result of many years of thought and investigation on the part of a commission. Writing of the system adopted in framing a Tariff in the United States as well as in other countries, the author refers to the preparation of the German Tariff in this way -

There a body of twenty experts worked five years in the preparation of the German Tariff, consulting in that time 2,000 other experts. Their inquiry was exhaustive, non-partisan, and semi- judicial. No proof, no Protection, was their requirement, the nicest possible balance was made between all interests, domestic and foreign.

Sir William Lyne:

– Let the honorable member quote Bismarck’s old speeches and he will see what he did.

Mr BRUCE SMITH:
PARKES, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– It is quite possible that Bismarck possessed some qualities similar to those which are possessed by the honorable member, and that he was prepared to boast of having done something which it took five men five years to accomplish. I have no hesitation in saying that the honorable member for Hume has neither the time, the knowledge, nor the ability to evolve a Tariff from his own inner consciousness. He would have to depend upon Commonwealth officers if he undertook such a task. I believe that a commission ought to be appointed, consisting of men unconnected with any business which is likely to profit as the result of the operation of a Tariff. I have always favoured such a commission, and I believe in the general principle of Parliament delegating details - whether they relate to railway management or the management of a bank, or of a note issue - to outside bodies so that we may devote ourselves entirely to the more abstract questions of legislation. I am happy to say that one newspaper iri this city has now come round to that way of thinking.

Sir William Lyne:

– I am not happy about it.

Mr BRUCE SMITH:
PARKES, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– I was not thinking of him. I know that three or four years ago, when the Age opposed the appointment of a Tariff Commission, he also opposed it. But that journal has now changed its attitude, and is advocating the creation of a Tariff board.

Mr Finlayson:

– How long is it likely to continue its advocacy?

Mr PARKER MOLONEY:
INDI, VICTORIA · ALP

– Only yesterday it said that it had always advocated the creation of a board.

Mr BRUCE SMITH:
PARKES, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– Exactly. When a man is constantly reminding one that he has always said a certain thing, one begins to wonder how long he has said it. Similarly, when I read the article which’ appeared in the Age yesterday, I would have been suspicious as to how long that journal has held its present opinion if I had not known. But I do not intend to discuss all these abstractions. One might speak for days upon this subject, but towards the close of the session to do so would be out of place. Only a few weeks ago the Minister of Trade and Customs told us that he had issued an invitation to the manufacturers of Australia to supply him with statements of their financial position. I was Very glad to hear that; because when the last Tariff was under consideration I made certain quotations in regard to the hat industry with a view to showing that a certain company was paying a 10 per cent, dividend, putting aside 10 per cent, to a reserve fund, and that its j£i shares were quoted on the market at 38s. Yet it was crying for more protection, otherwise it would be ruined.

Mr Tudor:

– To what company is the honorable member referring?

Mr BRUCE SMITH:
PARKES, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– I am speaking of the Denton Hat Mills, whose balancesheet I had in my hand at the time. That company’s shares then stood at almost 100 per cent, above par, and yet it claimed a considerable increase in the measure of protection extended to it, notwithstanding that it was getting sufficiently high prices to enable it to make these profits. When I heard the Minister say that he had invited our manufacturers to supply him with their balance-sheets, I was extremely pleased, because I recollect that the last Tariff Commission put certain witnesses before it through their facings by convicting them of lying in respect of some of their statements. Some few weeks ago I asked the Minister how many responses he had received to his circular.

Mr Tudor:

– I did not send out a circular to any manufacturer. I merely made a public notification.

Mr BRUCE SMITH:
PARKES, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– I was under the impression that a circular had been issued. At any rate, a public invitation was given which the manufacturers no doubt saw. I think that at the time I asked my question the Minister had received about forty responses.

Mr Tudor:

– Over a hundred have been received now.

Mr BRUCE SMITH:
PARKES, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– I fully expected that the Minister would not have embarked upon the opening up of the Tariff until he had satisfied himself that the operations of our manufacturers were resulting in loss. But he has told us - and it must have struck honorable members as rather strange - that although he requires information as to their financial position as a condition precedent to granting them increased protection, he denies our right to have the facts placed before us.

Mr J H Catts:

– They are all ex parte statements anyhow.

Mr BRUCE SMITH:
PARKES, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– I know that they are. But if they disclose profits one may reasonably accept them as being pretty accurate. The Minister has said, in effect, “ Before any individual shall have the advantage of increased duties he will have to show me what is his financial position.” But if it be essential that the Minister should get this information before he proposes to grant an increased measure of protection to any industry, surely it is equally essential that we should be supplied with that information before we can indorse his proposals.

Mr Mathews:

– The honorable member wishes him to give away confidences.

Mr BRUCE SMITH:
PARKES, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– Surely it is just as necessary that we, who are asked to vote for additional duties, should know the position, as it is that the Minister who proposes those duties, should know it. The Minister of Trade and Customs is not imposing the duty; he is proposing to us that we should impose it, and if he thought it necessary to know these particulars, surely we ought to know them. We ought to be guided by the principle that, unless the manufacturer can show that the present duty fails to enable him to make ends meet in the prosecution of his industry, he should be refused any increased protection. We do not exist here merely for the sake of bolstering up industries. We are here to watch the public interest, and if we are satisfied that- a manufacturer is making sufficient profit to enable him to supply the public at a certain price, we ought not deliberately to give him more protection in order to make a further profit out of the public. Therefore the Minister, although he may have obtained certain knowledge from the manufacturers, has wholly failed either to give us the same knowledge, or to indicate to us the fact that he is satisfied that every one of the industries in connexion with which he is proposing extra duty is not making what he considers a fair profit under the existing duty.

Mr Webster:

– I am- more interested in the question whether the manufacturers are paying a fair “ divvy “ to the men they are employing.

Mr BRUCE SMITH:
PARKES, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– I admit that that is a fair question, but I do not think honorable members opposite quite realize this aspect : When you establish, in a country like Australia, Wages Boards or Arbitration Courts in each State, and also a Federal Arbitration Court, all with the one objective - to see that the men have a living wage - what more new Protection can you want? Supposing that Judge Higgins has been empowered by this Parliament to inquire into the McKay industry, what more could he have done than to give a fair living wage? Surely the House would not entertain the idea that wages are to be regulated by the profits of an industry? If they are, they would also have to be reduced whenever there was a loss in the business, because you cannot have your cake and eat it too. When Judge Cohen undertook the first arbitration case in New South Wales some years ago, he discovered at the end of his inquiry that the Steamship Company with whose affairs he was dealing, had ,£2,000 to the credit of some of their reserve funds. He said, “ If that is the case we shall have to go into the matter further,” but it was pointed out on the other side, that if he were to raise the wages in that particular business because the employers had made more profits, it would be necessary to lower wages when he came to his next arbitration case, if he found that the employer was losing. The result would be the fixing of a different scale of wages in different kinds of business all over the country. He then recognised that the living wage must not depend either upon the profits or the losses of a business; that if the business could not pay a living wage that was its misfortune, and that if it could pay a living wage and make a profit, it was its good fortune. I come back now to the question of what better new Protection we can have than that which is granted to the workers of Australia by the Arbitration Courts and Wages Boards .of the different States and the Arbitration Court of the Commonwealth. The ground has been taken from under the feet of those people who are constantly clamouring for new Protection.

Mr Archibald:

– Where does the consumer come in?

Mr BRUCE SMITH:
PARKES, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– I am not dealing with the consumer just now, but the worker is a very large consumer, and if he is given good wages it means giving him some consideration with regard to the Tariff because he is given an increased purchasing power.

Mr Webster:

– The Wages Board came to a determination in the McKay case, but it had no effect.

Mr BRUCE SMITH:
PARKES, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– The case of the men -in McKay’s industry could come either under the State Wages Board or under the Commonwealth Arbitration Court.

Mr Spence:

– It came under the Commonwealth Arbitration Court, which could not enforce its .decision.

Mr BRUCE SMITH:
PARKES, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– Because the attempt was made under a totally different Act, which was held to be ultra vires. I cannot see where the new Protection is coming in if we have effectual Arbitration Courts or Wages Boards in the States and an effectual Arbitration Court in the Commonwealth, all having for their objective the giving of a living wage. I do not see where we could go any further, even if we had some further idea called new Protection.

Mr Fenton:

– What about the differing wages in the different States?

Mr BRUCE SMITH:
PARKES, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– The previous Government proposed to vest the Inter-State Commission with power to assimilate the wages fixed by the different State tribunals. The differences are not very great at present. If they were I should indorse any attempt to bring about some assimilation according to the conditions of each State. In Tasmania, for instance, people can live just as happily, and much more cheaply and simply, than in some of the more closely-packed States, and it would be obviously unfair to handicap a State of that sort.

Mr J H Catts:

– That is not correct.

Mr BRUCE SMITH:
PARKES, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– Every Tasmanian will tell the honorable member the same. The question before us is : Are we going to rip up the Tariff ? One honorable member said, in answer to the honorable member for Lang, that it was not being ripped up, but the honorable member for Lang replied that when once the floodgates of the Tariff are opened, every honorable member is given the opportunity of proposing some fresh duty, and where is it going to end ? We are within ten days of Christmas, and we have not yet started upon the consideration of the details of the question. The Tariff is much like the chain stitch in a sewing machine. If you once undo the end the whole thing may be ripped up in a moment. If we had eonfined ourselves to obvious anomalies we should have made very short work of it.

Mr Webster:

– We cannot go beyond the schedule before us.

Mr BRUCE SMITH:
PARKES, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– I am not sure of that.

Mr J H Catts:

– The Chairman said so.

Mr BRUCE SMITH:
PARKES, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– I should be very glad if the Chairman laid it down that no new duties could be proposed.

Mr J H Catts:

– He has ruled that no higher duties can be proposed by a private member.

Mr BRUCE SMITH:
PARKES, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– Have you ruled, Mr. Poynton, that no fresh duties can be proposed?

Sir William Lyne:

– No private member can propose fresh duties.

Mr BRUCE SMITH:
PARKES, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– I am glad to hear it, as it will very much shorten our work. Why have pianos been selected as a subject for increased duty? Why has one of the amusements of the people been singled out ? I remember being told, not personally, but by deputy, that one of the manufacturers of pianos in this country, when embarking upon the industry, wanted no duty at. all. However, he has not only taken the 20 and 25 per cent. but wants more now. Why should the duty on pianos be increased?

Sitting suspended from 1 to 2.30p.m.

Mr BRUCE SMITH:
PARKES, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– To my mind, it is of great importance that we should, so far as possible, have certainty in regard to the Tariff ; it is undesirable, in the interests of importers, manufacturers, and the community generally, that the duties should be constantly changing. I remember a great Judge once saying that it is more important that the law should be certain than that it should be wise, the logical application of the remark being that when a law is certain the people get to know it, and understand it, and adapt themselves to it. The observation applies with great force to a Tariff. Bearing in mind the myriad ramifications of trade and commerce, and the enormous trouble involved to all classes by alterations of duty,we should hesitate before amending a Tariff. The schedule now under discussion may be divided into two parts : the proposals for the correction of anomalies, to which, if they are obviously needed, there can be no objection, and the proposals relating to a number of items which have been picked out of the former Tariff to be altered, as though the industries to which they relate have special claims for consideration. In regard to the timber duties, I happen to know that, by reason of the differencebetween the duty on dressed timber, which is 2s. 6d. per 100 feet, and that on undressed timber, which is 6d. per 100 feet, a large number of persons are now engaged in this country in dressing imported timber for the various purposes for which it is used.

Mr Sinclair:

– The duty on dressed timber is 2s. 6d. super face, which is equivalent to 5s.

Mr BRUCE SMITH:
PARKES, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– The effect of increasing the duty on undressed timber as now proposed will be that 200 or more men in New South Wales alone employed in dressing timber will be thrown out of employment. Whether a difference should have been made originally between dressed and undressed timber is a matter that does not concern me now; I merely point out that the effect of increasing the duty on undressed timber will be to throw a large number of persons out of employment, and to largely disorganize trade between New Zealand and Australia. No doubt many arguments can be advanced in support of the proposal of the Government, but a great many more can be urged in rebuttal of them. With regard to anomalies, where the Minister satisfies me that adjustments are required to give consistency in the administration of the Tariff, 1 shall vote with him; but I shall oppose all alterations of items not involving the rectification of anomalies.

Mr ARCHIBALD:
Hindmarsh

– It is to be regretted that the Government did not introduce this Tariff schedule earlier, to give honorable members more time in which to make personal inquiry regarding its probable effects. Of course, we have been deluged with information, from many sources, but men of experience know that such information must be taken with a pinch of salt, and I shall hesitate to support proposals of the reasonableness of which I am not firmly convinced. Probably it would have been well for the Government to confine its attention this session to the rectification of anomalies. Where a Customs officer finds it extremely difficult under the law as it stands to deal justly with importers and the public, there should be an alteration of the Tariff, because our law should be as clear as possible, in the interests of the community and of the revenue. Not much is to be gained by an abstract discussion now of the merits of Free Trade and Protection. .One’s fiscal views depend largely on environment, wealth, and other considerations, and I therefore shall not enter upon a discussion for which I am not now in the mood, and which you, sir, would probably not relish. There are, however, one or two items to which I wish to draw attention. In the first place, 1 desire to point out that ‘the manufacture of superphosphates is not sufficiently protected, local factories not being kept fully occupied. That is the case in South Australia.

Mr RICHARD FOSTER:
WAKEFIELD, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917; LP from 1922; NAT from 1925

– The owner of the Adelaide Chemical Works, has. made an enormous .fortune, which the honorable member would make still bigger. What about those who have to pay the duties?’

Mr ARCHIBALD:

– The importation of superphosphates into South Australia amounts to 35,000 tons, 11,000 tons coming from Japan, the value of the importation being £41,000; 7,000 tons, valued .at £; 2-8, 000, coming from. Holland; 1,000 tons, valued at £4,000, from Germany; and 16,000 tons, valued at ,£60,000, from the United Kingdom, making in all 35,000 tons, valued at £133,000. This is nearly double the capacity of the South Australian works, of which there are two in Adelaide. The local product is worth to farmers from 5s. to 7s. 6d. a ton more than the imported article,- because it. is free running, is put up in new bags, and is manufactured, from a higher grade of phosphate rock than is used in Europe. The wages paid in the industry in Japan some time ago was iod. a day, and is now is. 3d., as against a minimum of 8s. a day here, and an average of os-. The- money invested in works and stock in Australia is over £t ,000,000, and the objection of the Country party to an increase of duty can be met by a guarantee that prices will not be raised. Victoria imports from 4,000 to 5,000 tons of superphosphates annually, the value of the importation being from £16,000 to £20.000. New South Wales imports 5,500 tons from Japan, valued at £18,000; and from- Germany 2,000 tons, valued at £7,000; or, altogether, 7,500 tons, valued at £25,000. Western Australia imports 14,000 tons from the United Kingdom, valued at £52,000; 1,000 tons from Holland, valued at .£3.625 ; and 100 tons from Sweden, valued’ at .£375 ; or; altogether 15,100 tons, valued at £56.000. The Victorian plant of the Mount Lyell Company is: a paying concern; because it is worked up tto its full capacity ; but the South Australian works have an output equal to only half .their capacity, and as one of the conditions of success in manufacturing is the keeping of plant fully employed, they are not so profitable as they should be.’ I would not be a party to increasing prices to the farmers. With me the interests of the consumers, as well as those of the workers, have to be protected. In the days of Gladstone and Bright, and the great Free Traders of England, it used to be said that a study of the interests of consumers would settle this question.. The founders of Free Trade laid that down as a dictum,, but it is one with whichI do not agree. The interests of the workers are surely of some importance,, and we have to remember that all consumers are not workers. If they were there might be some force in this FreeTrade dictum-.

Mr Roberts:

– As a rule the man who consumes the most works the least.

Mr ARCHIBALD:

– Quite so. As Bismarck accurately put it on one occasion, all that the man who consumes the most usually does is to cut coupons and sign receipts. He may be in some cases a- very hard working man, but as a rule he is not. I do not say that the Government should deal to-day with the Tariff as a whole, but these piecemeal alterations are very unsatisfactory. I should be disposed to support part of a. session being set aside for a! thorough consideration: of. the Tariff, and I certainly- think that these- homoeopathic doses of Tariff revision are most, undesirable. I acquit, the Minister of Trade and Customs of any but. the most honorablemotives in attempting, to deal with what is undoubtedly one of the most difficult problems that a man could- be called upon to solve. In. dealing with the Tariff he hasmy full sympathy. I know the difficulties with which he has to contend, and am inclined to consider that having regard to those difficulties the schedule which he has presented to us- is not wholly unsatisfactory. I think, however, that he has beenguilty of an error of judgment in trying to obtain accurate information regarding the position of manufacturers and their need of Protection by inviting them to furnish the Department with returns. There may. be in any industry in Australia two large companies carrying on business and three or four proprietary, companies. A public company is required to furnish every year a balance-sheet ‘ for the information of its shareholders, and under the Companies Law has to make returns from time to time as to its position. While those returns may not furnish all the information that we should like to have, we know that proprietary companies - and their name is legion - do not publish balance-sheets. Where they do I would not say that they are “ fakes,” but they are sometimes misleading from the point of view of the public.

Mr Roberts:

– The Argus recently published an article to the effect that such balan.ce-shee.ts are sometimes “ faked.”

Mr ARCHIBALD:

– I do not say that proprietary companies “ fake “ balancesheets, but it* ;s. possible that in some cases th,ey do, and their doings are certainly a sealed book to us,. A public company, when asked, for information by the Minister, would readily furnish trim with a copy of its balance-sheet, but when a, similar appeal is. made to a proprietary company the reply generally received is, “ We are doing very well. We do not want to bother, you,, and don’t you, bother us.” ye. as, a Parliament, (^sequently.-, bare npt the information concerning, many industries that we. ought to hav.e, and I think that an effort should be made in future to over.come is. difficulty. More than one industry could make out a *prima facie ease for Protection or for an increase of Protection, but for the action of proprietary companies engaged in them which decline to furnish returns. I arn pledged to the new Protection, and regret that the referenda went against what I- believe to be the best interests of the- country. I trust that at the next referendum Australians will recognise the. absolute necessity of enabling the Commonwealth Parliament to. deal, with a question of this kind on a truly sound basis. 1 do not dispute the right of my fellow citizens to determine who shall sit. in this Parliament, and what powers shall be given to it, but I respectfully differ from the conclusion at which the majority arrived last. April. The fact that our referenda proposals were defeated does not absolve us from, dealing with the question of Protection. It may hamper us, but it woul’d npt justify, ‘us in putting aside this question. The Leader. t of the Opposition: very naturally strongly favours the appointment qf; a- Board of Trade to collect information for our guidance in’ dealing with the Tariff; but while such a Board might be of some u.se to us., I think that we should obtain still better resultsfrom the creation .of some such tribunal as that presided over by Mr. Justice Higgins, or- the Arbitration Court which was cooducted in New South Wales under an Act that recently expired by effluxion of time. A Wages Board means a “higgle” and a “ haggle “ between representatives of theemployers and tlie employes. The average working man is not fully competent to gO’ into the question of the profits of an individual firm, and until we know what are the profits, of any particular enterprise we cannot be in a position to do justice indetermining what wages should be paid in that industry. Such a tribunal as that to which I have referred, however, would be able to furnish the Government with information as to profits, as well as to the wages, that could be paid by any industry. Whilst I am in favour of the payment of good wages, I certainly object to an employer being allowed, on the plea that he is paying good wages, to plunder the public. Wages, Boards, give us industrial peace from day to d.ay, but the tribunal that I have in mind w.ould give us, in addition, valuable information that would enable us to frame a Tariff on sound lines. The Arbitration Court of Ne,w South Wales was all very well so long as it confined its. attention to brick works and kindred industries, but assoon as it began to inquire into the profitsof such leviathan business, enterprises as. Hordern’s and Lassetters it was time to wipe it off the face of- the earth, and it was accordingly wipe.d off ! Arbitration Court Judges are sworn, to secrecy, and they learn, much. from, the books, of various firms as to their actual position. Information so obtained is for the guidance of the presiding Judge in determining what wages should be paid in an industry, but it would be a good thing to pass legislation providing that the Judge of such a Court should, under the bond of secrecy, convey information so obtained to the Minister of Tradeand Customs. The Minister would then be in a much better position to deal with Tariff questions than he would be if a board of trade were- appointed. Recognising that we have to build up this country on protective lines, we want reliable information that will enable us to work, in the first, place, in the interests of the public, private interests receiving only secondary consideration. I trust that the Minister will not condemn an industry merely because of the silence of any proprietary company interested in it concerning its profits. I have no desire to talk at large on this question, but there are in this schedule one or two items which I cannot support. For instance, I object to the proposed duty on American stoves and heaters. When a man is able to say of his own knowledge that the course proposed by the Government in respect of one item is wrong he might be inclined, following a rule of thumb, to say that he can place no reliance on other proposals affecting matters of which he knows nothing. Whilst I do not take up that position, I should like to know on what grounds this duty on American gas stoves and heaters can be justified. They are not made in Australia, but are imported very largely. It is quite likely that they are made by the Standard Oil Company of the United States of America, but they axe used for cooking purposes in nearly every small household during a season of the year when a fire is not required to warm a room. Every economic housewife knows their value, yet it is proposed to impose a duty upon them because in some obscure part of Australia there may be four men and a boy employed in making a certain class of stove. I am not now referring to the stoves in which wood and coal are burnt, or which might be more correctly described as consuming wood and coal, and consuming them with a vengeance. I do not object to a duty in order to pro[ect : an Australian industry, but where there is no competition, and the proposal amounts to a revenue impost, I regard it as a big mistake. As to flannelette, I should like to see the last yard of it imported, because I regard it as the mostdangerous fabric that could possibly be worn, and in our climate it is absolutely necessary that woollen garments should be worn next the skin. We are told that there has been discovered a process to make flannelette non-inflammable.

Mr FRANK FOSTER:
NEW ENGLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Only until after the flannelette is washed.

Mr ARCHIBALD:

– Although I should like to see the importation of flannelette prohibited, we have to recollect that, it is worn by the poorest of our brethren; and, therefore, I shall be no party to any increased duty. Personally, I should not, under any circumstances, wear a garment made of flannelette; but I refuse to inflict a great injustice on die poorest of

Australians, because of my strong opinions or prejudices. There are other items to which I might refer, but I have no desire to prolong the debate. I hope that, in the future, the Minister, when seeking information, will see that no industry is handicapped by the withholding of Protection or increased Protection, simply because no representations are made to him by those concerned.

Mr GROOM:
Darling Downs

.- I regret that the Minister of Trade and Customs did not introduce this Customs schedule at a much earlier stage. He has had some eighteen months in which to investigate the matter; and, as a fact, inquiry into Tariff anomalies was begun immediately after the passing of the Tariff of 1907-8. Inquiry has proceeded continuously ever since; and, under the circumstances, this proposed revision of the Tariff should have been submitted, at the very latest, at the beginning of this session. Its introduction at this late hour is unfair both to the industries concerned and to the members of this Parliament ; and it is particularly unfair to the people of the outlying States. In Victoria, when a revision of the Tariff is introduced, those engaged in the industries affected are able, in a day or two, to come here and interview members personally ; but the case is very different with Western Australia and Queensland. I doubt whether in the northern State the people have yet realized that the new Tariff is in operation. In Brisbane the fact may be appreciated, but those concerned in the tropical industries far north and west, may not understand the effect of the new proposals for weeks to come.

Mr J H Catts:

– Did they not get notice that the Tariff was to be submitted?

Mr GROOM:

– The only notice was that in the Governor-General’1: speech, to the effect that Tariff revision was receiving consideration. And when we are given any information it is in the form of the schedule now before us. It was introduced only about a fortnight ago; and we are plunged immediately into a discussion of how it affects related industries - how industries may be handicapped by the taxation of their raw materials, and a multitude of other phases, lt is utterly impossible to expect anything of substance to be done in the time at our disposal. If honorable members would honestly state their minds they would declare that, until the Minister explains each of the items and its effect, they are not in a position to form any final opinion upon all the varied subjects submitted. I franky admit that I approach this question considerably, handicapped in the absence of any material on which to come to a conclusion. How can honorable members be omniscient in regard to the importations and manufactures df a continent? The Minister is not able to give us that fair judicial determination suggested by the honorable member for Hindmarsh, with whose utterances I find myself very much in agreement. That honorable member declares that what is required for the discussion of the Tariff is the judicial determination by some body empowered, to make investigation ; and I am sure that honorable members on both sides would welcome a non-partisan inquiry of the kind carried out on some definite principle. In this connexion I should like to refer honorable members to the experience in the United States. There the Republican party as protectionists set themselves to define some definite guiding principle for the Tariff, and’ this is what they arrived at -

In all Tariff legislation the true principle of Protection is best maintained by the imposition ‘ of such duties as will equal the difference between the cost of production at home and abroad, together with a reasonable profit to American industries.

That, I think, is a principle that would guide any judicial body which set itself to investigate Australian industries on protective lines. We have to consider the cost of production abroad and in Australia, the relative wages paid, and so forth. As soon as Congress met in 1909 it was sought to apply this principle, with the result that great difficulties were met with. Where had the information to be obtained ? How could Congress investigate the cost of production abroad? What means was there of estimating that cost, even within her own borders? Congress then turned to a suggestion, which has been made in Australia before, to appoint a non-partisan judicial body to make an investigation. Australia, as a whole, has decided on a protective policy; and the question is now the fair and just application of that policy in the interests of all concerned.

Mr J H Catts:

– Claims ought to be submitted to a tribunal before which .objectors can come.

Mr GROOM:

– Possibly ; and in the United States the suggestion was to ap point a permanent non-partisan judicial commission. A proposal to that effect came before Congress, but, unfortunately, no definite Act was passed giving the complete powers desired. Congress contented itself with giving the President authority to appoint persons to assist him in the application of the maximum and minimum provisions of the Tariff and in the administration. This was followed by the appointment of the Tariff Board, consisting cif Mr., Emery as chairman, and Messrs. Reynolds and Saunders as members. This arrangement, though] not so complete as that intended, represents a considerable step forward in the direction of an investigation, for the first time in the history of the United States, on definite scientific lines. The members of this Tariff Board have travelled abroad in their search for information; and certainly, if local industries are confronted with serious competition from over the seas, such an investigation comes within the scope of a body of the kind. In the discussion of the Tariff here we have vague statements of an ex parte character from one side or the other as to wages and conditions abroad; and it was with a knowledge of this that the late Government proposed to hand over the duty of investigation to the Inter- State Commission, which is contemplated by the Constitution.

Mr Archibald:

– The Inter-State Commission does not do this work in the United States.

Mr GROOM:

– That is so, but the late Government proposed to ask the Inter- State Commission to do it in Australia. As a matter of fact, the Inter- State Commission in the United States does make investigations in relation to transport and other phases of trade and commerce, and the late Government proposed to empower the Australian Inter-State Commission to inquire as to the way in which various organizations carried on their operations. Certainly the InterState Commission, as suggested, would have had all the necessary powers of adjudication and administration, seeing that it would be able to call witnesses, and would preserve trade secrets, and so forth. Under our Conciliation and Arbitration Act, the President of the Court is empowered to keep such matters secret if necessary. The honorable member for Hindmarsh very properly pointed out that in dealing with the Tariff we have not only to regard the putting on or taking off of duties ; we must consider industries in their relation to other industries and to trade and commerce generally. We can, under the Constitution, give the Inter-State Commission definite powers with respect to trade and commerce, and if it had bean given the powers that we suggested it would have been quite able to assist us in that respect. We were quite prepared to intrust the Inter- State Commission with powers of administration and adjudication in relation to trusts and combinations, which are really the particular form of action in relation to trade and commerce by which the consumer is most affected. Had the .scheme we proposed been carried out honorable members on both sides would have had all they have been asking for in this debate.

Mr Wise:

– Why did you not carry it out?

Mr GROOM:

– The electors were against it.

Mr Wise:

– Excuse me.

Mr GROOM:

– The honorable member and those with him were against us.

Mr Tudor:

– Why did you not do it before you were turned out of office?

Mr GROOM:

– The Bill was introduced in the Senate.

Mr Wise:

– And deliberately dropped there.

Mr GROOM:

– I do not wish to go into controversial matters, but during the few months we were in office we passed correspondingly as much useful legislation as was passed in any preceding session. We could not accomplish everything. Will the honorable member for Gippsland find fault with the present Government because in the four months of this session they have not carried out everything they promised in the Governor-General’s speech?

Mr Wise:

– No; but I find fault-

Mr GROOM:

– Of course, the honorable member will not find fault with them; but I must not continue that theme. I believe honorable members opposite will ultimately -come round to the idea of the appointment of a Tariff board.-

Mr Mathews:

– Do you think we are like the Age newspaper - always changing and chopping about on the subject?

Mr GROOM:

– I recognise that the honorable member has just as much ability as the Age has. We are all agreed regarding the necessity of this tribunal. Our difficulty is that the Government now ask us to deal with a Tariff schedule which may possibly create more anomalies than it repairs.

Mr J H Catts:

– A good reason for leaving it alone this session.

Mr GROOM:

– I say that if you are going to do it, it should be done thoroughly. This in only patchwork, and we are informed tentatively, or by suggestion, that it is only a first instalment. Perhaps it is hardly fair to ask the Minister whether it represents his complete programme of Tariff reforms? So defective is the information supplied to us, that we are not even given the statistical returns showing the amount of importations in the case of each industry. The Minister proceeded in a very proper way when dealing with the sugar industry, which is affected by the Customs and Excise duties. He appointed a Commission to inquire into all its ramifications, and it will take that body nearly nine months to finish its task. ‘ The method of procedure in that case was that of judicial investigation and determination in order to .give the House the requisite knowledge to enable it to act with understanding. That is the right way to go to work; but this Tariff is simply thrown upon the table, with the most fragmentary explanation by the Minister, and members have to express opinions upon it very tentatively, or wait until the Minister is pleased to explain which of the items are anomalies and which have a Protective incidence, and what industries, if any, are so languishing as to necessitate immediate action. All that sort of thing has to be dealt with on the spur of the moment just before we go to a division. This puts us at a .great disadvantage, and I hope the Minister will try during the recess to devise a scheme by which the House will be able in future to legislate on these matters with knowledge, and not in the dark as we are now doing.

Mr WISE:
Gippsland

.- It is needless to say that, being a thorough believer in the policy of Protection, I am very dissatisfied that we have not had a complete revision of the Tariff’ this session. At the same time I recognise that it is of no use to cry over the matter at this stage of the session, and that we must ‘be thankful for the small mercies we have received in the Tariff now before us. I cordially indorse the hope of the Leader of the Opposition, who spoke, no doubt, for himself and not for his .party, that there will foe a thorough revision of the Tariff next session.

Mr Roberts:

– He said he spoke for his party, but they have all denied it.

Mr WISE:

– Even itf he said so, we all know that he could not speak for his party on the fiscal issue. It is interesting to note that several Free Trade members on the Opposition side have stated that they recognise that Protection is the settled policy of the country. At the same time I hope that Protectionists will not be lulled by those remarks into any false sense of security, because the honorable member for Parkes, for instance, afterwards said he hoped in his day to see Australia practically return to a revenue Tariff. If the honorable member has such a hope, he will, no doubt, endeavour to give effect to it. It simply means that the Protectionists have to trust to themselves and not to Free Traders in the administration of the Tariff, or in giving effect to the policy of Protection.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– The honorable member is trusting to a Free Trade Administration just now.

Mr WISE:

– The honorable member must know that I am quite as dissatisfied with the fact that there are Free Traders on this side as with the fact that there are Free Traders on that. But the present Government are doing a little, whereas the last Government did nothing. They told us that they would deal with Tariff anomalies, but they did not do it, and had they remained in power we should have still been in the same position. Something has been said about the appointment of a board, but we must be very careful how we hand over the government of the country to board after board. If we do, there will be no necessity for Parliament at all. While a Tariff board might be able to gather a good deal of information, I should like to know where their duties would begin and end. The honorable member for Darling Downs spoke of a. non-partisan judicial commission, but no one imagines that we could obtain any nonpartisan board on the fiscal question. Every man who becomes a member of it will be originally a Free Trader or a Protectionist. What is the board to do? Is it to follow the American idea, which, by the way, the American Board did not carry out? Is it to inquire into all the minute details, comparing the effect of one duty with another, and then go to other countries to take evidence? I could quite understand a Free Trader supporting sucha proposal, because it would simply mean that we should never have any revision of. the Tariff. How much of the evidence gathered by the board would be placed before the House? We are told that its members should be at liberty to take evidence on oath, and be sworn to a certain amount of secrecy ; but is not that just the trouble With 1 the present Minister ? Did not the honorable member for Illawarra attack him last night on that very ground? The honorable member asked, “ Where is the evidence on which the Minister hasbrought in this Tariff?” The reply was that the Minister had obtained it confidentially, and the honorable member then asked: “Are we not to hear it?” The same thing would be said when the Tariff board brought in its report. All that the board would do would be to bring in certain findings, and we should never be able to see the most important part of the evidence taken by them. If the Government accepted the findings of the board, we should have everybody who was dissatisfied with them hunting us in the lobbies and the halls, as they are doing now. I should be quite prepared to support the appointment of a board in order that it might get us some information, but I do not see how it is to take the place of this Parliament, or how it can take away from the Government of the day the responsibility of recommending a Tariff to this Parliament, or take away from this Parliament the responsibility of passing it through.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– No one has suggested that.

Mr WISE:

– If we are to canvass and dispute the findings of the board, and are to have people waiting upon us to lay before us evidence that those findings are incorrect, while we cannot get the confidential evidence which enabled the board to make those findings, where are we to get finality ? I am sorry the honorable member for Darling Downs is not present, because I wish to refer to the question of the Inter-State Commission, regarding which I interjected, when he was speaking, “ Why did not your Government appoint it?” The honorable member for Lang and others have spoken about what the Opposition proposed to do in vesting the Inter- StateCommission with the powers of a Tariff’ board. Why, then, did they not appoint the Inter-State Commission? That has been my puzzle to this day, and I have never heard it solved. The previous Government not only failed to deal with the Tariff, and even with anomalies, but they did not appoint this precious Tariff board or Inter-State Commission, which is the only means they can propose for settling Tariff matters. The honorable member for Darling Downs said, in reply to my interjection, as did the honorable member for Lang, that they were defeated at the elections. I am referring to the time when they were in power before the elections, with majorities in both Houses, and passing anything they liked, while curtailing all discussion by the use of the “ gag.” What is the- use, then, of their saying they could not appoint the Inter-State Commission? The Inter- State Commission Bill, which provided for all the things for which they say they want to provide now, was read a first time in the Senate on the motion of the honorable member for Kooyong, who was then a senator, and Vice-President of the Executive Council, on the ist October. On the 6th October he moved the second reading, and fully explained its principles. It was then debated for one hour and forty-five minutes. On the 13th October it was further debated for three hours thirtyeight minutes, and on the 14th October it was considered from 6.13 p.m. until the Senate suspended its sitting at 6.30 the same night. After that it was never heard of, although Parliament sat until the 8th December - two solid months. Plenty of important matters were in the meantime forced through both Houses, by the Government then in power by the use of their majority and the “gag,” yet this Bill was never touched. What is the good of their saying that they could not have put it through if they liked? If they were sincere or earnest in what they say to-day, the Inter-State Commission would have been an accomplished fact in 1909, but they did not pass the Bill, and now they tell us, “We would have done it if we had been returned to power after the elections. Judging by what happened that year, if they had been returned to power we should have been no further forward than we are. I mention these facts because I am tired of hearing of what they are going to do. It is useless to prolong the present discussion. We cannot cure the position, but must deal with the proposals before us. The honorable member for Darling Downs said that the schedule is so unsatisfactory that we might as well leave it alone, to which two pronounced Free Traders on this side of the House said, “ Hear, hear.” They are in favour of any course that means leaving the Tariff alone. I agree that the schedule is unsatisfactory, but we -must either make the best of it or throw it aside. Personally, I am thankful for small mercies, and I shall be very much surprised if next session a thorough revision of the Tariff is not proposed. When that revision has been made, the Inter- State Commission can be appointed, with authority to watch and investigate the operation of the Tariff, so that in the future Parliament may have more information. To-day we are dealing with the Tariff as we have dealt with former Tariffs, introduced when some of - those who are now in Opposition were in power. Thi? Government has not acted differently from its predecessors.

Mr Groom:

– We admitted the difficulty, and we wished to remove it.

Mr WISE:

– The intention was never carried out.

Mr Groom:

– The honorable member recognises the need for what we proposed?

Mr WISE:

– It would be advantageous to have more information, but Parliament cannot shift its responsibilities on to a commission. It is not to be expected that the finding of any commission or board will be accepted as absolute by Parliament or the people.

Mr KELLY:
Wentworth

.- The honorable member for Gippsland is always interesting upon these occasions, because he can always be counted on to hide the reasons why he supports a Government which is doing nothing by asserting that if the other party were in power it would do nothing.

I shall not address myself to this question from a party stand-point, because its consideration breaks up the normal party divisions. On the Government side, the most intelligent member of the Ministry claimed, a year or two ago, to be a Free Trader. Other Ministers, only less intelligent, have similarly described themselves, while others again are Protectionists. We have the same differences amongst the rank and file, getting down to those who, like the honorable member for Melbourne, proudly vaunt themselves as prohibitionists. On the Opposition side, different Tariff views are held, but the opinions are not so extreme. Here there are no such wild prohibitionists as the honorable member for Melbourne announced himself to be, and none so hopeless of Government action as to suggest, as do Ministerialists, that it is impossible under the existing Constitution to do anything in regard to Tariff management.

Some honorable members who are normally sane become mad at the mention of the exorbitancy or insufficiency of a duty. I do not claim that nothing can be done to develop industry by means of a Tariff. You can get almost anything done, if you pay for it, though it is rarely worth paying excessive prices. For that reason, I have always resisted the proposals of prohibitionists and high Tariffists, and see no reason at this juncture to alter my attitude.

The discussion on a Tariff is sometimes made an opportunity to denounce the country in which we live as incapable of anything, or to denounce that Old Country from which our people have sprung as decaying, because of its faulty fiscal system. I am an Australian, and hope much from its development and increasing prosperity. I have infinite faith in the natural ability of our citizens to increase our resources without the assistance of the heaven-sent legislators to be found in this Chamber ; and I ami proud that my people came from that tight little kingdom, which hag done more than any other country for the spread of civilization. On recently visiting it again, I realized that it is not decaying. Its people are as keen, as active, and as able as those of the country which we have the honour to represent, and the level of its parliamentary and Ministerial intelligence is quite as high as ours. Great Britain’s industrial and commercial development and social organization is superior in many respects to ours.

Mr PARKER MOLONEY:
INDI, VICTORIA · ALP

– What about the submerged tenth, or submerged sixth, as it ought to be called ?

Mr KELLY:

– I’ do not think that its submergence is due to fiscal considerations, seeing that the people of Great Britain, as a whole, are the most prosperous nation on the face of the earth.

The CHAIRMAN:

– I ask the honorable member to confine his remarks to the schedule.

Mr KELLY:

– My excuse for referring to the condition of Great Britain is that similar discussions have been permitted by you, sir, without question. «

The CHAIRMAN:

– The honorable member must hot reflect on the Chair. Whenever an honorable member has ‘gone beyond the limits of an incidental reference to a subject which is irrelevant, I have drawn his attention to the fact.

Mr KELLY:

– The honorable member for Melbourne last night spoke for forty minutes almost wholly upon such subjects as that on which I have just touched.

It is difficult to ascertain whether this schedule has been introduced for the protection of industries’, or the increasing of the revenue. There are proposals for increasing the protection of highly successful industries, while other proposals jeopardize industries.

I believe that no Ministry will ever be able to pass what has been spoken of as a scientific Tariff. Three Tariffs have been passed since I became a member of the House, but never before has a Tariff been introduced at the close of a session, Ministers having to rely on the shades of night to clothe their actions in a suitable darkness. Hitherto Tariff discussion has been in the light of day. Measures involving the taxation of the people have never before been forced through in such a manner as to make it impossible for their criticism to be heard and felt. Parliaments are not fitted to deal properly with Tariff revision. Especially can this be said of a Legislature in which every member is paid, and in which Tariff questions must be considered largely in the light of votes. An industry may be important to the country, and yet have few votes, whilst another, absolutely unimportant to the country, may have manyvotes. What happens in such circumstances ? We find that the industry having the votes gets the most Protection/ whilst the industry that has the greatest claim upon the country gets none.

Mr Higgs:

-n, na[ industry is that?

Mr KELLY:

– When I ‘want to be buried I shall appeal to the honorable member for help,, but until then I hope that he will allow me to proceed.

Mr Higgs:

– There is no wit in that remark.

Mr KELLY:

– The honorable member, by constantly interjecting, has been trying to turn my remarks into a little pleasantry. I am anxious to make them as brief and as useful as possible, and I shall be much obliged-

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order !

Mr KELLY:

– If you, Mr. Chairman, will see that I have a fair run.

The existing Tariff proves conclusively the truth of the remarks I have just addressed to the Chair. Some people hold that Protection is right in principle, while some hold that it is wrong, but if we are going to have Protection it should be commenced on scientific lines. It is of no use seeking to do things for the country in this regard, unless you start from the absolute basis of the raw material. The existing Tariff does not start on that basis. Looking through its innumerable items, one finds countless items dealing, for instance, with the iron and machinery trades, and yet the machinery trades are importing almost every pig of iron used in these protected industries ! The machinery trades employing men in handling iron imported from oversea can bring influence to bear upon these grent Australian patriots, who now talk of prohibition, to make them keep a duty off pig iron, because pig iron from oversea, if you please, is the raw material of the Australian ironworker 1 In the same way we find the man who is working in woollen mills - and in my humble judgment the wool of Australia ought to, and would under natural cond tions, leave Australia’s shores in finished form - getting 20 per cent, or 25 per cent, on the product of his labour, whilst everything that he has to buy - from hoots and clothing for himself, and swaddling-clothes for his children, down to coffins for his parents - is taxed at infinitely higher rates. Thus, on the net balance we find that by giving 40 per cent, duties on everything that a woollen worker wants, and 25 per cent, on the product of his toil, we are actually hampering one of the great industries within the Australian Commonwealth !

Generally speaking, we find throughout the Tariff what I might call the raw materials of the worker - his actual living necessities - invariably taxed up to the hilt. Tn the proposals now submitted to us, not only is there no provision for the alleviation of that position, but we are to go a little further down the bad road of unscientific Protection, along which we have hitherto travelled. Tn the past, I believe an effort - if I may associate that term with the honorable member for Hume - has been made to arrive at a scientific Tariff. The honorable member for Hume brought in. the existing Tariff, and I am the more ready to believe that there was, perhaps, something sensible in it, because he had such infinite difficulty in explaining it to the Committee of those days. If it was a perfect instrument, as first introduced, it had certainly ceased to be anything better than a mere nest of anomalies by the time it left this Chamber. That was due to the fact that the same persons were not dealing with the Tariff from the time that it was introduced until it left our charge. Honor- able members who are new to this business will see the same thing occur again in connexion with the schedule now before us. A- full Committee deals with one item, and the will of the Committee is therefore obtained in regard to’ it.. On the next item, which, perhaps, is closely related to it. however, a catch division is. taken - and so the clumsy machinery of Government control of Tariffs goes stupidly upon its way. The pressure sought to be exercised by mere voting strength upon what ought to be the national intelligence of this Chamber blocks a scientific Tariff in one direction; and parliamentary methods of procedure have blocked a scientific Tariff in another. In my humble judgment we shall never obtain from a House of Parliament anything approaching a scientific Tariff, even if the whole of the people of Australia unanimously declares that Protection is the only salvation of this country.

This question needs to be dealt with by a board whose whole business in life it shall be to examine into what industries require; a board that can be relied upon not to divulge trade secrets whose integrity can be relied upon not to give undeserved profits to manufacturers at the expense of the people, and whose fairmindedness can be relied upon not to be swayed by mere hatred of oversea products. Such a board would inquire constantly into what was necessary if we wanted Protection for some of the industries of the Australian people. Such a board would send out a Tariff based upon an analysis of human reason, and not Tariffs as those now submitted to us are - mere playthings of party prejudice and catch divisions in this House.

This Tariff is, in a sense, something worse than anything we have had before. It is a small, puny thing, but is handled worse than any Tariff has been dealt with in the memory of honorable members. It has been introduced practically without explanation. The Minister is unable to tell us whether the industries helped really require these duties ; he is unable to tell us whether the industries helped merit that help, or whether the men operating them are observing -good conditions ‘of labour and paying good wages.

Mr W J JOHNSON:
ROBERTSON, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– He will tell us that later on.

Mr KELLY:
WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– After we have dealt with the Tariff? That is the way honorable members opposite have of dealing- with public business, and it shows a contemptuous disregard of the possibilities of this House as a debating chamber.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The honorable member is not in order in referring to honorable members as showing a contemptuous disregard for the House.

Mr KELLY:

-Then, to prove my complete obedience to your wishes, sir, I shall say that the Government sought to show its tremendous appreciation of the high dignity Of Parliament ; its overwhelming sense of responsibility as His Excellency’s advisers in this Chamber, and its extraordinary sense of the eternal fitness of things, by introducing, this Tariff Bill without any explanation whatsoever ! We now have the promise of the honorable member for Robertson-

Mr W J JOHNSON:
ROBERTSON, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I did not promise; I only anticipated that .the items would be explained when we came to deal with them individually.

Mr KELLY:

– The honorable member anticipates, but cannot promise, that after the whole matter has been dealt with we shall have an explanation from the Minister.

Mr W J JOHNSON:
ROBERTSON, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I said that the Minister would, I supposed, explain each item as we came to it.

Mr KELLY:

– That is where the honorable member is wrong. 1 suppose the Chairman will keep the Minister just as strictly to each item as he is now keeping me to the second-reading consideration of. the Tariff.

Mr Higgs:

– Be respectful to the Chair.

Mr KELLY:

– If the Chairman keeps the Minister religiously to the consideration of the item immediately before the Chair, how shall we be able to understand how one item is inter-related with another, as we should have been if the proposals had been dealt with now as a whole. I am willing to discuss the items seriatim later on, but if the honorable member for Robertson finds in this Tariff schedule before us two items, one of which relates to the finished product and the other to the raw material of the finished product, surely he will want to know from the Minister- - and we ought to know now - how those two proposals affect each other. The Minister in introducing the Bill, should have taken it item by item, and have said, “ We want a duty on this item, but not on such and such an item, which is the raw material of the finished product covered by such and such another item,” and in that way he could have run broadly through the whole gamut of human industry represented in these proposals. As- it is, the Minister will not be able to give us later on -a comprehensive explanation of every separate item in this Tariff in such- a way as to commend’ it to equity, and; I think I may say, without offence, to good conscience.

The honorable member for Capricornia, who is so persistently interrupting, was at one time in a position of some prominence in another place. Since then, he has consistently endeavoured to outrage every standing order of this House, and to prevent honorable members from proceeding with this debate.

Mr Tudor:

– What has that to do with this question ?

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Mr Chanter:
RIVERINA, NEW SOUTH WALES

– The honorable member must not refer to what occurred in another place.

Mr KELLY:

– I quite agree with you, sir, but I have every right to expect you, and especially the Minister in charge of the measure, to assist me by discouraging not reasonable interjections, but the zoological noises coming from the honorable member for Capricornia. I do not mind interjections, especially from the Chair-

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

– I ask the honorable member to discuss the Tariff.

Mr KELLY:

– If permitted, I shall be only too happy to do so. The proposals before us are of many different kinds, and we seem to have tumbled into this business without any close investigation. Only this morning, I was inquiring why the Government proposed to place a tax on the tyres of the bicycles used by the members of the Australian Workers Union?

Mr Higgs:

– How “ about motor-car tyres ?

Mr KELLY:

– The motor-car tyres are not so much affected, because, the. poundage gets smaller as the tyres become heavier. I naturally thought that, before the Government tried to place, say, an additional 150 per cent, of the duty, at current prices, on the tyres used by the members of the Australian Workers Union, they would have found out whether the industry, was lan.guishing and required assistance. So far as- I can find out from the public press and from the Stock Exchange list,, there seems to be no ground for that apprehension, for the big company manufacturing tyres in Australia has recently increased its capital, and is doing very well. Ohe lot of £1 shares in the Dunlop Rubber

Company is quoted, sellers 27s. and buyers 26s. 3d. ; cumulative preference £1 shares at 35s. <Sd. ; and deferred cumulative preference j£i shares, buyers 27s. od., and sellers 28s. od. It would appear, therefore, that the company is making reasonable profits. I desired to know what share in the Australian trade was being done by this company, and I ascertained that some 20 per cent, of the tyres used here for motors, and over 80 per cent, of the bicycle tyres, are made locally. If we suddenly increase the duty, not by a straight-out ad valorem duty, but by the devious poundage means proposed, I suppose an opportunity will be afforded for honorable members opposite to pretend to their supporters in the Australian Workers Union that the duty has not really been raised, although this monopoly will practically be given vastly enhanced profits. This is a company of which we ought to be proud, but it is not necessary to load its shareholders up with wealth at the expense of the Australian people, and especially of the members of the Australian Workers Union. I made further inquiries, and found that the company does business beyond the Commonwealth. I was unable to obtain the information I desired in regard to the prices of bicycle tyres, but I can submit some comparisons in relation to motor tyres. These will show conclusively that the company can export and pay freight and sell motor tyres in New Zealand at a much less price than they ask in Australia. Why could not the Minister have found out these simple facts for himself? The price-list shows that for one of the smaller tyres sold here at £5 7s. 6d. the people in New Zealand are asked to pay only £4 16s. 6d; for a tyre which costs here £7 4s. the New Zealand people pay £6 2s. 6d. Another tyre is sold here for £8 2s., and in New Zealand for £7 5s. ; and a large tyre sold here for £10 7s. 6d. is sold there for £9. Perhaps the motor tube may give an indication of the possible comparative prices of the bicycle tyres. A small inner tube for a motor tyre is sold here at £1 12s. 6d., and in New Zealand for £1 11s. j another is sold here for £2 3s. 6d., and in New Zealand for £1 17s. 6d ; another is sold here for £2 3s. 6d., and in New Zealand for £2 os. 6d. ; another is sold here for £2 15s,. and in New Zealand at £2 12s. I naturally wondered what had persuaded the .Government to give this deservedly successful company additional pro- fits. I had heard it whispered about that the proprietors of the Age were very heavily interested in the Dunlop Company. I could not believe that a company of this standing would be a party to anything of the kind suggested, but I did know that my honorable friends opposite are burning with an anxiety to conciliate the Age. However, I tendered my shilling, and examined the share register of the company ; and I am glad to be able to inform honorable members that I do not think there is any justification for the rumour I have indicated. I did not look right through the share register, but I saw that one of the proprietors of the Age - the only one, I believe, who is a shareholder - holds 5,500 shares. I cannot think that such a holding would in any way influence a man of his position with regard to the views of his newspaper.

Mr Riley:

– What are the shares worth ?

Mr KELLY:

– From 27s. to 35s.

Mr Riley:

– That is worth considering.

Mr KELLY:

– I do not desire to make any charge in connexion with the matter. I was still curious, and I saw the secretary of the company. I asked him, “ What is the meaning of these duties ? ‘ ‘ and he replied, “ Well, we do not know.” Neither the ‘board of directors nor the secretary had asked for the duty, or had made any representation in regard to them; and yet this tax is placed upon the backs of the bike riders of the Australian Workers Union. I commend that fact to the honorable member for Darling.

Mr Spence:

– The members of the union are not the only people who ride bicycles.

Mr KELLY:

– But they ride bicycles very consistently, and this duty will make their riding cost them a little more. If the company does not want the duty, and the facts do not appear to warrant it, why impose it? I presume that somebody has misled the Minister - that some “ expert “ on whom he relied has proved to be no expert. There must be some ground for the duty in the Minister’s mind, unless the absence of grounds was the excuse he had for npt addressing himself to the items when introducing the Tariff.

The one item I have referred to shows the extraordinary carelessness with which these proposals are introduced. I find, further, that the Government propose, by means of this Tariff, to interfere with the raw material of this indus- try - to dictate to the rubber factories throughout the world as to the condition in which they shall’ send their finished article to Australia. An attempt is now being made to define some artificial difference in the types of rubber supplied by the various factories. Peruvian rubber usually comes out in a big round ball, and, though we do not know, that apparently is to remain untouched. Then there are what the Customs Department calls “ masticated “ rubber, and a rubber of a smoother type. This “masticated” rubber is prepared between rollers with rough edges, and hence the appearance which gives rise to its name, while the other is prepared between smooth rollers. The Customs Department has found out some extraordinary difference between the two, and is going to endeavour, by means of a duty, to arrange that all the rubber from the Straits Settlements shall pass through one patricular sort of rollers. I suppose that Australia takes under 1 per cent, of the total rubber output; and yet every factory in the world is to be called upon to install new and uniform machinery for the sake of a share of this 1 per cent. The thing is ridiculous ! This is not only to the damage of an industry, but, worst of all, to the damage of an industry that is centred in Melbourne. Surely honorable members opposite will pause before they take such a step. Here is a deservedly successful industry, worthy the equitable consideration of this Chamber, and yet, owing to the inability of the Minister to acquire reliable information, it is to be hit through its raw material, while it is given a duty which is not asked for, and which it does not need. I place this proposal before honorable members in all its native ugliness.

Every single item of this Tariff must be carefully scrutinized if that is the way in which the Government have proceeded in regard to one which affects the members of the strongest union supporting my honorable friends opposite. Another extraordinary proposal is shown in the item of strawboard. Some 5,000 persons in Australia make their livelihood by manufacturing boxes and other articles of this material, and some fifty people, in what I may call the national city of the south, are engaged in making strawboard. I am told that the strawboard manufacturers cannot supply the orders they have now ; but, because they live in the south, or, perhaps, because they happen to be in the Minister’s constituency, this duty is to be imposed. There must be some reason, good or bad, for this item. We find now that 5,000 men are to be driven out of employment for the sake of fifty in the city of Melbourne.

Mr Riley:

– I think most of the 5,000 are women.

Mr KELLY:

– There must be some women, of course, for one of the features of all protected industries is the large number of women employed. I suppose that about the same proportion of the fifty employes in Melbourne are women.

Mr Riley:

– They are mostly boys.

Mr KELLY:

– My honorable friend will, I hope, give us a lead on the subject of strawboard when the details are reached.

We find the same sort of foolishness in connexion with white pine, and even the realm of music is not left untouched. We are to have a big duty on talking machines, which is arrant selfishness on the part of my honorable friends. They are flourishing here without any protection at the hands of the State, and they might have left untouched these talking machines which, after all, are almost as necessary to the man in the backblocks as is the telephone which we have heard ought to he laid on to every settler’s door. The Government are going to make gramophones, pianos, and other things which tend to solace the settler’s evenings after the labour of the day, more difficult for him to obtain.

In their anxiety to get a catch vote or two, ‘ they have actually invaded the sacred sphere of art. Pictures are to be prevented from coming here. This question of artists’ productions is really most amusing. The item previously read : “ Pictures, n.e.L, including Scripture cards of all descriptions, Free.” Now it is to read: “ Pictures, n.e.i., including Scripture cards, Free. Oil and water colour paintings other than those by Australian students, 25 per cent.” The best of our artists have gone abroad to study, and the Government are going to prevent their works being sent to Australia. We are to have here only the works of art of the Sydney Bulletin and of the Labour weeklies ! This is surely another bribe for support, but I cannot understand the proposal from -the point of view of the public interest. Why should we keep out pictures? How are we to have standards of comparison if we cannot have free imports of pictures? The Government are going to stifle art, which is now in its infancy in Australia, by keeping out the pick of the world’s productions, including the works of Australian artists abroad.

Mr Deakin:

– The Victorian Artists’ Society have protested against’ it.

Mr KELLY:

– There has also been great trouble in Sydney, where it was intended to hold an exhibition of the works of Lambert, Streeton, Tom Roberts, and other Australian artists living abroad. All these have been held up by this laudable anxiety to benefit the artistic productions of the Sydney Bulletin, and will have to be sent back to Europe unless the proposed duty is taken off.

I have not gone generally into the items of the schedule, because I refuse point- blank to do so at this stage, until we have had from the Minister some explanation of how their effects are inter-related. I have shown conclusively that the Minister is imposing duties which have not been asked for by any Australian industry, that he is detrimentally affecting Australian industry by means of some of his proposals, and that Parliaments generally, and this Parliament under present management in particular, are not capable of giving the country a scientific Tariff. I appeal now to the Government and to the Committee to say that the next Tariff introduced must give us the combined wisdom of persons specially appointed te consider the needs of Australian industries. I appeal to the Committee to see that the Australian people have a chance to realize that their Tariffs must not be the mere playthings of catch divisions and party prejudices in this Chamber, or of influences even less worthy. The whole question must be looked into scientifically and seriously, and the result of the investigation must be placed before the Australian people. The policy of this country has been declared by an overwhelming majority to be Protectionist, and I appeal to honorable members, if they wish to give effect to the people’s will, to give effect to it sanely, after mature, impartial, expert consideration, and not in the ineffective, helpless, hopeless manner in which these proposals have been submitted by the Government.

Mr SPENCE:
Darling

.- If this debate convinces the Government that it would be very unwise to touch the Tariff at all next session, the time may not be wasted.

Mr Deakin:

– Why not ? We shall have plenty of time next session.

Mr SPENCE:

– I am opposed to touch* ing the Tariff at all until we can do justice all round. I am not surprised at the attiture of the Opposition when we remember the names of the gentlemen who took a hand in welding them together. Naturally, the manufacturers, having secured a very fair Protectionist Tariff, and having rendered new Protection unattainable, are quite content and happy with things as they are. It is not on that ground that 1 oppose dealing with the Tariff. We have learnt, since the Tariff of 1907-8 was introduced, that the Constitution does not give us power to protect the workers or the consumers, and that there are in existence monopolies, combines, honorable understandings, and similar schemes, which those who have the control of industries, and make things to sell, use in order to fleece and exploit the public, who, of course, include the wage-earners. I am opposed to touching the Tariff any more until we have power to do all that Parliament can do to deal with the wages of workmen. Under present arrangements, I do not think we have power to do that properly, even by means of the State machinery. It has been said that the State tribunals should control wages ; but I do not think that fair competition can be assured between manufacturers, except by a Federal tribunal. We want to give our Federal Arbitration Court power to deal with industries in the Federal sense. Those who want to prevent that Court being clothed with the powers which we seek to give it, and which the Constitution at present denies to it, always propose some other method. The Opposition now favour the appointment of an Inter-State commission ; but their scheme in that regard is impracticable and unworkable, and not a live issue. We have the machinery of the Arbitration Court, which is well fitted to cope with that kind of work ; but, at present, the Judge, able and fair as he undoubtedly is, is hampered by constitutional limitations. We spent a great deal of time on the previous Tariff, which generally turned out to be very workable from the Protectionist stand-point. Honorable members will remember that afterwards a list of anomalies, from the point of view of the Customs officials, was submitted. More recently, the present Minister of Trade and Customs invited those interested to furnish him with information and show him any anomalies which they .wished rectified. 1 understand that only about a hundred replies were received ; and now the Minister has brought in a measure which does not appear to have given satisfaction to anybody. We have had the usual circulars sent to us, containing ex parte statements from those interested persons who, whenever a Tariff is before the House, tell us that they are going to be ruined if additional duties are not imposed. Some of them, to judge by their balancesheets, .are not in very much danger of ruin. Others are opposing the imposition of additional duties j and, altogether, the schedule now before us seems so unsatisfactory, that probably it is the most uncomfortable kind of measure that any. Minister could take charge of. Fortunately, both the Opposition, and members on this side, seem to have great faith in the Minister’s ability to explain things. They confess that they do not understand the items, and. expect the Minister to explain every one of them satisfactorily as they are reached. Probably the Minister will be able to satisfy them. I have been surprised to hear some honorable members on this side apparently advocating the revision of the whole Tariff before we obtain power to deal with, the many evils that undoubtedly exist in regard to wages and conditions of labour generally. I do not admit that the imposition of a duty necessarily raises the cost of an article. When in the Old Country, which is allegedly Free Trade, I found very few things that were any cheaper than in Australia. Therefore, we may dismiss the statement that Tariffs raise prices and Free Trade reduces them, since they are determined chiefly by other factors. Whether wages be high or low, and whatever the duties may be, sellers try to make the highest profits they can obtain. Our endeavour should be to protect the worker from the practical reduction of his wages by the increase of prices. He should be paid his share of the value of the production of the industry in which he is engaged, and as a consumer should not be charged so highly for the commodities which he uses as to cause his wages to be materially reduced. I do not agree with the honorable member for Hindmarsh about Courts having power to hear evidence regarding the profits of industries. Mr. Justice Higgins has very properly declined to accept such evidence. Following other Judges, he has expressed the view that if an industry cannot pay fair and reasonable wages, it should close. Profits are to be considered in connexion with the Tariff, when it may be shown that, owing to the high rate of duties, or to some combination, they are unreasonable. Parliament has now no power to deal with combines, and I am opposed to any alteration of the Tariff until the people give us the power to deal with them. According to the Minister, who made a long and elaborate explanation of the schedule, most of the proposed alterations are required to improve the administration of his Department. The debate may show that some of these alterations are unnecessary, and that the Tariff might very well remain as it is for a long while to come. My desire is that there shall be no alteration until Parliament can protect the workers and consumers, as well as the manufacturers. I shall be no party to legislation, which, while raising wages, say, is. directly, indirectly reduces them by 2s. 6d., and I hope that the Tariff will not be meddled with until the Constitution has been altered, so that we can deal effectively with economic conditions generally.

Mr SINCLAIR:
Moreton

.- A Government that is afraid to face the fiscal question is not worthy of the confidence of the people. Australia has declared for Protection, but the schedule now under discussion, has been introduced at the fag end of the session, when matters of great, though not of greater importance, have to be dealt with, and there is not sufficient time for its proper consideration.. Had it been introduced earlier, we should have been able to obtain more information regarding its proposals, and had an advisory board, or commission, inquired into and reported upon Tariff reform, we could have had a Tariff revision which would have done justice to the subject. While I believe in Protection, I do not hold the view that duties must be imposed on everything. We have to consider, not merely the benefits to be obtained by an industry by the imposition of protective duties in its interest, but also whether those benefits counterbalance the injury done in some other directions. In a young country like Australia, Tariff revision must be a periodical thing, because we are making such advances that we soon outgrow any given set of conditions. The object of duties is to encourage industries, which must subsequently be protected. We are not now in a position to give the people a fair and square deal. I am pleased that Queensland is to obtain a modicum of Protection, and that those interested in the canning of fruit will receive some consideration, but I regret that the great banana growing industry has been overlooked, and will be forced to continue to compete with Fiji, where labour is cheaper, one of the States having committed the un-Federal action of subsidizing a line of steamers to bring cheap fruit here from that country. The alteration of the flannelette duties is absurd. The object of the Minister is to prevent accidents from the use of inflammable material, but, with a duty of 35 per cent, on ready-made clothing, it will be cheaper to import it than to pay 20 per cent, on raw material to be made up here. The alteration of duties may prevent the importation of piece goods, but will not keep out made-up goods, and an article which is used by thousands of persons will be increased in cost by about 2d. a yard. I have been informed that it is possible to treat flannelette chemically with alum, borax, and other things, so that it will pass the departmental test, but that these things are injurious to health, and that after repeated washing the treatment is likely to prove ineffective, and of no protection to the wearers of flannelette. If flannelette were displacing flannel, then, in order to protect our woollen industry, I should be prepared to support the imposition of a duty on it. But notwithstanding this duty, which, on the average, will mean an increased price of 2d. per yard, people will continue to use flannelette, and will still be exposed to the danger of wearing this inflammable material. I believe, however, that as a result of this impost the people will turn their attention to imported flannelette garments instead of buying the raw material, or flannelette garments made up here. Prior to the introduction of this schedule, leather cloth was free. I do not object to the proposed duty of 20 per cent., but it is just as well that we should know what the duty means. I do not know that leather cloth is being manufactured in Australia, but I do know that it is largely used by local manufacturers of furniture, buggies, railway carriages, &c. Recently I asked the Minister of Trade and Customs a question relating to patent leather, but he sheltered himself behind the wording of my question.

Mr Tudor:

– There has been no alteration in the duty on patent leather.

Mr SINCLAIR:

– There is no such thing as patent leather in the schedule ; but leather cloth, which is the same thing, is included.

Mr Tudor:

– It is not the same thing.

Mr SINCLAIR:

– I am credibly informed that a Melbourne firm, in anticipation of the introduction of this Tariff, has imported leather cloth of the value of £20,000.

Mr Tudor:

– I shall be obliged if the honorable member will give me further information on the subject.

Mr SINCLAIR:

– I make no charge against the Department. I simply mention that it has come to my knowledge that a Melbourne firm has recently imported £20,000 worth of leather cloth, and that fact leads one to suspect that they knew something regarding the introduction of this schedule.

Mr Tudor:

– Will the honorable member supply me with the name of the firm in question ?

Mr SINCLAIR:

– I shall be pleased to supply the honorable member with the name when I can ascertain it. I did not think that the Minister cared to supply me with the information for which I asked. When he told me that I was in error, and that patent leather was not touched by the Tariff, I thought that he was trying to evade answering my question.

Mr Tudor:

– If the honorable member knows that a firm has done what he suggests, he has a right to mention it, and not to allow the matter to stand where it is.

Mr SINCLAIR:

– I do not intend to allow the matter to stand where it is. I should like now to ask the Minister why vinegar has been selected for special treatment. In 1910 we imported 271,000 gallons of vinegar, valued at 2s. 5d. per gallon. Adding the duty we find that the price is 2s. nd. per gallon, whereas, the price of locally-made vinegar is only is. 3d. a gallon. A great proportion of the vinegar used to-day is a by-product, and it does not appear, from the figures I have quoted, that the local manufacturers require further Protection, seeing that the local article enjoys an advantage of something like 100 per cent, in price as compared with the price of the imported article. A duty of 6d. per gallon is almost equal to 50 per cent, on the price of the local product, and I fail to understand why it should have been thought necessary to make this further imposition. The duty in the schedule now before us will not prohibit the importation of vinegar. It is not likely to reduce the quantity now coming in. It will simply act as a revenue duty, and will not benefit the local manufacturers, seeing that they did not take advantage of the old Tariff to increase their prices. Messrs. Webster, of Brisbane, who are largely interested in the vinegar trade, have written to me protesting against this increased duty ; whilst Mr. Thurlow, who is a large manufacturer, does not approve of it. I do not think that the re- arrangement of the timber duties is satisfactory. Sub-item do should be omitted, and should be bracketed with sub-item x. I should like to know what “spokes in the rough” means?

Mr Tudor:

– I have a revised wording of the sub-item, which. I think, will clearly explain what is meant by the use of the words “ in the rough.”

Mr SINCLAIR:

– 1 am pleased to hear that the item is to be revised, because it appears to me that, under the schedule as it stands, spokes which have even been subjected to the sand-papering process might still be regarded as “ spokes in the rough.” Then the proposed duty on the lines included in paragraphs 2 and 3 pf sub-item d, which cover felloes and rims of hickory, should be at least 15 per cent. These felloes and rims can be made in the Common wen 1th in sufficient quantities to meet the requirements of the whole trade, and I do not think that a duty of 15 per cent, is too much to ask in support of an industry which has to work under Wages Board conditions.

Mr Hedges:

– Can we obtain hickory here?

Mr SINCLAIR:

– There is plenty of hickory in Australia, and local firms are prepared to cater for the trade if they receive anything like reasonable protection. Considering that many of the industries which use spokes, felloes, and rims as their raw material are protected by duties ranging from 25 to 35 per cent., they should not object to the manufacturers of this class of hardware being protected to the extent of a duty of 15 per cent. At the very least there should be a duty of 10 per cent, in respect of imports from the United Kingdom, and a general Tariff of 15 per cent.

I am afraid that the proposed alteration, making white paper dutiable, will lead to great hardship so far as many of the poorer classes are concerned.

Mr Tudor:

– There is no proposal for a .duty on white paper.

Mr SINCLAIR:

– White paper for printing is to be free under departmental regulations.

Mr Tudor:

– Should it be free when used for other than printing purposes?

Mr SINCLAIR:

– If the printing trade is to be considered in this way, why. should we not have regard to the claims of the hard-working man who needs white paper, commonly used for printing purposes, to wrap up meat? The newspapers wrap up their wares in white paper, and the Government have decided that newspaper proprietors shall be allowed to import that paper free under departmental by-laws. The provision in this schedule, however, will fall very heavily upon citizens using white printing paper for other purposes. It will mean that butchers, who find brown paper unsuitable for their requirements, will have to pay an increased price of about 5s. or 6s. per cwt. for the paper now user by them. Since this is the only class of paper dealt with in the schedule now before us, it is interesting to note the importations of paper under all other headings. According to the official statistics of Customs and Excise revenue in 1910, the importations of paper bags not printed, and which are dutiable at 8s. 6d. per cwt. under the preferential Tariff, were of the value of £12,654; £12,127 worth of bintting paper, dutiable at 4s. 6d. per cwt. under the preferential Tariff, was imported in 1910; whilst other imports of paper were as follow - Boards, coated, n.e.i., dutiable at 25 and 20 per cent., £15,679 worth ; browns and sugar, fruit bag paper, &c, dutiable at 5s. and 4s. 6d. per cwt., £89,754 worth; cardboard and pasteboard, dutiable at 5 per cent, under the general Tariff, and free in the case of imports from the United Kingdom, £20,699 worth; cartridge paper, dutiable at 5s. and 4s. 6d. per cwt., £7,303 worth; gummed paper, n.e.i., dutiable at 20 per cent., £4,330 worth ; manufactures of paper, framed and unframed, having advertisements thereon, dutiable at 35 per cent., or 6d. per lb.. £59,257 worth; millboard, greyboard, leatherboard, Manilaboard. and woodboard, 5 per cent., and free, £36,774 worth ; paperhangings dutiable at 20 per cent, arid 15 per cent., £6.1,701 worth; and printing paper, which was previously free, but which is now to be free subject to departmental by-laws, £731,196 worth. It will be seen that printing paper is very largely imported, but allowing for the enormous quantity which must be used by the daily newspapers, we find that the balance, compared with imports under other headings, is not such as to call for special attention unless the Minister can show that its importation is seriously affecting the manufacture of paper in the Commonwealth. That, so far, he has failed to do. Then, again, we find that in 1 910 the importations of ruled and bordered paper, which was dutiable at 20 per cent., were only of the value of £86. The duty on strawboard is, I think, is. 6d. per cwt., and there was imported £28,151 worth. On toilet-paper the duty is 25 per cent., and the quantity imported was £3,548 worth ; on writing and typing paper, plain, in sheets, not less than 16 inches by 13 inches, the duty is 5 per cent, and free, and the importations represent £231,985 ; on paper n.e.i., including pulpboard, cloth-lined boards, cloth-lined paper, and floor paper, the duty is 20 and 15 per cent., and the importations represented £73,355 ; other paper is admitted at 5 per cent, and free, and the importations represented £115,658. It will be seen from these figures that, notwithstanding the heavy duties, there are large importations, and that the white paper is not the serious competitor it is claimed to be, especially in view of the compensating advantages. It is evident that the paper mills of Australia are not yet capable of coping with the demand; and, if it is necessary to protect the mills against white paper, it will be necessary to protect them against other paper by increased duties all round.

I am pleased to see that there are already two piano factories turning out splendid instruments, and, I understand, doing remarkably well. I am informed that, before there was any Protection at all, one of the firms managed to make a very decent return. I must say that I object to the fixed duties on pianos. If a man. can afford to buy an instrument at any price ranging from £45 to £100 he can well afford to pay an ad valorem duty; but there are many poorer people, who, perhaps, desire to have a piano, if only as a piece of furniture, at, say, £12, and they should not be called upon to pay an extra £6 or £7. I am a great believer in ad valorem duties, when they can be imposed without any serious difficulty in arriving at the values or in the collection. I have seen pianos exposed for sale at £6 in Melbourne; and -it is very hard that a poor person, who requires one of these, should have to pay an equivalent of the fixed duty. The only other item to which I desire to refer is one that does not appear in the schedule, but in regard to which some honorable member . may be inclined to submit a proposal. I refer to cheese caps; and possibly each honorable member has received a circular dealing with this item. Much as I am interested in all rural industries, particularly the dairying industry, I should not ask for any consideration that I would not support in the case of any other industry. There are factories in Australia manufacturing cheese caps at the present moment, and, amongst a few items of cotton goods which are protected, are cheese caps. These can be made with advantage here ; and now it is proposed, I understand, by persons interested in obtaining a cheap article that the duty shall be removed. I hope, however, that, in all fairness, the duty will not be interfered with.

Mr J H CATTS:
Cook

.- I deny the statement that the last general election was fought on the issue of Free Trade and Protection, though I do not deny that some honorable members may have made- one or other policy the main plank of their platform, and have been returned to the House on the single issue. So far as my electorate is concerned the Tariff question was not raised to anything like the same prominence that other questions were; indeed, I cannot conceive of the Tariff being made the leading issue By members of the Labour party at a general election at any time. We are seeking to improve the position of the great bulk of the people, who are the workers ; and we know that, under either Free Trade or Protection, they can be sweated, and have their conditions made most unpleasant. It would be foolish for honorable members on this side to imagine that there is any reality in that issue alone so far as the great bulk of the people are concerned. I admit that the fiscal question forms a subsidiary part of our general policy ; but I deny that at the general election it had any more prominence than had the nationalization of monopolies, the institution of a Commonwealth Bank, or the imposition of a land tax. As a matter of fact, we had just previously dealt with the Tariff exhaustively, and generally, satisfaction had, I think, been given to those clamouring for protection for industries said to be languishing. The proposal put forward by the Labour party was an absolutely national Tariff, based on new Protection. We were to take steps, side by side with the imposition of Customs duties, to provide that the workers should receive their share of Protection, and that consumers should be protected against the rapacity of combinations which were raising prices to the general community. The question was discussed on the Address-in-Reply and I stated my position then. In Hansard, of 8th July, 1910, page 224, I am’ thus reported -

The question of Tariff anomalies is, of course, a non-party one. 1 do not wish to commit myself finally at this moment, because I may not have all the facts before me that I should have, and the Ministry will perhaps have facts to put’ before the House, but I certainly do not feel favorable at this stage to any further Tariff Protection without new Protection. A number of us voted for high duties throughout the recent Tariff discussions on the distinct understanding, and indeed on a pledge given by the late Prime Minister, that new Protection was to be associated with the Tariff, and that otherwise the Tariff would not be carried. I, for one, feel inclined to refuse to give Protection to a small section of the people, who in turn deny it to the great bulk of the workers in their factories, and am inclined to resist to the utmost any further Tariff Protection unless it is associated with new Protection.

That was the position I placed before my constituents at the general elections of 1906 and 1910.

I am sorry that this Tariff revision should have been introduced, since it seeks to re-open the Tariff generally. It is quite justifiable to introduce a measure for the rectification of anomalies as shown in the definitions, and so forth, which harass, not only importers, but the Customs officers in the administration of the Department. A pure machinery Bill, designed to reduce friction, is, of course, acceptable; but, so far as the present proposals go beyond that, I regret they have been submitted.

First of all, I contend that there has been no demand for a re-opening of the Tariff ; and I represent an electorate in which there are as many factories and factory workers as can be found in any other electorate in the Commonwealth. But I have not received a single request from my electorate for an increase of duty. I therefore conclude that my constituents do not want it, because I cannot believe that the manufacturers there are dead to their own interests. Tariff matters stir up the liveliest feelings in those upon whom they operate, and the experience of all Parliaments has been that manufacturers and importers are not slow to place their interests before honorable members. I take it, therefore, that there is no demand in my electorate, nor do I believe there is any general demand in the country, for a general re-opening of the Tariff and a general increase of protective duties. I honestly believe that the revision of the Tariff now before us, so far as duties are increased by it, has come about through the influence of a certain paper in Melbourne, which is, as it were, hanging over the House, and slogging, away at this joss of its own.

Mr Bamford:

– You do not mean to say that the Ministry are influenced by that paper? I hope not.

Mr J H CATTS:

– There are members on both sides who take a little too much notice of the Melbourne Age. The, Leader of the Opposition is certainly affected by it. It has only to publish an article pulling him to pieces, arid his knees begin to knock, and he runs in, wanting to know what can be done. So far as the daily press, which is absolutely antagonistic to the Labour party, influences the party, so far, I believe, the party is wrong. The best thing we can do is to “ paddle our own canoe,” without any reference whatever to these journals.

The Melbourne Age seems to have no cry but “ more Protection.” For every ill that affects the body politic, its remedy is the same. Of course, it has its followers in the community who think that if high duties are imposed everything is right with the world, and that if low duties are imposed everything is wrong with the world, and destruction stares us in the face.

Peculiarly enough, this very paper which is clamouring for higher duties, and more of them, admits, in this morning’s issue, that there is a shortage of labour, that the manufacturers cannot supply the market, and that we depend upon importations. Referring to textiles, item 106, wool and silk, and to the increased duties proposed on them, the Age says -

The importation of this class of goods from the United Kingdom alone amounted last year to 192,000. An additional duty,_of 5 per cent, may exercise some check on this vast influx of ready-made goods, but local manufacturers are doubtful on the point. Wages of tailors and dress makers have gone up considerably during the last year or two; in fact, it is impossible to get hands to supply all the demand. Importation is inevitable to supply the requirements of the market.

If importation is inevitable for that purpose, the increase of duties on those goods simply means increasing the price to the general public.

Mr Tudor:

– There has been no increase of duty on that line.

Mr J H CATTS:

– The Age says there is an increase of 5 per cent., but I have not checked it with the schedule.

There are other duties in regard to the textile industry, but I know for a positive fact that the distributing houses in Sydney and Melbourne are two or three months behind in the receipt of their stocks from the manufacturers.

Recently a Royal Commission inquired in New South Wales into the question of shortage of labour, and the manufacturers of Sydney stated before that body that it was impossible to secure labour to supply the local market. The honorable member -for Hume, who is an extreme Protectionist, and will vote for higher duties on any pretext whatever - he feels like going down on his knees to worship the mere name of Protection - stated last night that Vicars Woollen Mills, at Marrickville, found it impossible to fill the demands made upon them by the business houses. With regard to the Parramatta Woollen Mills, Mr. Sparks, the secretary of the Protectionist Association in New South Wales, informed me only recently that it was impossible for them to get labour to fill their orders for goods. He said it was of no use their taking any further orders ; they could not go looking for business, because they had not the labour to manufacture the stuff. That is the general position to-day in Australia.

I have said before, and say again, to our friends on the Labour side in politics, who have had their misgivings with regard to the introduction of desirable immigrants, that it is of no use for us to carry our feelings in the matter to an undue extent. We are compelled to acknowledge that there is in Australia at present a general shortage of labour. I admit that we find men out of work, but that is caused by our unscientific system of managing the labour market. We have no machinery to bring men who are out of work in touch with the work that is waiting for them to do. They have to lose time looking for it, but I honestly believe that there is anotherplace vacant for every able-bodied man and ordinary tradesman in Australia who is out of work.

Mr Cann:

– There is no shortage amongst coal-miners ; they are not working more than half time.

Mr J H CATTS:

– I am not talking about a particular class of labour. In every country, no matter how prosperous, it is always possible to find a calling in that position ; but in other directions there is a shortage of labour, and, if it suited the convenience of coal-miners to take railway con struction or other work of that description,, it is certainly available for them. It may not be suitable for them to do, but thereis work available for those who are ableto adapt themselves to conditions a little different from those to which they have been accustomed. On the 12th October of this year, Hansard, page 1370, I discussed the question of the shortage of labour, and took up the position that I take up now. I have pointed out to several honorable members of the extreme Protectionist type that in the textile industry the distributing houses cannot get their orders filled. I put the question yesterday to the- honorable member for Kooyong, and to one after the other of what I call the extreme Protectionists, who will vote for higher dutieswithout any justification, and they had no answer to it. In fact, it cannot beansswered. An increase of duty on those lines where manufacturers are unable to supply the local market means nothing but. raising the price to the users throughout Australia. The Minister of Trade and Customs asks me to point some out. I can refer him for the facts to my brother, who is connected with the London Stores down theroad. I understand that the Minister admits that the factories in Australia really cannot supply the local market.

Mr Tudor:

– I do not say that; but there has been.no alteration of duty in the line of which the honorable member speaks..

Mr J H CATTS:

– I understood that there had been. My first point is that there has been no demand for the reopening of the Tariff in the direction of .increased protection, and my second is that, if it is re-opened in the peculiar circumstances in which the manufacturers find’ themselves in regard to the labour market, the only effect of increasing the duties must be to increase the- price of commodities to the consumer.

I disagree with the increasing of any protective duties at present, for the further reason that it is bad policy for the Labour party. At the last general1 election we asked the country for authority to place upon the statute-book a thoroughly national Tariff on the basis of the new Protection. We said that if we could carry out the new Protection idea we wereprepared to give this country such a Tariff that the most extreme Protectionist would: never complain about it. Personally, I would have been prepared to go as far as absolute prohibition of those goods that we can manufacture, but, of course, the labour would have to be supplied to> enable the orders to be filled. Then, of course, I should have liked to see the revenue duties wiped out altogether. We were returned on our general programme, including that question, with an absolute majority in both Houses, but soon found that we had not the authority under the Constitution to give effect to the new Protection. We took the earliest opportunity of submitting the matter to the electors at the recent referenda. It was a most unfortunate time for us, because it sent us off on an electioneering campaign in between the general elections.

Mr McWILLIAMS:
FRANKLIN, TASMANIA · REV TAR; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917; CP from 1920; IND from 1928

– You selected the lime yourselves.

Mr J H CATTS:

– We were in such a hurry to give effect to our policy that we did not want to wait’ until the next general election. We wanted the Constitution altered to enable us to give effect to the new Protection during the lifetime of the present Parliament. The referenda were defeated, and we know the factors that operated to secure that defeat. In the light of that knowledge, we are not justified in increasing the old Protection. Hundreds of thousands of pounds were spent by manufacturers in defeating the new Protection, and preventing the workers and consumers from sharing in the benefits of the Tariff. If we increase duties under present conditions, we shall encourage the manufacturers to continue their fight against the new Protection. If they get all that they need from us now, they will, at tne next election, spend the money obtained from the higher duties in bringing about the defeat of our policy. We should show them that their interests are linked with those of the general community. When they find that they cannot get higher duties unless they consent to the protection of the wage-earners and consumers, they will not oppose the alteration of the Constitution necessary to provide for it. Therefore, the proposed alteration of duties is a mistake from the point of view of policy, as well as being without justification for other reasons. I am prepared to go before my constituents at the next election in advocacy of a Tariff on new Protection lines. I do not feel upset because the referenda were defeated in my electorate. I should prefer to be out of politics to having to legislateon lines which I considered ‘wrong. If the referenda vote represented the mature opinion of the people of Australia, and is confirmed at the next election, my opponent will probably succeed in winning the seat which I hold.

The appointment of a tribunal to investigate the claims for higher duties has been proposed, and without committing myself to details as to constitution and powers, I am in favour of the proposal. Parliament is not capable of dealing on lines of equity and justice with alterations of duties, not because of want of intellectual capacity, but because its constitution prevents it from judicially examining the facts, and determining how alterations will affect industries generally. Of course, Parliament must in the end be responsible for every Tariff. It cannot hand over its legislative power to a tribunal, and must be responsible for the exercise of that power. I should like to see the manufacturers placed in a position similar to that of the workers. They demand that bodies of workers, claiming increases of pay, shall submit their claims to a Court, and justify them by evidence, which is subject to cross-examination. The evidence for and against is sifted by a Judge of expert training and judicial mind, and judgment given accordingly. Similarly, manufacturers asking for increases of duty should submit claims for judicial investigation. As things are, Parliament is told that industries are languishing, and workers out of employment, but no investigation of these ex forte statements is possible. We legislate, therefore, on lines of prejudice, and not in accordance with evidence.

Mr Fenton:

– What would the honorable member do when the employes, aswell as employers, asked for increased Protection ?

Mr J H CATTS:

– I am inclined to give more consideration to such cases, but there are the interests of the consumers and the general community to be regarded as well. I have known employes to ask the assistance of the Trades and Labour Council in Sydney, in fighting employers who were sweating them, and a month or two afterwards have found these men lobbying for an increase of duty. What we need is to get at the truth, instead of legislating in the dark. Some of the “ pure merinoes” of Protection here tell us that the schedule will create as many anomalies as it will cure. Experts differ regarding it. Whom are we to believe?

Mr West:

– The men on the other side.

Mr J H CATTS:

– There are sincere Protectionists - “pure merinoes” - opposite, who think that the end and aim of politics is the raising of duties.

Mr Mathews:

– There are mighty few of them in the Opposition.

Mr J H CATTS:

– The Opposition represents many brands of politics, it being the remnant and wreckage of all political parties, its members disagreeing upon everything and agreeing upon nothing. The powers of a Tariff tribunal would have to be clearly and carefully determined. Its work should be that of investigation, parties coming before it as they come before a Court.

Mr Fenton:

– Such a tribunal could only furnish a basis for legislation.

Mr J H CATTS:

– That is my idea.

Mr Mathews:

– The evidence taken by it would be like the statements made in this House.

Mr J H CATTS:

– If one manufacturer asked for a duty of 10 per cent., and others said that the imposition of such a duty would operate disadvantageously to them, the conflict of testimony would be investigated. Witnesses would be placed on their oath, their statements would be tested, and, in the end, Parliament would have reliable information. We cannot examine manufacturers at the bar of the House.

Mr Mathews:

– Does the honorable member desire a board or a commission ?

Mr J H CATTS:

– I call it a tribunal.

Mr Mathews:

– A good old Free Trade argument.

Mr J H CATTS:

– That cheap claptrap interjection, borrowed from the Melbourne Age, is no reply to my argument. What is necessary is to show that the present state of affairs is better than what I suggest, or that my suggestion can be improved on.

Dealing with the schedule as a whole, I find that it embraces 130 items, exactly one-half of which consist of a mere rectification of Tariff anomalies. By an alteration of the wording they will enable the Department to more smoothly administer the existing Tariff. No one can find fault with alterations of that character, which have been found necessary to improve the existing Tariff machinery, and I am prepared to give them my hearty support. In the case of fiftysix items, we have a proposed increase of Protection. As to six other items, I find that they consist of proposals to place upon the free list goods that are now dutiable, and I am prepared to support them, since I find that the duties in question are purely revenue imposts. Every proposition to place on the free list goods that are now subjected to purely revenue duties will, on all occasions, receive my hearty support. In the three remainingcases the only alterations made are with a view of granting a preference to imports from the United Kingdom as against those coming from foreign countries, and I shall always be prepared to grant a substantial preference to goods imported from the United Kingdom.

There is only one other matter to which I desire to refer, and it relates to the speech delivered last night by the honorable member for Parramatta. We hear that honorable member from time to time deploring the introduction of class feeling into politics. It amounts almost to a political crime, in his mind, to attempt anything of the kind.

Mr Finlayson:

– With tears in his voice he deplores such appeals.

Mr J H CATTS:

– Trembling with emotion practically, the honorable member pleads for the elimination of party bias, from our debates, and urges that we should not attempt to set class against class. Upon every conceivable occasion, however, he himself seeks to raise the utmost class bitterness. Last night; for the purpose of creating some feeling of bitterness on the part of the workers against the Government

The CHAIRMAN:

– Does the honorable member propose to connect these remarks with the question before the Chair ?

Mr J H CATTS:

– I do. I am referring to the remarks made last night by the honorable member for Parramatta in the course of a speech, in which he introduced class bias into the discussion of this question.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The question before the Chair relates to the Tariff schedule, and not to remarks made by the honorable member for Parramatta.

Mr J H CATTS:

– The honorable member for Parramatta, whilst discussing the question immediately before the Chair last night, was allowed, without let or hindrance, for some time to deal with this aspect of the matter. He asked, “ What provision is made for protecting the workers? Where do they come in?” We know what sympathy he has for the workers. From the inception of Federation he has been ranged on the side of every Conservative proposal submitted to this House. The time when he had some regard for the worker was twenty-five years ago, when he himself was a leader of the Labour party. Then, of course, he had much concern for them, but now that he is associated with the reactionary forces in Australian politics, his regard for the workers is limited to gibes and jeers at them, and gibes and jeers at those who are seeking to help them.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– Absolutely incorrect.

Mr J H CATTS:

– I have never .yet heard the honorable member fail to repudiate a statement concerning which he is challenged.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– I gibe always at a bogus representative like the honorable member.

Mr J H CATTS:

– Upon every occasion that the honorable member makes remarks to which exception is taken in this House he, in the same breath, repudiates them. Judas Iscariot, before the cock crowed thrice, denied what he had said a few moments before.

Dr Carty Salmon:

– The honorable member had better read up his Scriptural facts.

Mr J H CATTS:

– I should have said that Peter did so; but, at all events, Judas Iscariot had the decency to go out and hang himself after having betrayed his Master. I do not pretend that my knowledge of the Scriptures is as good as is that of the honorable member for Parramatta, but I should be long sorry if the same objection could be lodged to my way of carrying out what I think is right as can be lodged against that which he does on the ground that it is good. I can only say that the honorable member for Parramatta has no faith in the new Protection policy. He has shown again and again that he is opposed to it, and he has now linked himself to a party which does not believe in the new Protection.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– The honorable member is now making another incorrect statement.

Mr J H CATTS:

– The honorable member has stated his position in such a way that he is easily able to find a loophole of escape. He is too cunning to say that he is entirely opposed to this schedule.

The CHAIRMAN:

-The honorable member must not make that statement.

Mr J H CATTS:

– He is too cute to say that he is entirely opposed to the items in this schedule, but he has been a professed Free Trader throughout his life.

Mr Tudor:

– No, he was once a Protectionist.

Mr J H CATTS:

– I beg his pardon. In referring to him, one needs to have a coat of many colours in view, so that in alluding to one colour one can keep in sight the others.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order !

Mr Joseph Cook:

– It is about time that this vulgar abuse stopped.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order ! The honorable member must deal with the question before the Chair.

Mr J H CATTS:

– The honorable member for Parramatta was careful not to say last night whether he proposed to vote for or against the items in this schedule. When a direct question was put to him, he said, “ I am not able to express an opinion about these items ; I know nothing about them.” And so he left himself entirely free to bestride the rail - to go over to one side or to the other, and to be able to say afterwards, “ I did not commit myself to voting for or against any duty.”

Mr Roberts:

– He is at liberty to follow Deakin, or Elliot Johnson and Kelly.

Mr J H CATTS:

– Exactly. And so, with regard to the new Protection, whilst he did not say straight out that he was opposed to it, he ridiculed the proposal from start to finish, and said that it -was not feasible. He opposes various proposals, not in a direct but in an indirect way, so as to leave a convenient loophole of escape if any criticism is levelled against him. When he does not oppose a proposition he opposes the means by which it is sought to give effect to it, and so we have his opposition, in reality, to every piece of progressive legislation. I had no wish to introduce this phase of the question, but the honorable member for Parramatta took up a very ill-considered attitude last night when he sought to raise the class feeling of the workers of Australia against the Government with respect to this schedule.

I regret that this Tariff schedule has been introduced at a stage of the session when we must be severely handicapped in attempting to give a peaceful and thorough consideration to the items in Committee. When we are called upon to deal with many of these items, we shall probably have been sitting all night, and we shall neither be in the humour nor in the physical condition to debate them as they ought to be debated.

Mr Roberts:

– The longer the honorable member speaks the longer we shall sit.

Mr J H CATTS:

– If I had my way, I should be prepared to join with others in talking against time from midnight until 8 a.m., so that the Government could do no business during those hours.

Mr Mathews:

– We can easily overcome that difficulty by coming back after Christmas.

Mr J H CATTS:

– I am prepared to come back after Christmas, or whenever necessary, to do the business of the country. Far better that we should come back after Christmas than that, in the desire to close before the Christmas holidays, we should pass items in this schedule in such a way that the country cannot be sure of getting well-considered legislation.

Mr Mcwilliams:

– Then let us adjourn on Friday, and come back in February.

Mr.J. H. CATTS.- I should be quite agreeable. I hope that the Minister will give us information that will justify the inclusion of the increased duties in the schedule, and that when we shall have finally dealt with the Bill we shall not find ourselves in the position predicted by several honorable members of having created more anomalies than we have rectified. I sincerely hope that the suggestion which has been tendered to the Government regarding a general re-opening of the Tariff schedule next session will be disregarded, and that we shall be able at the next general election to place before the people, together with our new Protection proposals, a programme for a Tariff based on thoroughly national lines, so that in the first session of the next Parliament we shall be in a position to go into the whole question, and place the protection of Australian goods upon a truly democratic and national basis.

Mr RYRIE:
North Sydney

– I should not occupy the attention of the Committee at this stage if I did not feel it incumbent upon me to deal briefly with this schedule, lest there should be any misapprehension on the part of my constituents and the public generally that I and others on this side are prepared to sink our Free Trade principles and practically to go over to the Protectionists. I wish to make it clear that I, at all events, do not intend to do so. I was elected as a Free Trader and a Fusionist on the distinct understanding that, a Protective policy having been adopted, I would not agree to any tinker ing with the Tariff or any increase in the. duties, except for the purpose of rectifying anomalies.

Mr Higgs:

– Will the honorable member describe what is an anomaly ?

Mr RYRIE:

– If I were to point to the honorable member for Capricornia, I think I should show what is an anomaly.. If the Minister of Trade and Customs desires honorable members on this side to support his Tariff proposals, he should have been a little more explicit in pointing out what anomalies it is sought to rectify.

Mr Tudor:

– The honorable memberwas not here when I made my explanation.

Mr RYRIE:

– That is so, but I have seen the speech, and heard it discussed ;. and I know that no information was given-, on the point. I do not wonder that the honorable member for Cook should make an attack on the honorable member for Parramatta, because the speech of thelatter was certainly calculated to touch honorable members opposite “on the raw.” The honorable member for Parramatta made it clear that there is absolutely noeffort being made by honorable members opposite to bring about the new Protection of which we hear so much, and under which the working men would get a fairshare of the duties imposed.

Mr Hall:

– What about the referenda ?

Mr RYRIE:

– If the question as to new Protection had been honestly placed before the people, instead of being involved with other questions, there might have been are affirmative answer. The honorable member for Parramatta showed that the proposed increases in the Tariff will simplyput money into the pockets of a few manufacturers, leaving the working men without any share. What is the use of honorable members opposite trying to gull the public by talking about new Protection? There is sufficient legislation now, both Federal and State, to procure the working man 2 fair remuneration for his labour. There is the Conciliation and Arbitration Court, and, in most of the States, Wages Boards ; so that, as a fact, there is no need for new Protection. These increased duties are imposed ostensibly for the purpose of enabling employes to obtain higher wages, but, as in the past, they will fail to achieve that end. The honorable member for Cook has stated that he will not support any further duties unless they are associated with new Protection. That being so, I am glad to welcome him to the ranks of the Free Traders, and I shall expect him to vote with honorable members on this side when we come to deal with the items. I did not approve, however, of that part of the honorable member’s remarks wherein he said that if it could be shown that the workmen would get a fair share of the duties under the new Protection policy, he would be in favour of absolute prohibition. Such a position is ridiculous, because prohibition could not result in the benefit of the workmen. For a short time a certain section of the workers might reap some advantage, but ultimately they would be brought face to face with ruin. Under prohibition, large factories might be built, and vast quantities of goods turned out, but this could only mean that, with our small population, production would in a very short time overtake consumption. We should then be faced with two alternatives - either to export the surplus and compete with the goods manufactured under quite other conditions in other parts of the world, or close our factories. I have heard people, who do not think deeply, say that it would be a good thing to have large factories here, such as they have in England, where, for instance, a mile of tweed is turned out in a day. At that rate, how many weeks or months would it require for the production of tweed to overcome the consumption? As to exporting and competing against foreign labour, we should find that absolutely impossible withour current rates of wages. I am not a rabid Free Trader, and I know that we must have some revenue from our Customs. It is an absolute mistake, however, to bolster up and spoon-feed industries by means of a highly Protective Tariff. I do not wish to go into details, but I must say that I do not think there is any necessity for an increase in the duty on pianos. There are two firms manufacturing these instruments in Australia, the principal one of which, I take it, is that of Beale and Company, who undertook to spend£100,000 in establishing a factory under a duty of 25 per cent. They have spent, I think , £70,000, and, turning out an enormous number of pianos, are doing very well at the present time. Their pianos, I understand, are manufactured at a cost of £16 or£17, and are sold at prices ranging from forty to sixty guineas. Under these circumstances, there does not seem any justification or excuse for an increased duty. It is not only the rich who use pianos; and there is no doubt that in the home of many a small farmer and selector a musical instrument of this kind is a great means of entertainment and comfort. Why should not the daughter of the poor man be able to learn to play the piano in the same way as the daughter of his luckier neighbour? The increase in the duty is equivalent to about 5 per cent. in each class of piano ; but I shall deal with the details later. I hold that timber for building purposes is dutiable at altogether too high a rate; and I see no reason at all for an import duty on New Zealand timber. Any one who has done any building lately, especially a long way from railway communication, must realize that timber is a very serious item. Pine boards are at the outrageous price of something like 25s. per 100 superficial feet - aprice never dreamed of a few years ago. This is a serious handicap to those who are settling on the land.

Mr McWilliams:

– There is stringy bark.

Mr RYRIE:

– Stringy bark and slab huts are all right, but people desire a few boards here and there; and at present a decent weatherboard cottage means a considerable expenditure. I should like some information from the Minister as to why New Zealand white pine, undressed, for butter boxes, is free, subject to departmental by-laws, while timber, undressed, cut to size for making boxes, is subject to a duty of 4s. per 100 super feet. For the life of me I cannot understand what this means. Experts say that this duty of 4s. means nothing ; but, if that be so, why is it provided in the Tariff? Perhaps it is one of the anomalies that we hear of. If it is, I am not going to support it. The consumer in this country deserves consideration. We are doing everything for the worker, but we forget the interests of the general consumer, who may be neither a working man, nor an employer, nor a manufacturer. Instead of considering him, we are increasing the cost of living day by day. What is to be the end of it? We should have been given some time to consider these proposals, and, if we had had a commission or board of some sort to thresh the matter out and supply us with expert evidence on it, we should have been much better able to come to an accurate decision. I shall deal with the items as they are called on separately, but my main reason for rising now was to prevent any misapprehension as to the attitude of myself and other Free Traders on this side. I am not going back on my Free Trade principles, and I am pleased to know that, when voting against some of the items, I shall be in good company with some of the solid Free Traders on the other side.

Mr THOMAS BROWN:
Calare

– I regret that a measure involving such large and important interests should have been brought in at this stage of the session. When, in previous Parliaments, we have been invited to consider Tariff proposals, it has been under conditions that permitted fair discussion, and gave us a reasonable opportunity of considering their bearings. It is not so in this case. We are led to suppose that we are almost at the end of the session, a large amount of other business is awaiting our attention, and it is not fair to expect us to wedge in the consideration of a Tariff schedule. We are told that it means the rectifying of anomalies, but the whole Tariff issue is involved by it. If we are to believe the representations made inside and outside this Chamber, it appears that in the rectification of one anomaly from the Ministerial stand-point, two or three others are being created, necessitating a succession of similar Tariff amendments in the future. I am not sure that the whole of this schedule is merely in the direction of rectifying anomalies, unless the items are based on the definition of “ anomaly “ given by no less an authority than the Secretary of the Victorian Chamber of Manufactures, as “ Any item upon which the Tariff does not give effective Protection.” It seems to me that, under the guise of rectifying anomalies, we are being asked to accede to requests that have been pressed time and again upon the attention of previous Parliaments. I remember the severe struggles that took place over the timber duties, the strawboard duties, the piano duties, and other proposals. Those interested now come along once more with their claims, and the Government ask us to concede them under the guise of rectifying anomalies.

In all these matters of Tariff reform, we have a number of intricate interests to consider. They may be generally divided into those of the manufacturer, those of the work-people, and those of the consumer. A Parliament, in order to do justice, must not be satisfied merely to consider the interests of the manufacturer or of his employes. It must take into account the wider interests of the general consumer, who is vitally concerned in these taxation levies.

It is impossible for any Parliament to have that intimate .knowledge of all the various ramifications of industry which is necessary to enable it to arrive at just and fair decisions. Therefore, to ask the House ir* the short time at its disposal to engage in the consideration of all these questions,, which are presented to it for the first timein a Bill, and to arm itself with the information necessary to enable it to do justice to all the interests concerned, is to place us in an unfair position. We cannot deal with them properly in a piecemeal and incomplete fashion.

Mr Groom:

– Then the honorable member is in favour of a board to investigate Tariff matters ?

Mr THOMAS BROWN:

– Yes. I remember the experience I had when the first Tariff was submitted to this Parliament. Representations were made to me, which I took honestly as being correct statements of the position, but, as I found afterwards, they were so coloured and biased, and so ignored the other issues which had to be considered, that I was often placed in a very unjust position. I had not available the means of obtaining correct information, and as the outcome of that experience I strongly urged that, before any further Tariff proposals were submitted to this Chamber, they should be thoroughly investigated by a tribunal, which could do the work as this House cannot do it. Before the last Tariff was tabled we appointed a commission, which carried out a very exhaustive investigation. Although we did not accept all its recommendations, we had before us the evidence on which they were founded, and we were in a better position to deal’ with ‘the items, and to judge fairly between the conflicting interests, than we otherwise should have been. Because an industry comes along and asks for a duty in the name of Australian industry, it must not be concluded that its claim is necessarily well founded. The effect of giving that particular industry the Protection for which it asks may be tohandicap other industries which are as. much Australian as it. is. Take, for instance, the item of strawboard. At the outside only about a couple of hundred work-people are engaged in that industry, but a duty on strawboard adversely affects other occupations in which thousands of workers are employed. It is necessary that the House should know the effect of every duty it imposes, but it is not possible for us to obtain detailed information at a moment’s notice.

Sitting suspended from 6.30 to 8 p.m.

Mr THOMAS BROWN:

– A large number of honorable members, while ready to do justice to manufacturers, wish at the same time to secure fair treatment for the workers and the consumers, and to enable them to do this there must be some investigation of industrial conditions, such as that undertaken by the Tariff Commission, to supply them with information. Parliament would be well advised to create a commission of inquiry - the work might be done by the Inter-State Commission or bya Board of Trade - to which those desiring alterations of the Tariff should present their grievances and make their claims. Its reports would furnish evidence for the guidance of honorable members. They would know that there had been a full investigation, and that they were not being asked to listen to ex parte statements, hiding, perhaps, vital matters. I have always urged that claims for Tariff consideration should be submitted for investigation of that character before being brought before Parliament. Apparently, the proposals now under discussion were not thought of sufficient importance by Ministers to warrant such investigation. Evidently they commenced with the intention of submitting proposals for the rectification of anomalies which would be acceptable to both sides, but gradually other matters were dragged in, and judging by the deputations which wait on the Minister of Trade and Customs and honorable members daily, and almost hourly, still bigger questions may be brought forward. These important matters we are being asked to consider with only limited information, as to the correctness of which we have no certainty. Remembering former Tariff debates, I notice that certain manufacturers are putting into practice the school book adage -

If at first you don’t succeed,

Try, try, again !

The success gained in connexion with the first Tariff has spurred them on to further effort. In an industry like the manufacture of strawboards-

Mr Sampson:

– Is not that one which should be established?

Mr THOMAS BROWN:

– It is of some importance, but I do not think that to establish one industry we should destroy several others. Not more than forty or fifty hands are regularly employed in the Victorian strawboard factory, nor are more than 200 persons directly connected with the industry, whereas in Sydney alone there are ten or twelve cardboard-box factories whose machinery has cost about £60,000, and they give regular employment to 1,000 hands, the value of their output being estimated at from £170,000 to £200,000 per annum. The boxes which they make are largely used by business houses for sending goods to customers in convenient and presentable packages, but the success of the industry depends largely on the ability to import raw material. Should this be prevented, cardboard boxes will largely go out of use, being superseded, probably by imported brown paper. If there were an independent tribunal before which all manufacturers desiring Tariff assistance had to go to substantiate their claims with sworn testimony, honorable members would know the probable effect of proposed changes.

The Minister, in the name of humanity and for the protection of life, has increased the duty on flannelette. This is no new proposal. It has been considered by former Parliaments, and now comes before us as the rectification of an anomaly. If the use of flannelette is really dangerous to human life, it should be prohibited, but there are many other things much more dangerous.

Mr W ELLIOT JOHNSON:
LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– Celluloid and muslin.

Mr THOMAS BROWN:

– Yes. There is no attempt to penalize their use. Many of these things are used by the wealthy, whereas flannelette is worn chiefly by the poor. A British Imperial Commission reporting on the subject, declared that what was necessary was to prevent flannelette, which is purely a cotton material, being sold as flannel, and stated that more had been said about the risk to life occasioned by its wear than the facts justify. Competent authorities state that the proposal made by the Minister that flannelette, in order to be free of the duty imposed, should be so treated as to minimize the danger from contact with fire is impracticable. The process to be effective must be costly, and to add considerably to the cost of this article would be to put it out of the market. Cheaper methods would be only partial in their effectiveness, and, indeed, no process would be lasting, since the washing of flannelette clothing would soon rid it of the chemical properties introduced to prevent danger from fire. This proposal, therefore, is just another attempt on the part of those who have been pestering this House all along to place flannelette on the prohibited list to really secure its prohibition under the guise of rectifying an anomaly.

I regret that in this, as in some other cases, the Minister of Trade and Customs, who ought to represent the great Labour movement of Australia, is allowing the Tariff to be used to place unnecessary and undesirable burdens upon that section of the community which the Labour party represents. I find that the piano manufacturers are again coming along, and seeking further concessions under the guise of remedying an anomaly. There is quite a number of these hoaryheaded old anomalies about which Parliament has been pestered from its inception, and my surprise is, not that we should be asked under the guise of rectifying anomalies to place increased duties on flannelette, pianos, and other items, but that we have not been asked to place a further duty of £12 each on stripper harvesters. I am not going to vote to increase taxation upon the masses. The taxation which they contribute already represents more than their fair proportion, and I am not going to add to it. I am prepared to rectify anomalies as such, but a demand to increase a duty under the guise of rectifying an anomaly does not appeal to me. Whilst this Parliament has power only to confer Tariff advantages on the manufacturers, and no power to enable their employes to participate in those advantages, I am not prepared to consider any proposal to give further favours to that section of the community. I do not pin my faith to it, but I am prepared at least to give a trial to the proposal to give a fair measure of advantages to those who work in factories, and, at the same time, fair protection to the consumers who have to use their products, so that we shall not have repeated in Australia the experience of the United States of America. In America, where Protection has been applied to a greater extent than it has been in any other civilized country, it is found that the most highly protected industries sweat their workers to a greater extent than do any others, and that they sell their goods to the foreigner at a much cheaper rate than that at which they offer them in the Home market. I shall not be a party to the creation of such conditions in Australia. I battled with the Labour party to secure such an extension of the powers of this Parliament as would enable it to protect the workers in the factories, as well as the employers, and to safeguard the interests of the consumers, and from my point of view the Ministry are now cutting from under their feet the very ground that would have enabled them to secure that great reform. These protected interests will, in this way, secure piecemeal all the protection that the most logical Protectionist would give them, whilst their poor sweated factory hands will share none of the advantages of that protection, and are debarred from such advantages by the active and passive opposition of their specially favored employers. The Government are making a serious mistake in giving anything in the nature of substantial protection to any industry before this Parliament is able to protect the interests of the workers in that industry, and the consumers of its products.

Whilst I shall be prepared to consider every anomaly on its merits, and to endeavour to rectify it, I am not prepared to remedy a so-called anomaly by granting more protection to an industry such as that of strawboard making, which has been opposed from the very first, to the appointment of a Wages Board to regulate the conditions of labour. The employers in that, industry petitioned the Legislative Council of Victoria not to allow its employes an opportunity to secure a Wages Board to fix fair and reasonable conditions of labour, and only last year, a Victorian senator stated that it neither paid fair wages nor gave fair conditions to its employes, notwithstanding that it had received a considerable measure of protection. We are now asked, under the guise of remedying an anomaly, to increase the protection granted to that industry. The most serious anomaly of all is that this Parliament cannot devise machinery whereby any of the benefits conferred on a’ protected industry can be shared by the workers employed in it, and to protect the consumers of its products from burdensome charges. I do not desire to debate this question at length. I simply wish to make my position clear, and I have only to say, in conclusion, that on every proposal of a Protectionist character, I shall be found voting with the “noes” if a division is called for.

Mr MATHEWS:
Melbourne Ports

– There are differences of opinion as to what constitutes an anomaly, but to my mind the two greatest anomalies are an industry that is insufficiently protected, while imports continue to flow in freely, and -a

Labour man who is a Free Trader. I must admit that the honorable member for Calare, who has just resumed his seat, qualified his Free Trade utterance with a statement that he is willing to grant an industry some protection provided that new Protection conditions can be applied to it.

Mr W ELLIOT JOHNSON:
LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– He wants to leave a side door open.

Mr MATHEWS:

– There is some hope for him, but with the exception of a few of the representatives of Victoria, there is none for the Opposition. In making that statement, however, I do not refer to those who were closely associated with an earlier Deakin Administration. The Tariff question is being considered, not only by this Committee, but by the newspapers, who display some little interest in the list of anomalies with which we are now called upon to deal. No doubt the Opposition were pleased to read an article which appeared in the Age this morning, and from which I propose to read a text.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The honorable member will not be in order in reading a newspaper article commenting on the proceedings of this Chamber.

Mr MATHEWS:

– Then I shall not read the statement from the newspaper, but will give honorable members the effect of it. The statement was to the effect that the Labour Government was at last considering some small measure of protection forced upon them by the Protectionist Opposition. The Age charges the Labour party with being Free Traders, and speaks of their, squirming and writhing under the castigation they received yesterday at the hands of the honorable member for Kooyong.

Mr Kelly:

– Do they not give the honorable member for Calare any credit for Protectionist principles ?

Mr MATHEWS:

– I should not be surprised if the Age did so at some time or other. After hearing, or reading, the speeches made by many members of the Opposition during this debate, I should hardly think that the manufacturers of Australia will expect to get much protection from them. Some seven members of the Opposition have already intimated their distinct intention to prevent any increase in the output of Australian manufactures. Many of them have enumerated the enormous profits that manufacturers are making.

Mr Kelly:

– Is the honorable member the particular friend of the manufacturers?

Mr MATHEWS:

– I am endeavouring to show that whilst I am not posing as their particular friend, the manufacturers will look upon the Opposition as their friends, and will continue to do so, notwithstanding what has been said by them during this debate. While they may differ on the fiscal question, they are agreed in preventing the employes from getting fair wages and conditions. The party that the Age has now taken under its wing, is not composed of the Protectionists we might expect to see. Those honorable members, with all the Free Traders on their side, are very keen on the appointment of a Tariff board or permanent Tariff commission. Of course, we have heard that sort of proposal before ; but this is the first occasion on which I ever knew the Age to be converted by politicians, as it has been by the Opposition, to their way of thinking. While a board to consider the Tariff in detail, and report to this House, is now the objective of the Age, it was not always so.

Mr Deakin:

– The Age has long supported the appointment of such a board.

Mr MATHEWS:

– On 3rd March, 1910, just prior to the last general election, which I am sure all members of the Fusion party remember with regret, the Age leading article contained the following

They are Conservative fusionists sinking Tariff amendment by an ingenious device of relegating Tariff anomalies to a tribunal not yet in existence, and of whose fiscal composition no safeguards are to be taken.

The Leader of the Opposition now tells us that the Age has for a long time supported the appointment of such a board.

Mr Deakin:

– Not in that form.

Mr MATHEWS:

– Then on the 18th March, the Age leading article stigmatized the desire of the Fusionists to remit theTariff to an Inter-State Commission as another of the flimsy excuses for inaction and. delay. It will be seen, as I stated, that theOpposition has converted the great Age newspaper, which has always taken the credit to itself of making and breaking every Victorian and every Federal Ministry The article in the Age of this morning is so full of twistings and turnings and misstatements that if the writer had had to place his name at the bottom, T warrant it would never have appeared. If Benjamin Hoare had been asked to sign that article he would have been afraid to do so. The people, most of whom have never heard of him, would have asked, “ Who is Benjamin Hoare?” while those who do know him would have expressed surprise at his telling lies, and thus deluding the public. It is only because newspaper articles of this character are anonymous that men can be found to write them for some transitory gain. The honorable member for Parramatta also accused the Age of twisting on the fiscal question.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– I never mentioned the Age!

Mr MATHEWS:

– The honorable member for Parkes and the honorable member for Lang did likewise. As for the honorable member for Wentworth, it is very hard to tell when he is in earnest, and I shall make no charge against him, because whatever he says to-day we know that he will say something different tomorrow. The honorable member for Parramatta, in mimicking tones and gesture, quoted a declaration which he said had been made by me, that I would never vote another penny of Protection until we had the right to fix wages. At the same time the honorable member hinted - I do not know whether he was leaving a way out - that he would assist, in some sort of way, the policy of new Protection. Those on his side, including the Leader of the Opposition and the members of the late Ministry, were always talking about the new Protection ; but when the opportunity was presented to have it carried into effect by means of the referenda, they voted against it. We still have the old order of Free Traders in a great majority on the other side.

Sir Robert Best:

– There seem to be some Free Traders on the Government side.

Mr MATHEWS:

– I admit there are some, but those Free Traders are willing to give a chance to the Protectionist policy if the employes and the consumers receive a share of the Protection.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– Will the honorable member tell me what his brand of new Protection is?

Mr MATHEWS:

– If I replied, I should be called to order by the Chairman. The Minister of Trade and Customs has received certain confidential information in regard to the position of various industries, and members of the Opposition, who previously ridiculed the idea that manufacturers would disclose their affairs in such a way, now request the Minister to lay the results of his inquiries on the table.

Such a request has been made by four or five honorable members opposite.

Mr Mcwilliams:

– They have not asked for confidential information.

Mr MATHEWS:

– The whole of the information is confidential, and the Minister has very naturally refused to make it available.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– Who asked for that?

Mr MATHEWS:

– The honorable member for Parkes and the honorable member for Illawarra.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– I do not think the honorable member for Illawarra made such a request.

Mr Chanter:

– Did not the honorable member for Lang also make the request?

Mr MATHEWS:

– I make no particular point of what is said by the honorable member for Lang in this connexion, because he says straight out that he does not desire to see anything manufactured in Australia.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– The honorable member for Illawarra did not ask for any confidential information.

Mr MATHEWS:

– He did; he asked for the information on which the Minister based the small modicum of Protection he is now proposing.

Mr Fuller:

– I did not ask for confidential information to be laid on the table of the House.

Mr MATHEWS:

– The honorable member said he desired to have the information that led the Minister to propose the extra duties-. At any rate, that is what I understood the honorable member to say, but, if he denies it as a fact, I, of course, accept the denial.

Mr Fuller:

– I asked the Minister if he had examined the information sent to him, and if he had made use of his officers to find out the truth of the statements made; and the Minister sat silent.

Mr MATHEWS:

– At any rate, the honorable member for Parkes did ask for the information. The peculiarity of the position is that, according to the Age, the great hopes of the manufacturers to-day are centred in the honorable members of the Opposition; and, if that be so, the manufacturers are depending on a very rotten reed. In my opinion, the Free Traders on the Government side ought to have made their position in regard to the fiscal policy and new Protection more clear to the Committee ; but two or three of them have given us the same old Free Trade addresses.

Mr Kelly:

– Do you not think that the article in the Age regarding yourself is very true ?

Mr MATHEWS:

– All I have to say on that matter is that I never “ cowered “ or ‘ writhed ‘ ‘ to the Age, or to the gentleman who wrote the article, and am not likely to do so. The more of that sort of stuff they write, the better it is for myself. I invite them to do it. I shall vote for no duty on cotton piece, goods, because it can only be a revenue duty.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– You are slipping.

Mr MATHEWS:

– The honorable member knows that no cotton piece goods are made in Australia. To revert to the Age article, although the honorable member for Hume is well able to defend himself, I think it was playing it low down to attack him in the way he was attacked to-day. During the whole of his term in this House he has fought consistently for principles which the Age has advocated. He has never slipped, but the Age has, and the Age writers do not like it. They thought they could make him go over to the other side, but they have failed. There are many items in the schedule, particularly some of the new ones, which I should like to see carried. I am glad to see what was a pure anomaly in regard to the industry of ship-building rectified. It has been stated that there are no conveniences to build ships in Australia ; but, as a matter of fact, in two or three of the capital cities we can build ships of small tonnage, and I am pleased that the Minister has given us the opportunity of enabling dredges and ships under 400 tons to be manufactured locally. The effect will be to make some of those gentry who in the past have spent the people’s money abroad pay the piper if they attempt to do it again. I should like to deal with some of the items, if only to refute the arguments of the honorable member for Calare, but shall resist the temptation in deference to the desire of the Committee to get on with the business. I only hope that the gentlemen who have their money invested in manufactories in Australia will know, after reading this debate, whether their friends are in the Opposition or on the Government side.

Mr FRANK FOSTER:
NEW ENGLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I ask the indulgence of the Committee for a few remarks at this stage, as it is my intention to be very quiet during the consideration of the individual items. So long as the Minister can give reasonable explanations for his re-adjustments, and show me justification for rectifying the anomalies which he has selected for treatment, I am quite prepared to give him a sound Protectionist vote on every one of them. Where he increases the duty, 1 am also prepared to stand by him. I am sorry that the Government have brought down the Tariff at this stage of the session. It was not with my consent. I was not consulted, and I do not know that the party were consulted. I think this is something absolutely off the Government’s own bat. Next session was the time for an amendment of the Tariff, and I should have liked to see a great many more protective duties in it, and altogether a much larger and more solid Tariff, that would rectify more anomalies. I object to disturbing trade and commerce by amending the Tariff’ every session. We ought to give it a good overhauling once every three years, but_ we should consider the trading public. the Government, in their wisdom, have seen fit to place the Tariff on the table, but they must have readjusted the anomalies either this or next session; and I am rather surprised at the attitude of the Opposition, seeing that they have begged and prayed for the anomalies to be rectified ever since the session began. The tabling of this measure in its present condition seems almost like a concession to the Opposition. I am sure the Government were not urged from behind to do it right at the end of the session. I should like the attention of the Minister of Trade and Customs, but I suppose we loyal supporters are hardly thought worthy of much consideration. We, who sit quietly behind the Government, and come forward steadily to vote loyally for party, are often forgotten. I have made repeated requests to the Minister to impose a duty on diamonds. This would not hurt the poor in his or any other electorate, but would assist an industry which has produced a “ Kimberley “ that has been the wonder of the world. When the honorable member for Hume was preparing his Tariff I brought’ the matter before him, but he could not see his way clear to do what I asked. I thought, however, that surely a Labour Government would not be afraid to place a duty on diamonds, seeing that none of the poor would be affected, and that, at the same time, there was a possibility of developing a great Australian industry. This matter of diamond production in Australia has been laughed at by people who will not look into it, and Australian diamonds have been slandered. We have passed the stage when anything Australian can be laughed at for long, because we are taking our place as manufacturers and producers in the markets of the world. There is, however, a tendency to laugh at Australian productions, and I find that travelling diamond experts for foreign firms take it upon themselves to decry Australian diamonds at every opportunity. I have here some expert opinion which, will show that our diamonds have gone through the proper tests, and have come out equal to the best in the world. It is as follows : -

The introduction into this country of a diamond cutting and polishing works would do more than anything else to establish a regular market for our diamonds. Upon reliable authority we are told that Australian diamonds although small, are of good quality. Diamonds won from the alluvial deposits here do not differ to any great extent, as regards colour, from the diamonds found in other parts of the world. Whites and straws are the prevailing shades, and occasionally pale blue, light green, pink, red, cinnamon brown, and black (boarts) are met with. In order, to test the quality of the Australian diamonds, and to establish, if possible, a market for our gems, a parcel of diamonds was forwarded to London and exhibited in the New South Wales Court at the Colonial and Indian Exhibition. These diamonds were obtained from “The Streak of Luck” and “ Crown Jewels” mine at Copeton. The diamonds were minutely examined by Messrs. Ford and Wright, the London diamond cutters. Mr. Atkinson (the manager) in furnishing his report to the Mines Department of New South Wales, says : - “ No. 2 parcel, one cut and polished, the other left in its rough state to show the difference; the one cut and polished proves a brilliant of the finest water. “ No. 3 parcel, containing one diamond. When cut and polished is about as fine a brilliant as it is possible to get, be it from Glenconda, Borneo, Brazil, or Jagersfontein.”

Further on in his report Mr. Atkinson states : - “ If it were possible to pick out an African and an Australian diamond, exactly the same sue, weight, and appearance, and give it to one man to cut and polish the African stone would be finished in six days, while the Australian stone would take eight, with this vastly important difference, the Australian stone would be of greater brilliancy.”

Mr. Atkinson says : “ In proportion to their production, Australia finds the most white diamonds. There is always a good demand for white stones, as being small they are the most suitable to set around other coloured gems.”

Mr. Thos. Davis, F.G.S., and Mr. E. Etheridge, in furnishing the report to the Mines Department upon the submitted parcel, say : - “1. The diamonds of New South Wales, in their physical character, are more nearly allied to those of Brazil.” “2. They have been largely sold in London as such.”

On page 11 of this report we find these words : - “ In fact it appears from information gathered from a most reliable source, that a large proportion of New South Wales diamonds reach their way to the London market as Brazilian stones.”

Mr Joseph Cook:

– What is the date of that report?

Mr FRANK FOSTER:
NEW ENGLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– The cutting, which is from the Inverell Argus, is dated 7th April, 191 1, but I cannot tell the date of the official report.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– I think it was made many years ago.

Mr FRANK FOSTER:
NEW ENGLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– So much the better, because the diamond matrix has since been found there.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– What is called a pipe.

Mr FRANK FOSTER:
NEW ENGLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– It may be a pipe or a dyke. Up to a certain period we had no evidence whatever of the existence of the matrix.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– Sixteen years ago, when in the Mines Department, I granted a good slice of the prospecting vote for that field, but nothing came of it.

Mr FRANK FOSTER:
NEW ENGLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Up to that time only alluvial diamonds had . been found. When their value became known, a large number of companies were formed, and prospectors set to work to find the matrix. This, as I say. has been found, and samples have been sent abroad. The following statement shows the result : -

The “ Oakey Creek “ mine joins “ Kirk’s Hill “ on the west. Here the diamond matrix has been located in a dolerite dyke or pipe. Specimens of the rock, containing an inclosed diamond, have been exhibited before the leading scientists of the world, and the find has been pronounced thoroughly authentic.

I saw the reports of four or five scientists on these diamonds in their matrix, and they all spoke of the possibility of a Kimberley in Australia.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– Are diamonds being; obtained there now?

Mr FRANK FOSTER:
NEW ENGLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Yes, a few; but, as the experience of the Kimberley field in South Africa shows, a large amount of capital is required to develop a mine, and a great deal of heavy work has oftento be undertaken without any return.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– At that time a very large American company was started on that field.

Mr FRANK FOSTER:
NEW ENGLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– It was only to work the alluvial diamonds. I know the field well, having had mining operations there some years ago. Up to the finding of the dyke, three or four years ago, all the companies formed were to develop the alluvial deposits. This discovery absolutely alters the position, and that is why I appeal to the Minister to impose a duty on diamonds. The objection raised by the honorable member for Hume was the difficulty of collecting the duty, the departmental officers thinking that diamonds could be easily hidden. However, duties are now collected on jewellery and other small articles which are not half so valuable to Australia, and that could be smuggled in by the tubful.

Mr Fuller:

– Who is Mr. Atkinson, whose report the honorable member quoted ?

Mr FRANK FOSTER:
NEW ENGLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– The honorable member for Werriwa informs me that he is an expert in the New South Wales Mines Department. A man who has spent years in prospecting and finding a dolerite or diamond dyke, has approached various capitalists with a view to its development, but the invariable reply is that they do not care to do anything while diamonds are on the free list, but would do something if there were a duty on diamonds. I merely wish to make a statement of the position, and to urge Australians to have more faith in the diamonds produced here. It would be a splendid thing if we could open up a big diamond field, and develop it with white labour. Another matter to which I ask the Minister to give attention is the prevention of the importation of lucerne seed. At the present time French seed is being sold as local seed, to the serious injury of growers of lucerne, who ask for a reasonable duty on lucerne seed. Those who have battled on the land know how serious a matter it is to be supplied with bad seed. The honorable member for Parramatta made some wild statements concerning the Tariff, and a good deal has been said against Free Traders on this side who are prepared to vote for duties if they can get the new Protection. A Free Trader who does that is on sound economic ground, and deserves all honour. But what is to be thought of those who, as Free Traders, fought the last Tariff, and are now sinking their Free Trade views in the endeavour to oust the Labour party from office? The honorable member for Parramatta said last night that new Protection would not be effective-

Mr Joseph Cook:

– I did not say that.

Mr FRANK FOSTER:
NEW ENGLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– The honorable member told me, when I asked if he was in favour of nationalizing distribution for the protection of the consumer, that that could not be done without the nationalization of production, too. I challenge him to tell the people of Parramatta that the municipality could not carry on the work of distribution unless it owned the tea plantations producing the tea which it would have to sell. Tariffs do not protect the consumers, and it is time to tell the people plainly that under either Free Trade or Protection they will be robbed by the middleman. As a Protectionist, I shall vote for duties where they will establish or maintain an Australian industry, but, being honest, I have to admit that the middleman robs the consumer under them. Although a hat can be produced at the Denton mills for 2s. 6d., the working man is charged 7s. 6d. or 8s. 6d. for it. I am disgusted with those who talk about scientific Protection, and pretend that the imposition of duties will make goods cheaper. That is not what happens in practice, as can be discovered by an examination of the prices prevailing in America, Germany, and Australia, while, if the conditions of Free Trade England are examined, it will be seen that living is as dear there as in protected countries. When I asked the honorable member for Parramatta to assist me in fighting for the abolition of the middleman, he said that that is impossible, because one could not sell tea without owning a great part of China.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– Did I say that?

Mr FRANK FOSTER:
NEW ENGLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– That was to be implied from the honorable member’s remarks. He said that the nationalization of distribution is impossible without the nationalization of production, which is piffle. Any honorable member could sell a tumbler such as I hold in my hand ; to do that it would not be necessary that he should control the production of glass.

The CHAIRMAN:

– What has this to do with the question?

Mr FRANK FOSTER:
NEW ENGLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I support the imposition of duties for the encouragement of production, but I do not make the pretencethat that or the regulation of wages will protect the consumer. The middleman will still charge as much as he can, and the sooner we tell the public so the better for our honesty. I am prepared to follow the Labour party in its new Protection proposals to secure better wages for the worker, and I am prepared to increase duties whether we get new Protection or not ; but if the consumers feel that the shoe pinches them, they must blame themselves for refusing to give Parliament power to deal generally with industrial matters. I do not care if I form a party within my party in regard to distribution. If honorable members opposite oppose the next referenda, the people’s answer will be the emptying of their benches ina the filling of our benches. The honorable member for Parramatta says that this Government has not been faithful to its trust, but he knows that they could not do more, because of the success of his party in causing the rejection of the referenda. He thinks, however, that, because we desire to pass the Tariff, we shall not answer his statements, and that they will be published broadcast in Hansard, and the newspapers, without contradiction. I say that the Government have gone as far as they could go under the Constitution. On the Tariff question we, on this side, are all free lances, and are not to be dragooned into voting for either Protection or Free Trade. The speech of the honorable member for Calare proved that. I challenge the people of Australia to take up the cause of national distribution for the protection of the consumer.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– Yet the honorable member “ stone- walled “ his own motion.

Mr FRANK FOSTER:
NEW ENGLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Those who initiate movements are always ridiculed and obstructed, but the more I am hindered the more I shall fight. I hope that honorable members will pardon me for having left the old economic paths. Governments often stand by Tariffs which are not purely protective, because they need revenue, and the people are thus called upon to pay taxation which they should not pay. I should be ashamed of Protectionists who would vote for a revenue Tariff. It is said that we shall need revenue if we nationalize distribution, but is. in the £i profit on goods transferred in the course of trade would mean £50,000 on every £1,000,000 turned over, or on £300,000,000 sold a revenue of £15,000,000. This could be obtained by raising the price of an article from is. 6d. to 2s. 7 Jd. That would be a more honest, straightforward, and equitable way of raising revenue than a revenue Tariff ; but until we can legislate effectively, I am prepared to uphold the present Tariff.

Mr CARR:
Macquarie

– In view of the difference of opinion that prevails amongst honorable members, I wish to make clear my position in regard to this schedule, and to indicate that I intend to give a substantial support to the proposals of the Government. I rather regret that the schedule should have been introduced at the present stage of the session, because I should have preferred it to stand over until we had prepared the country for the reception of a revised Tariff. I recognise, however, that the Government have a special knowledge which I do not possess, and that they are probably satisfied that existing conditions warrant the action they have taken. The revenue aspect of .some of the proposed duties occasions me no concern, nor should it concern any truly logical Protectionist, since a protective duty, if effective, is not likely to produce much revenue. The less revenue we obtain from our protective system the better shall I be pleased. I realize that many difficulties have to be overcome, and, but for their existence, I should welcome a wholesale revision of the Tariff. Until those obstacles have been removed, we can go no further in this direction, but our national interests demand that we shall stimulate in every possible way the development of Australia. I care not how high the Tariff is as long as we have in operation a proper system of regulation and control. Abuses are not confined to a Protectionist system. I am sure that my Free Tra’de friends opposite will admit that Free Trade of itself does not necessarily mean cheap goods. It has been demonstrated over and over again that it does not, and we must all admit that both Protection and Free Trade are open to great abuse. Unlike my honorable friend, who has just resumed his seat, I do not come forward with .any panacea, -but I feel satisfied that if we are to proceed along right lines, we must institute some system of inspection and control. The modern development of society, to my mind, undoubtedly makes it necessary that we should have a thorough investigation and control of matters affecting the Tariff. Section 101 of the Constitution provides for this situation since it declares that -

There shall be an Inter-State Commission withsuch powers of adjudication and administration as the Parliament deems necessary for the executionand maintenance, within the Commonwealth, of the provisions of this Constitution relating totrade and commerce, and of all laws made thereunder.

It appears to me that the Inter- State Commission would fill the bill, inasmuch as it would be able, not only to keep a watchful eye on the machinery of the Tariff, but would have an eye to the regulation of the ratio between profits and cost of production. Those phases of the Tariff must be considered.It would be of little use to build up a Tariff that would merely have the effect of enabling local manufacturers to charge more and more for their goods, even if those manufacturers did pay their employes high wages. Something more is necessary. The investigations of such a body would go further, and would include an inquiry into the ratio obtaining between the cost of production in any industry and the prices charged for its products. In the firm belief that the Government intend to take steps to protect the interests of the people in that way, either by attempting to carry, in a modified form, their recent referenda proposals, or by the appointment of an Inter-State Commission - and I should prefer the latter - I intend to support this schedule, believing that with the appointment of such a Commission, we should be able to attack Tariff propositions with a great deal more confidence than we can have to-night.

Introductory paragraph and provisions inserted in the heading to Schedule A agreed to.

Division I. - Ales, Spirits, and Beverages

Items 1 and 2 (Ale and Beer) agreed to.

Item 6 -

By omitting the whole item and inserting in its stead the following item : - “ 6. Wood Naphtha, Methyl Alcohol and Acetone, per gallon,1s.”

Mr TUDOR:
Minister of Trade and Customs · Yarra · ALP

– The Leader of the Opposition has requested me across the table to explain why this duty is proposed. Under the old Tariff, the item was free. In Warburton - one of the saw-milling districts of Victoria - Messrs. Cuming, Smith and Company have established a factory for the production of wood naphtha, in the manufacture of which one of the waste products of the timber industry is utilized. The wages earned by the men engaged in that factory range from £6 to£2 10s. per week, while boys earn £1 10s. per week. I have examined the list of wages paid in the industry, and find that it is satisfactory. The factory is utilizing the waste product of a country industry, and that fact induced the Ministry to place these items on the dutiable list. This product is used for denaturing spirits. Acetone is a contraband of war, and it is very desirable, from a defence point of view, that it should be locally produced.

Item agreed to.

Item 9 (Spirituous preparations) agreed to.

Item 16 -

By omitting the whole item and inserting in its stead the following item : - “ 16. Limejuice and other Fruit Juices and Fruit Syrups, non-spirituous : -

  1. In bottle, per gallon,1s. 6d.
  2. In bulk, per gallon, gd.
Mr KELLY:
Wentworth

.- This item seems to make a considerable increase in the existing duty.

Mr Deakin:

– Only in regard to lime juice and syrups in bottle.

Mr KELLY:

– I should like to know whether most of these fruit syrups are imported in bottle or in bulk. So far as I am aware, the imported lime juice generally sold in Australia is brought here in bottle.

Mr Deakin:

– Last year, we imported £9,500 worth.

Mr Tudor:

– Fifty -two thousand gallons.

Mr KELLY:

– I should like the Minister of Trade and Customs to explain why we are called upon suddenly to give the bottle industry a tremendous profit at the expense of those whom I might describe as the friends of the honorable member for Brisbane. This House recently passed a resolution-

The CHAIRMAN:

– The honorable member is not in order in referring to that matter.

Mr KELLY:

– I wish only to point out that we do not do much good by endeavouring to set a lead in the matter of temperance if we place special bars upon the use of “ soft drinks “ in Australia. I should like to have an explanation of this item from the Minister.

Mr TUDOR:
Minister of Trade and Customs · Yarra · ALP

– In other items with which we have just dealt, differentiation is made between ale and other liquors introduced inbottle and in bulk. I think that ales, spirits, and beverages which are imported in bottle should be subject to a higher rate of duty than are those which are imported in bulk. Even my honorable friends opposite would have been prepared, I think, to correct this anomaly.

Mr Fuller:

– Will the Minister tell us what were the imports last year, the countries from which they were imported, and also whether the proposed duty will not be equal to about 41 per cent. ?

Mr TUDOR:

– Last year, we imported 52,329 gallons. Of that quantity, 31,000 gallons came from the United Kingdom, and nearly 10,000 gallons of one line, and 5;300 gallons of another, from the West Indies. With the exception of small items, the rest of our importations came from the United States, and the total value increased from £6,300 in 1906 to £9,500 in 1910.

Sir William Lyne:

– I desire to know, Mr. Chairman, whether, after we have dealt with these items, the Minister would be in order in coming back and proposing any new item not covered by this schedule if I could succeed in inducing him to submit such a proposition?

The CHAIRMAN:

– lt would be open for the Minister to submit any new proposal by way of a new item after we had dealt with the remaining items. A private member would not be in order in doing so.

Mr Kelly:

– Do I understand that it would be contrary to the Standing Orders for a private member to propose an increase of duty, but that if,for instance, the honorable member for Hume desired to introduce the old Tariff with a view of proposing a. reduction of the duty, he would be in order in doing so?

The CHAIRMAN:

– Perfectly in order.

Mr Fenton:

– I understand that it is not competent for an honorable member to move an additional item or an increase on the duties submitted in the schedule. I presume, however, that an honorable member will be in order in making a suggestion to the Minister in regard to a new item.

The CHAIRMAN:

– An honorable member will be perfectly in order in making a suggestion to the Minister.

Item agreed to.

Division IV. - Agricultural Products and Groceries.

Items 42 (Stearine, &c.)’ and 44 (Waxes) agreed to.

Item 54 -

By omitting the whole of sub-items (e) (f) (g) (h) and (i) and inserting in their stead the following sub-items : -

Quarter-pints and smaller sizes, per dozen (General Tariff),7½d. ; (United Kingdom), 6d.

Half-pints and over quarter-pints, per dozen (General Tariff),1s. 3d. ; (United Kingdom),1s.

Pints and over half-pints, per dozen (General Tariff), as. 6d. ; (United Kingdom), 2s.

Quarts and over pints, per dozen (General Tariff), 5s. ; (United Kingdom), 4s.

Exceeding a quart, per gallon (General Tariff),1s. 8d. ; (United Kingdom), 1s. 4d.

When preserved in spirituous liquid, additional duty at 14s. per gallon to bc paid on the liquid.

Mr KELLY:
Wentworth

.- The real gravamen of the new duty lies in the British preference ; for I presume that the great bulk of bottled fruits are tropical fruits.

Mr Page:

– There are cherries and gooseberries.

Mr KELLY:

– Could the fruits not be differentiated? Ginger, for instance, is certainly not the product of the United Kingdom. The old duties were 9d., 1s. 6d., 3s., and is., and the Tariff was honest enough to make no pretence in regard to British preference. In the new Tariff the duties are1s. 3d., 2s. 6d., 5s., and is. 8d. Now that there is all this talk about the cost of living, and a Royal Commission has been instituted in New South Wales to inquire into the subject, it seems curious that a Labour Government should, by these surreptitious means, and without explanation, increase the duties in this way. In industrial awards we find fruit regarded as almost a necessary of life, much in the same way as tobacco. Of course, if it can be shown that settlements like Mildura cannot subsist without some protection of the sort, I am prepared to hear reason.

Mr TUDOR:
Minister of Trade and Customs · Yarra · ALP

– As I explained in my introductory statement, when the Tariff was originally passed, sauces, chutneys, olives, and capers were made dutiable at the rates now proposed for these preserved fruits and vegetables ; and if there is a country in the world that should preserve its own fruit and vegetables it is Australia. These duties are not proposed on behalf of Mildura, because, if any advantage is to be gained, it is by Queensland. Tropical fruits, principally canned pineapples from Singapore, are now coming into Queensland ; and this is surely an anomaly in the case of this State. Much of these fruits come from tropical countries, where the conditions of employment are not the same as in Australia; whereas the sauces, pickles, and so forth were likely to come from European countries; and this item is proposed in order to level up the duties. In 1906 the importation of half-pints and smaller sizes were valued at £333, whereas in 1910 the value was £1,082 ; in T906, pints and over half-pints were valued at £22,000, which rose to £23,000 in 1910; quarts and oyer pints in 1.906 were valued at £4,500, which rose to £12,000 in 1910; while vessels over a quart were valued in 1906 at £1,200, which rose in 1910 to £9,500.

Mr Sampson:

– What Was the total importation ?

Mr TUDOR:

– It was .about £28,000 in 1906, and £48,000 last year.

Mr Kelly:

– Will the place of manufacture or the place where the fruit is grown prove the origin?

Mr TUDOR:

– I presume that if the whole of the canning is done in Great Britain that will enable the importations to obtain the advantage of the preference. However, I cannot honestly see how this fruit can be taken to England and preserved, because the bulk is preserved when fresh, and we do not get much of this line from the Old Country.

Mr BRUCE SMITH:
PARKES, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– What percentage does the old duty represent on the value of the goods? What is proposed now is an increase of 60 per cent.

Mr TUDOR:

– The value of half-pints and over quarter-pints imported was £5,814, and the duty collected £218, while the value of the pints and over halfpints was £157,000, and the duty collected £1 1,000. That, I take it, represents about 7 per cent.

Mr BRUCE SMITH:
PARKES, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– I am quite satisfied, because that means only 12 or 13 per cent.

Mr FULLER:
Illawarra

.- The Minister has pointed out that the proposed additional duties are for the benefit of the preserved fruit industry in Queensland, which, he says, is being injured by importations from other countries, where the rates of wages are much lower. I should like to point, out that in 1906 the Queensland factories produced 2,366,589 lbs., the whole of which is scheduled in the returns as jam, with no preserved fruit. In 1910 the factories turned out 4,626,846 lbs. of jam and preserved fruit, of which the latter represented 3,732,351 lbs. Under the old Tariff, in the course of four years, the production of preserved fruits has increased from nothing to the figure I have just stated; and, that being so, some little explanation is required in order to show the. necessity for the increased duty.

Mr FINLAYSON:
Brisbane

.- I do not know from what source the honorable member for Illawarra received his figures.

Mr Fuller:

– They are from the official statistics.

Mr FINLAYSON:

– The figures for 1906 showing a total of o”»r 2,000,000 lbs. do not include much in the way of preserved pineapples.

Mr Fuller:

– I pointed out that it is all scheduled as jam.

Mr FINLAYSON:

– Between 1906 anc? 1910 there was a very decided migration of the jam manufacturing industry throughout Australia. Prior to 1906 there were extensive importations of southern fruits into Queensland for jam-making. The duty then imposed led the jam manufacturers to establish themselves in closer proximity to the sources of production. That gave an immediate fillip to the production of Queensland fruits for preserving, and the pineapple-canning industry practically dates from that time.

Mr Fuller:

– They went from nothing up to 3,000,000 lbs. under the old duty. What necessity is there for the new ?

Mr FINLAYSON:

– I wish to point out the necessity for assisting them further. Since then they have had to pay a much heavier wages scale, and a higher cost of material, such as tins, labels, sugar, and other accessories. I understand that to-day the pineapple canners are in a worse position than they were when the 1906 Tariff was imposed. When, in 1906, the duty or» jams was raised, and the jam manufacturers were protected, those who were preserving fruit were left unprotected. In competition with Singapore, where sugar costs a third less than it does in Queensland, labour 80 per cent. less, fruit from 50 to 60 per cent, less, wharfage and harbor dues less, and tins and printed labels much less, our own industries are languishing. There is an abundant supply of good fruit for this purpose in Queensland, but the competition of the Singapore pineapples bids fair to drive, the Queensland product completely out of the southern markets. The Singapore pineapples find their principal market in Victoria, South

Australia, and Western Australia, being distributed mostly from Melbourne. The Committee have now a chance of establishing a good industry for white men, to supply good fruit at a cheap rate as against cheaply grown and prepared fruit imported from outside. In Melbourne, the retail price for a pound tin of Singapore fruit is 5d., while a 2-lb. tin of Queensland fruit costs only 6jd. The duty is justified by the amount of work which it will provide for our own people.

Dr MALONEY:
MELBOURNE, VICTORIA · ALP; FLP from 1931; ALP from 1936

.- Information has been placed in my hands this afternoon which tends to show that the Department will be unintentionally doing an injustice by this item. We have in Victoria a factory for the manufacture of preserved crystallized ginger. Unfortunately, our agriculturists have not produced the green ginger in any quantity to compete with the foreign .article. The industry has been only three years in existence, and, during that time, the importations into Australia have fallen from 575,016 lbs. in 1908, to _ 453,436 lbs. in 1909, and 404,263 lbs. in 1910. The green ginger has been imported from China under a duty of is. per gallon. Paragraph 1 of this item increases the duty on green ginger to is. 8d. (general), and is. 4d. (United Kingdom), per gallon. This is absolutely the raw material of the industry I speak of, and the increase will cause the factory to be closed up. To meet this difficulty, I move -

That the following sub-item be added : - “ k. Ginger in brine or syrup for the purpose of manufacture into crystallized preserved ginger in the Commonwealth, as prescribed by departmental by-laws, free.”

If that is accepted, it will be necessary to add the letters “ n.e.i.” after the word “ ginger,” in paragraph d of item 54. This small factory is competing against the Chinese residents in our midst. It is paying men from £3 to £3 ios. per week, and girls, on the average, .£1 per week. The amendment will permit the factory to be greatly extended, and to compete on fair and equal terms with its rivals.

Mr HEDGES:
Fremantle

– I am rather surprised at the honorable member for Brisbane supporting an increase of duty to bolster up an industry the product of which is preserved in spirits. I think the honorable member must have tripped in some way. I hope the proposed duty will not be agreed to.

Mr TUDOR:
Minister of Trade and Customs · Yarra · ALP

– I am sorry I cannot accept the amendment as proposed by ‘the honorable member for Melbourne. I am prepared to accept it if he alters it to read as follows : -

Ginger, n.e.i., in brine for the manufacture of crystallized preserved ginger as prescribed by departmental by-laws, per lb., id.

Dr MALONEY:
MELBOURNE, VICTORIA · ALP; FLP from 1931; ALP from 1936

– I will accept anything I can get.

Mr Kelly:

– What is the difference between the two?

Mr TUDOR:

– The honorable member for Melbourne proposed to make the article free. It would not be fair to have preserved ginger, not in liquid, dutiable at threepence per pound under the existing Tariff, while allowing green ginger for preserving here to come in free. A duty of one penny per pound will meet what the honorable member desires.

Amendment amended accordingly.

Mr THOMAS BROWN:
Calare

– I understand that fully half the imports for 1 9 10 under this item were in the special lines which have been selected by the Minister for increased duties. On these imports the duty under the old Tariff worked out at about 50 per cent, ad valorem, while the new proposals practically increase the protection on them to 75 per cent. That is a very heavy charge on fruits and vegetables, preserved and imported, and mostly used out back, where the-people are unable to secure fresh vegetables.

Mr Tudor:

– I assure the honorable member that the duty is not anything like 50 per cent. Last year ,£157,000 worth was imported, and the duty paid was £11,000, which works out at about 8 per cent.

Mr THOMAS BROWN:

– I have been told that on special lines the duty under the old Tariff is 50 per cent., and that it will be much higher under this schedule.

Mr BRUCE SMITH:
PARKES, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– There is an increase of 50 per cent, on the rate of duty, but not on the cost price of the article. The duty is not more than 11 per cent.

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– It will not hurt any one.

Mr THOMAS BROWN:

– It seems to me an unreasonable rate, and it will substantially increase the price to the pioneers, !who are compelled to use preserved fruits and vegetables.

Amendment (by Mr. Tudor) agreed to -

That the amendment be further amended by inserting before the word “ Ginger “ the word’s “ (k) On and after 14th December, 1911.”

Amendment, as amended, agreed to.

Question - That the item, as amended, be agreed to - put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 48

NOES: 12

Majority …36

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Item, as amended, agreed to.

Mr TUDOR:
Minister of Trade and Customs · Yarra · ALP

– I wish to announce now some alterations which the Government intend to propose, and of which I should have given notice earlier had I not been prevented, the debate on the introductory paragraph coming to a close when I was out of the chamber. These alterations will have to be dealt with after the items in the schedule have been considered in their order. The Government intend to alter item 59 of the old Tariff by making the duty on bananas1s. 6d. per cental instead of1s. Flannelette is to be withdrawn from this schedule, because, as I stated a fortnight ago, the alteration was proposed, not for revenue or protective purposes, but in the interests of human life, and we find that, under the Customs Act, the Minister may prohibit its importation as being harmful to the community. If that step is taken, it will be necessary to give notice of it, and it will apply to piece-goods and made-up articles as well; because it would not be fair to prohibit one without prohibiting the other. We propose to amend item 303b of this schedule by altering the sizes for butter boxes to 5 inches by¾ inch. and not greater than 14 inches by15/8 inch.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– What would that mean ?

Mr TUDOR:

– The sizes provided for in the schedule will not do what is intended, but it is agreed by all in the industry that the adoption of those I have just mentioned will be effective.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– Is it a further concession to those who are interested in butter boxes?

Mr TUDOR:

– No; it merely gives effect to our original intention.

Mr Groom:

– Under this schedule?

Mr TUDOR:

– Yes. Item350bimposes a duty of1s. 6d., or 25 per cent., and 1s. 2d., or 20 per cent, on rubber tyres and rubber tubes, but it has been ascertained that, so far as the lighter makes are concerned, what . are intended to be even alternative rates would not be, by any means, even. We propose, therefore, to provide that in regard to covers weighing2½1bs., or less, and tubes weighing 1 lb., or less, the duty shall be1s., or 25 per cent., and 10d., or 20 per cent. Covers weighing over 2½ lbs., and tubes weighing over11b., will be dutiable at1s. 6d., or 25 per cent., and at1s. 2d., or 20 per cent. The solid rubber tyres which cannot be weighed are to remain at the ad valorem duty. Another main alteration relates to motor chassis. The Ministry have decided that the duty on motor chassis shall remain as it is under the existing Tariff.

Mr Groom:

– Then the Minister intends to withdraw the proposal in this schedule?

Mr TUDOR:

– Yes; when we come to it. Chassis will remain at 5 per cent., and free, but in order to give effect to the desire of the Parliament, as expressed on a previous occasion, that protection should be given to the bodymakers, and also with a view of preventing the under-valuation of bodies, and the inflation of the values of the chassis, we shall propose a fixed duty as an alternative to the ad valorem duty. That fixed duty, I believe, will be £24 10s. under the general Tariff, and £21 in respect of imports from the United

Kingdom. These are the principal alterations which I shall propose when we come to the items.

Item 88 (Oilmen’s stores, &c.) agreed to.

Item 97 (Seed).

Mr FRANK FOSTER:
NEW ENGLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I wish to ask the Minister to include lucerne seed in this item, which provides for a duty of1s. 6d. per cental in respect of canary hemp and rape seed.

Mr TUDOR:
Minister of Trade and Customs · Yarra · ALP

– The honorable member recognises that it would be impossible for me to accept such a proposal without consulting my colleagues. I shall bring before them the suggestion he has just made, and the representations that he has previously made to me in regard to it, and if the Ministry consider it desirable, a request for such an amendment of the item as he proposes may be made in another place.

Item agreed to.

Item 100 (Soap) and item 101 (Spices) agreed to.

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

Item 106 -

By omitting the whole of sub-item (a), and inserting in its stead the following sub-item : - (a) N.E.I., for the human body, partly or wholly made up, including materials cut into shape therefor ; also Looping for Boots and Labels and Hangers for Coats and other textile goods, having woven lettering or ornamental designs, whether in the piece or otherwise, ad valorem (General Tariff), 40 per cent. ; (United Kingdom), 35 per cent.

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:
Hume

– I desire to know whether the Minister is prepared to strike out of the item in the existing Tariff, for which the item now before us is to be substituted, the word “ Corsets “ ?

Mr Tudor:

– Corsets at present are dutiable at 15 per cent. and 10 per cent., and if we made the amendment which the honorable member suggests, I think they would be dutiable as apparel and attire, at 40 per cent. and 35 per cent.

page 4310

QUESTION

THE TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:

– The word appears in an item for which the item now before us is to be substituted, and I wish to know whether the Minister could not move that it be struck out.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN.The Minister might meet the honorable member’s desire by proposing an addition to the item now before us.

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:

– Will the Minister undertake to strike out the word “Corsets” from the original item?

Mr Tudor:

– The Ministry do not propose to strike it out.

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:

– Then I can do no more. It is not open for me to take any further action.

Mr MASSY-GREENE:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP; NAT from 1917

.- This item includes “ hangers for coats and other textile goods,” and it would appear that the proposal is to protect only hangers having woven lettering or ornamental designs. There are many plain hangers, whilst others bear printed lettering upon them. I desire to know whether they will be dutiable or free under some other item.

Mr Tudor:

– I think that plain hangers would come under such an item as “piecegoods ‘ ‘ ; but those bearing a woven design or a name would come under this item.

Mr MASSY-GREENE:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP; NAT from 1917

– I think that if a local firm were manufacturing one class of hangers, it would be manufacturing the other, and I do not want to see those mentioned in this item protected, while others are allowed to come in free.

Mr Tudor:

– I shall look into the matter.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
Parramatta

– I do not quite follow the Minister. Are we to understand that hangers bearing woven lettering, or ornamental designs are to be dutiable, whether those designs are woven into the material, or are stamped, or printed, upon it. This item would seem to differentiate between those which are stamped and those which are woven, only those which are woven being specified as carrying a duty. Is it not absurd to make such a distinction where, according to the Minister, there is not to be a difference ? The mere weaving of an ornamental design into these goods cannot be an industry.

Mr West:

– A lot of people in Sydney are engaged in this class of work.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

– Then I presume that they are also stamping and printing these ornamental designs. If they are, why should this distinction be made?

Mr J H Catts:

– On a point of order, sir, I should like your ruling regarding the question raised a few moments ago by the honorable member for Hume. We are discussing item 106, which proposes to eliminate certain words from item 106 in the existing Tariff, and I wish to ask you whether an honorable member would not be in order in moving the omission of a word or words in addition to those proposed by the Minister to be omitted.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN.The word which the honorable member for Hume wished to omit appears in the original item, and not in that now before us. It is open to the Minister, however, to move the omission of any words that may be in the principal Act.

Mr TUDOR:
Minister of Trade and Customs · Yarra · ALP

– As there appears to be a doubt in the minds of the honorable member for Richmond and the honorable member for Parramatta, as to whether a distinction would be made between plain

Or printed hangers, and those having lettering or ornamental designs woven into them, I think it would be well to amend the item. I therefore move -

That the item be amended by inserting after the word “ goods,” line 6, the words “ plain printed or”.

Mr Deakin:

– The item would then include stamped designs.

Mr TUDOR:

– Printed or stamped. Amendment agreed to.

Item, as amended, agreed to.

Item 107 (Apparel and Attire) agreed to.

Item 108 -

By omitting from the item the words “ 107 or 134 “ and inserting in their stead the words “106 or no.”

Mr KELLY:
Wentworth

.- I am rather vague as to what this proposal means, and 1 should like some explanation from the Minister.

Mr TUDOR:
Minister of Trade and Customs · Yarra · ALP

– Item 107 carries a duty of 40 and 35 per cent., and item 134 a duty of 25 and 15 per cent., and the differentiation was made because certain articles fall into 107 and others into 134. Item 107 is struck out, and the only items which would fall into 134 we propose to transfer to 110.

Item agreed to.

Item 110 -

By omitting the whole item and inserting in its stead the following item : - “ no. Feathers, Dressed, including Feathers made up into trimmings; also Natural Birds and Wings, ad valorem (General Tariff), 30 per cent. ; (United Kingdom), 25 per cent.”

Mr. FAIRBAIRN (Fawkner) [10.33). - I suppose this item is intended to protect the ostrich industry; and I should like to know whether there is any considerable number of ostriches reared in Australia, and whether protection is really needed? Feathers are the raw material of several large industries in which great numbers of girls and women are employed. If the Minister assures me that the industry is one which requires protection, I shall vote for the duty ; but if the fact be otherwise, it is hardly worth while pressing the item.

Mr TUDOR:
Minister of Trade and Customs · Yarra · ALP

– If the honorable member had the full Tariff before him he would see that feathers undressed are admitted at 15 per cent., and that is not altered. The item under discussion is intended to protect the very industry as to which the honorable member is concerned. The dressed feathers, which have to pay the higher rate, include feathers made up into trimmings, and also natural birds and wings, which are subject to a higher rate, with the object of discouraging their importation.

Mr BRUCE SMITH:
PARKES, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– The honorable member for Fawkner is surprised that there are no ostriches in Victoria, and seems to be under the impression, therefore, that there can be none in Australia. I understand, however, that ostrich-rearing is largely carried on in South Australia, and also in New South Wales. However, I notice that, in connexion with the 36 per cent, duty in the old Tariff, there is no preference to Great Britain. DoI understand that that was an omission of the printer, or that there was no distinction intended ?

Mr Tudor:

– There was no distinction in the old Tariff, but in the Tariff under discussion preference is allowed.

Mr BRUCE SMITH:
PARKES, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– In the newspapers the other day I saw what seemed to be an authoritative statement that the Government intended to prohibit the introduction of natural birds and wings, and I should like the Minister to say whether he proposes to deal with that item as he intends to deal with flannelette?

Mr TUDOR:
Minister of Trade and Customs · Yarra · ALP

– I did not say that I intended to deal with flannelette, but that I would consider the item. In connexion with the introduction of natural birds and wings, a lengthy list has been, made out, with the assistance of the Field Naturalists Society, of those it is felt desirable should be prohibited. Australian birds which leave Australia are prohibited from being returned ; though, of course, there are certain birds in regard to which no prohibition is necessary. If it is desired that no natural birds and wings shall enter Australia either from abroad or after having once left this country, I can say that I am personally in favour of such a step; and that can be done by proclamation independently of this item.

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:
Hume

. - Do I understand the Minister to say that item no refers to dressed feathers, and not to undressed feathers?

Mr Tudor:

– Yes.

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:

– Then I was under a wrong impression, because I desired to refer to undressed feathers at 15 per cent., the importation of which is prejudicial to the ostrich farms in New South Wales and elsewhere in Australia.

Mr Sampson:

– There is an ostrich farm in Victoria.

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:

– There is one at Coonamble with 500 or 600 birds, and another near Sydney with about 100 birds.

Mr Page:

– There are plenty running wild about Queensland !

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:

– The persons who carry on the ostrich farms in New South Wales have some difficulty in selling their feathers, and have to dispose of them out of the country, because people seem to think that the articles from abroad are better than those grown locally. When South Africa prevents the exportation of ostriches to Australia, I think we might well prevent South Africans interfering with our feather industry. A great number of exceedingly beautiful feathers are produced here ; and the industry is one that ought to be assisted as far as possible.

Mr Agar Wynne:

– When I was in New South Wales I could not procure a feather.

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:

– I have heard from the ostrich-farmers themselves that they have great difficulty in selling their feathers, beautiful as they are ; and I desire to call the attention of the Minister to the matter.

Mr KELLY:
Wentworth

.- What the honorable member for Hume has said in regard to the ostrich farms in New South Wales is very largely correct. I desire to point out, however, that, for some extraordinary reason, a duty of 15 per cent, is placed on feathers, which may be described as a luxury, whereas a bonnet, which may be regarded as a necessity, is charged 30 or 35 per cent. There is no doubt that ostrich feathers are produced in Australia ; and I can assure the honorable member for Balaclava that there is some difficulty in getting rid of the product,, mainly, I fancy, because the public do not know where to obtain them. The main trouble in connexion with small industries is to find a means of distribution.

Mr West:

– And the business houses will not deal with the ostrich farmers.

Mr KELLY:

– I can scarcely think that can be so, though it may be that the business houses require a continuity of supply on certain terms. However, it is a deserving industry, and what the honorable member for Hume has said with regard to South Africa’s treatment of us in this connexion is worthy of the serious consideration of the Minister and the Committee.

Mr SAMPSON:
Wimmera

.- I support the remarks of the honorable member for Hume, and regret that it is not possible now to put a higher duty on undressed feathers. I can also indorse his statements regarding South Africa. That country has already placed a prohibitive duty on the exportation of birds and eggs, and it is really impossible for us to get the new strain of blood we require to develop our Australian industry. There has been an ostrich farm on the Murray for the last forty years ; they have upwards of 100 ostriches there, and the production is equal to the best of South Africa. The climate is specially suitable. The African ostrich industry is one of the most important there, yielding thousands of pounds of revenue. Australia is quite capable’ of developing an equally important industry, and if the Minister cannot do anything on the present occasion to help it, I hope he will consider the matter in any future adjustment of the Tariff.

Mr FISHER:
Prime Minister and Treasurer · Wide Bay · ALP

– The question raised by the honorable member for Hume touches only incidentally the point raised by the other speakers regarding the possibility of developing the ostrich industry in Australia. Reference has been made to South Africa. Not only do the Government of that country impose a prohibitive duty on the export of ostriches and eggs, but a Bill was recently- before the Union Parliament making it a penal offence to take a live bird or an egg out of the country. I thought this anything but friendly or reciprocal treatment, and made representations to the Union Government on the subject. It would be just as well for honorable members to recollect that it is the second industry in South Africa, and while we are blessed with much good land, I cannot say, as far as I saw that country, that they are in the same position. They certainly safeguard their ostrich industry to a greater extent than any other country protects any of its industries.

Mr Atkinson:

– They are developing their wool industry by means of sheep obtained from Australia.

Mr FISHER:

– I used that argument while discussing the matter with the Prime Minister and other Ministers. I said Australia granted freely of its best sheep, cattle, and everything else, to. enable them to make the best of their country. I thought I spoke for the people of Australia when I said they gave them their best gladly, and as their birds are supposed to be the best in the world, and are properly looked after, and are undoubtedly bred for the production of the very best feathers, I thought they might very well reciprocate with us as far as possible by letting us have birds of the same quality to place on some of our lands, and thus promote a healthy rivalry and competition.

Mr Sampson:

– Would it not be possible for the Prime Minister to make further representations on the authority of the Parliament ?

Mr FISHER:

– The question of reciprocity will undoubtedly come up sooner or later, and communications will be made on that subject. Undoubtedly, Australia is a country well fitted for the cultivation of ostrich feathers. I may as well say, while on my feet, that a civilized people ought soon to put an end to the importation of natural birds and wings.

Mr GORDON:
Boothby

.- This is not so much a question of duty as a question of fashion. We have established in South Australia several ostrich farms, and are now absolutely independent of South Africa. We do not require another bird or another egg from there, and if any other part of Australia wants an improvement in the breed of its ostriches it can get all it requires from South Australia. The question affecting this industry is simply one Of continuous demand. We are producing to-day in South Australia feathers of a quality equal to the best South African. They are being exported to London, because, owing to the state of the fashions in Australia, the local demand for high-priced feathers is not sufficient to absorb the supply.

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:
Hume

– The honorable member for Boothby forgets that strains of ostriches, like strains of sheep, require replenishing. Better blood is continually required, and that is why we want ostriches from South Africa.

Mr RICHARD FOSTER:
WAKEFIELD, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917; LP from 1922; NAT from 1925

– We want to exchange with them. They want new blood just as much as we do.

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:

– They say not. The largest farm in Australia is near Coonamble, where they have over 500 birds. They will not sell any of them just now, but they want to import other birds to improve the blood as much as possible. They are dressing their feathers, but there is no demand for them. People here seem to like the imported feathers better.

Mr RICHARD FOSTER:
WAKEFIELD, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917; LP from 1922; NAT from 1925

– Ostrich feathers are not, and have not been, fashionable for the last seven or eight years. They are just coming into fashion again.

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:

– If the honorable member had .been in London this year he would not have said so, so far as that part of the world is concerned. I quite concur in what the Minister has said. We ought to be able to get as many new birds from South Africa as we require, and if a higher duty is placed on imported ostrich feathers there will be a better chance for persons who have birds here to make a fairly good living.

Mr HEDGES:
Fremantle

.- I can support the honorable member for Boothby, because, when in South Australia twenty-three or twenty-four years ago, I had the pleasure of visiting a very large ostrich farm on the Campbellhouse lands. Even at that time there were hundreds of healthy birds there, enough to have stocked all Australia by this time, if the industry required pushing ahead, as some honorable members would have us to believe. A large ostrich farm was also established near Port Augusta. A lot of twaddle has been talked about this industry requiring strengthening from South Africa. Some of the finest birds ever seen in the world, and some of the finest feathers ever produced, have come from South Australia, and. they have a ready sale at a good price. What the Minister proposes to do in putting a duty on the dressed article is all that is required.

Mr THOMAS BROWN:
Calare

.- The Ministry have indicated that, generally, they are opposed to the barbarous habit of wearing natural birds and wings for ornamental purposes. Apparently, so far as this item is concerned, they are being put on the same basis as dressed feathers.

Mr Tudor:

– If we did not do it, they would come in free.

Mr THOMAS BROWN:

– Could not the honorable member make them a separate item at an increased duty, if he cannot see his way to prohibit their importation altogether?

Item agreed to.

Item 114 -

By omitting from the item the words “ Flannels, whether plain fancy or printed, including Domett containing wool.”

Mr BRUCE SMITH:
PARKES, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– Do I understand from the Minister that the only alteration is the taking out of flannels, in order to put them under another item?

Mr Tudor:

– Yes, they will drop under woollen piece-goods, where they should be, at precisely the same rate.

Item agreed to.

Item 115 -

By inserting in the item after the word “ any “ the word “ textile.”

Mr MASSY-GREENE:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP; NAT from 1917

.- The effect of the alteration will be to bring all mats under the heading of the material of which they are made.

Mr Tudor:

– That is correct.

Mr MASSY-GREENE:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP; NAT from 1917

– One of the effects will be to increase the duty on rubber mats to 25 per cent. (general), and 20 per cent. (United Kingdom), or an increase of 10 per cent. I understand that the people who manufacture these mats have not asked for additional protection. They seem to be doing remarkably well, and an increased duty is not required for protective purposes. Does the Minister desire to impose an increased duty on rubber carriage mats ?

Mr TUDOR:
Minister of Trade and Customs · Yarra · ALP

– I feel confident that every honorable member who voted for item 1 15 in the last Tariff thought he was voting only with regard to textiles, and not with regard to wood, wire, or rubber mats. The purpose of the amendment is to give effect to what, I believe, was the intention of Parliament, by letting every mat fall into its proper division. If it is a manufacture of rubber, it ought to pay duty at the same rate as any other manufacture of rubber. If it is of wood, it should pay as wood, and if wire, it should pay as a manufacture of metal. The whole item is headed “ textiles,” but goods which have nothing textile about them have been coming in under it. This was certainly an anomaly.

Mr KELLY:
Wentworth

.- It was certainly an anomaly to have rubber mats included in this item. It is perfectly right to limit the item to textiles, but the effect of the amendment which we are asked to sanction will be to increase the protection of an industry which, as I showed conclusively this afternoon, is one of the most flourishing in Australia. The Dunlop Rubber Company pays a dividend of 18 or 20 per cent., and its £1 preference shares are worth 35s. or more. Under the Minister’s proposal, rubber mats, which are now dutiable at 15 and 10 per cent., will be made dutiable at 25 and 20 per cent., and in rectifying one anomaly we shall create a more serious one, by granting increased protection to a successful industry which has not asked for, and does not require, it. I trust that the Minister will later propose an amendment which will have the effect of retaining the duty at the present rates.

Mr BRUCE SMITH:
PARKES, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– The effect of the amendment will be to make rubber mats dutiable at 25 and 20 per cent., and, according to the ruling of the Chairman, it will be impossible for any member of the Committee to propose a reduction of these rates when we come to the item to which rubber mats will be removed by the insertion of the word “ textile “ in this item. The honorable member for Richmond has pointed out that the rubber industry here has not asked for assistance, and it is usual for Parliament to wait for applications for help, instead of rushing to confer benefits on an affluent company.

Mr TUDOR:
Minister of Trade and Customs · Yarra · ALP

– The intention is to take out of this item all goods that are not textiles, and, until this discussion, I had no idea that the amendment affected the duty on rubber mats. Every one must be agreed that rubber, wire, and wooden mats should not be dealt with in a division relating to textiles. I shall consider the suggestion of honorable members, and endeavour to give effect to it.

Item agreed to.

Item 116 (Coir mats, &c.) agreed to.

Item 117 -

By inserting in the item after the word “ Sachets “ the words “ Cotton or Linen Handkerchiefs and Serviettes.”

Mr HALL:
Werriwa

.- In the past, cotton and linen handkerchiefs have been dutiable at 40 and 35 per cent., but if the amendment is carried the duty will be reduced to 25 and 20 per cent. No doubt the Minister will tell us that under section 123, as amended, cotton, linen, and other piece-goods, n.e.i., will be dutiable at 5 per cent., or, if the manufacture of the United Kingdom, will be free. Those whose business it is to cut handkerchiefs out of piece-goods marked for the purpose will be able to get their raw material very cheaply, and the protection here proposed may be sufficient, but it is not enough for the business of making handkerchiefs from unmarked cloth.

Mr RICHARD FOSTER:
WAKEFIELD, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917; LP from 1922; NAT from 1925

– How many are employed in that business?

Mr HALL:

– A large number in New South Wales. There is a big establishment just erected in Wentworth-avenue. People have been encouraged to put their capital into this industry.

Mr RICHARD FOSTER:
WAKEFIELD, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917; LP from 1922; NAT from 1925

– It does not require much capital.

Mr HALL:

– There are fairly large establishments engaged in the- industry. The handkerchief -makers say, in effect, “ Let us alone; let us have the Tariff we have hitherto had ; we do not want this gift of free raw material and a 20 per cent, duty ; we prefer to leave things as they were.” I desire to hear from the Minister some reason why we should lower the duty granted in respect of one industry whilst we are raising the duties affecting other industries ? I am not going to vote to lower a duty under which an industry has been growing up.

Mr FINLAYSON:
Brisbane

– The declared object of this schedule is to remove anomalies; but under this item we are deliberately proposing to create an anomaly. Honorable members are aware that “ cotton and linen “ by no means describes all the handkerchiefs that are imported. Quite a large number of silk handkerchiefs will continue to come in under item 106. Then, again, a number of cotton and linen handkerchiefs with silk borders or monograms upon them are imported, and here again, because of this small addition of silk, we shall have what are really cotton and linen handkerchiefs coming in under item 100. It would be interesting to know at whose request this change is being made. So far as I have been able to ascertain, neither the public nor the manufacturers have complained.

Mr Tudor:

– The manufacturers asked that their raw material should be allowed to come in free, and they are now getting it free of duty, whereas it was previously dutiable at 35 per cent, and 40 per cent.

Mr. -FINLAYSON.- I protest against the passing of a Tariff that would simply make us a nation of fitters. The only raw material in this matter is something which has been practically made up in the Mother Country, and to which the workers here have only to put the finishing touches. This industry may be only a small one, but it provides a certain amount of work for people in Australia.

Mr Tudor:

– And it will get more protection under this proposal than under the existing Tariff.

Mr Hall:

– No.

Mr FINLAYSON:

– That is not so. I suggest that the Minister withdraw the item in so far as it relates to cotton and linen handkerchiefs and serviettes. The public are not complaining of the prices they have to pay. These goods are being made here, and there is no reason why we should not continue to make them.

Mr TUDOR:
Minister of Trade and Customs · Yarra · ALP

– Honorable members will see, at page 12 of the complete Tariff, the following definition of piece goods -

When material is denned by selvedge or by pattern for cutting up into separate articles, it is not to be considered piece goods, but as dutiable under the heading applying to the article into which it is designed to be made.

The ordinary handkerchiefs having a defined pattern - as I am informed the larger percentage have - were dutiable at- 40 per cent, and 35 per cent., according to the country of origin, or at precisely the same rates as the finished article. It is now proposed to make piece goods for handkerchiefs and serviettes 5 per cent, and free, the same as are other cotton and linen piece goods, and not to give them a protection of 40 per cent, and 35 per cent., because, if we did, cotton and linen handkerchiefmakers would have far more protection than I personally consider is required, having regard to the wages of those employed in the industry. The honorable member for Brisbane said that under this proposal silk handkerchiefs would be advantaged. If the honorable member for Werriwa will examine the items relating to piece goods, he will see that articles containing silk will have a duty of 15 per cent. The import duty is precisely the same, no matter what class of piece goods is used in the manufacture, of these articles.

Mr Groom:

– What will be the position of handkerchiefs bearing silk monograms?

Mr TUDOR:

– They will be dutiable as silk, or containing silk, at 40 per cent. and 35 per cent., the same as silk handkerchiefs.

Mr HALL:
Werriwa

.- The Minister has not challenged the statement that plain lawn is used in the manufacture of handkerchiefs here. That is their raw material. They got the lawn free, and make it up, and under this proposal they will continue to get it free, but will make it up with a protection of 15 per cent. less than they have previously enjoyed. The effect of this amendment will be to cause the handkerchief-making industry of Australia in future to consist of the mere cutting up of squares imported already marked, instead of their being made here.

Mr Tudor:

– Which the manufacturers have asked for.

Mr HALL:

– That may be the desire of those who can reach the ear of the Minister in Melbourne.

Mr Tudor:

– A Sydney manufacturer addressed me on the subject.

Mr HALL:

– I am sure that the manufacturers have not asked for the proposal made in this item.

Dr MALONEY:
MELBOURNE, VICTORIA · ALP; FLP from 1931; ALP from 1936

– I can tell the honorable member that he is under a misapprehension, because I introduced a deputation to the Minister on the subject.

Mr HALL:

– Those who are making handkerchiefs out of plain unmarked piecegoods do not desire an alteration of the Tariff that will require them to make handkerchiefs out of marked piece-goods. The question is whether this industry is to consist of the mere cutting up of goods already marked in squares, or the making up of handkerchiefs from the plain material. I shall vote against this proposal.

Mr RILEY:
South Sydney

.- I can vouch for the statements made by the honorable member for Werriwa. A firm in my electorate recently proceeded to erect a new building for the manufacture of handkerchiefs, believing that the old Tariff would remain in force.

Mr BRUCE SMITH:
PARKES, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– Evidently they have addressed the Minister.

Mr Tudor:

– Yes, they called on me when I was in Sydney.

Mr RILEY:

– The manufacturers waited on me, and’ said that this schedule, if carried, would stop the progress of their industry. They are building a large factory, capable of providing employment for a large number of hands, but the passing of this proposal will mean that the handkerchiefmaking industry will simply be transferred to India.

Mr FENTON:
Maribyrnong

– I urge the Minister to give further consideration to this item. I do not desire to vote for an item that will reduce the protection granted to an industry, and I understand that if the Ministerial proposal be carried, it will mean a reduction of the protection granted to the makers of handkerchiefs in Sydney and other parts of the Commonwealth.

Mr TUDOR:
Minister of Trade and Customs · Yarra · ALP

– As honorable members from New South Wales, speaking on behalf of the employers in the handkerchiefmaking industry, say that they would be better off under the item as it stands in the existing Tariff, I am prepared to withdraw both this and a subsequent item, although I am convinced that the manufacturers would be better off under the proposal now before the Committee.

Mr Groom:

– What does the Departmental investigation show ?

Mr TUDOR:

– That the manufacturers will have a higher measure of protection under our new proposals. I am prepared, however, to withdraw this item in view of the representations of honorable members from New South Wales.

Mr THOMAS BROWN:
Calare

– I think the Minister has proposed a substantial concession to those engaged in the industry. The point of difference seems to be as to goods brought in partly prepared for manufacture and the ordinary raw material for handkerchiefs. There is not a wide margin of difference between the two, but some honorable members object that under the present arrangement those engaged in the manufacture of these articles have to compete on level terms with the imported article. Surely those who espouse the cause of Protection do not favour that state of affairs. I think the Minister has gone a long way towards meeting the position of manufacturers, and that he should standby his proposal.

Mr BRUCE SMITH:
PARKES, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– The Minister of Trade and Customs presents an extraordinary spectacle. He tells us that the whole of the schedule has been framed in the public interests; and, after due consideration, he makes a proposal. Any criticism from this side would have been scoffed at; but because two or three Ministerial supporters put in a sort of pettifogging objection, he says in an access of temper that, in order to please them, he will abandon the proposal. What sort of attitude is that? If the Minister is going to abandon his proposal because it is criticised by two or three honorable members behind him, will he accept criticism from this side in the same spirit? This is the first occasion on which any alteration proposed by the Minister has had the effect of reducing the duty. The honorable member for Maribyrnong would have the Tariff of such a character that it must always be increasing - that no anomalies shall be rectified which will have the effect of reducing the duty on any particular item. In fact, he would like the Tariff to act like the windlass on a ship - always go round in one way. Is the Minister going to accept the suggestion made in the face of his own conviction? We have had the criticism of the three honorable members opposite, who are not supported by the rest of the Ministerial party ; in fact, the honorable member for Calare has actually condemned the Minister’s proposed back down. However, the Minister has said, in a sort of temper, that he will retain the higher duty.

Mr Tudor:

– I have not said anything of the kind.-

Mr BRUCE SMITH:
PARKES, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– The honorable member used words to that effect, and did so in a threatening manner. I should like the public to know that the Government are willing to completely transform their whole policy because it is objected to by three members of the party.

Mr SPENCE:
Darling

.- This little breeze indicates clearly that greater care should be taken in order to find out the best lines on which to frame a Tariff; and I think we ought to. have a little clearing up of this matter. The Minister has told us distinctly that the manufacturers waited on him, and asked for this new arrangement ; and that statement is supported by the honorable member for Melbourne, who introduced the deputation. On the other hand, the honorable member for Werriwa tells us that he has it from the manufacturers that they do not desire what the Minister proposes.

Mr Hall:

– -There is a letter to the honorable member for East Sydney to the same effect.

Mr SPENCE:

– Here we have a distinct contradiction; and, seeing that the manufacturers apparently do not know what they want, we had better settle ourselves what we deem to be a fair thing. My own opinion is that the Minister ought to stand by his own common-sense proposal. I cannot conceive any manufacturers who do not desire to have their raw material free, and the highest duty possible on the finished product.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
Parramatta

– This is a most outrageous proceeding ! This Free Trade Minister, when there is the smallest symptom of an attack in. the flank, calmly turns round to his enemies and says, “ All right, don’t shoot; I will come down.” Only a few days ago a friend of mine, who is a member of a firm in this very business, asked me to try to get this raw material put on the free list; and as it cannot be made here, where is the sense of imposing a duty? This firm has laid out a lot of money in order to establish the industry ; and yet the honorable member for Werriwa, who pretends to be a Protectionist, desires the raw material taxed up to the hilt. There is a chance now for the Minister to do a good turn to those people in Sydney and elsewhere who are carrying on, a legitimate industry at good wages. The Minister, in the full conviction that what he proposed is the right thing, is prepared to do the wrong thing to please some honorable members behind him. Of such stuff are Protectionists’ Ministers made in these days !

Mr WEST:
East Sydney

.- A deputation waited on the honorable member for Kooyong when he was Minister of Trade and Customs, in order to ask the very concession that I am now going to suggest. Plain calico was allowed to come in free, but with a mark or line in it it had to pay duty. The manufacturers were able to make a profit only by reason of the fact that the raw material was free, and that there was a duty of 35 per cent, on handkerchiefs. It is now proposed to make all the calico free, but to reduce the duty to 25 per cent. Since the factories have been started in Sydney, manufacturers in England have reduced their prices so low as to make it likely that the local manufacturers will have to close up. Great expense has been incurred in establishing this industry, which pays a higher rate of wages than that hitherto paid for similar work in Australia. My suggestion is that handkerchiefs should remain at 35 per cent., and all the raw ‘material be allowed to come in free. I believe that under the original Tariff it was never intended that the raw material should pay duty ; at any rate, the duty has been removed in New Zealand, where the finished article pays 35 per cent.

Mr Tudor:

– The duty is not 35 per cent, in New Zealand.

Mr WEST:

– I have received the following letter -

Since we have been in business here British manufacturers have cut down their prices in the endeavour to close up the local industry. If they drop their prices another 2jr per cent, we must inevitably close down.

If the Minister would agree to bring handkerchiefs under the 35 per cent, duty, as he originally had; them, while making the piece-goods free, it would overcome the difficulty- I am sure that even the strongest Protectionist does not desire heavy duties 011 raw material that cannot be produced here. When labour is employed locally in turning the raw material into the finished ‘ article, we ought to protect the Australian industry. I hope the Minister will not stifle these people. He knows some of them very well. For years they have been doing their best to lift up Australia, and when we find Australians so anxious to see their country progress, we should be a very poor Parliament if we refused to help them. I am also informed by telegram -

Contract let for new factory to cost Eight thousand pounds and building now in course of construction. If the Minister will retain the old rate of duty, 35 per cent, on made-up handkerchiefs, and let in all cloth free, our company will vigorously develop the business, and will soon be employing hundreds of hands. . . . Agents for British manufacturers are boasting to local buyers that if the present duty is retained they can close us up.

Surely the Minister is amenable to reason..

Mr Hall:

– State from whom the telegram comes.

Mr WEST:

– The Minister knows the gentleman. He has been in Melbourne, and has waited on the Minister several times.

Mr FINLAYSON:
Brisbane

– The Minister made an error in saying that the raw material had been paying duty at rates of 40 and 35 per cent.

Mr Tudor:

– So it has, when defined by pattern.

Mr FINLAYSON:

– Under item 123, cotton and linen piece-goods, which may be made up into handkerchiefs, are free.

Mr Tudor:

– They were not before.

Mr FINLAYSON:

– Our whole contention is that the duty on the manufactured article should not be reduced, and that the raw material should be admitted free.

Mr HALL:
Werriwa

– I suggest that the Minister should carry out his proposal to allow patterned handkerchief material to come in free, and only impose the 25 per cent, (general) and 20 per cent. (United Kingdom) to protect those who cut up the defined handkerchiefs, and go in for handkerchief making. Twenty per cent, is a fair duty to protect the industry of cutting up the defined material. Apart from that,, however, the Australian handkerchief industry consists in cutting up the plain lawn, which is not marked in any way, and making it into handkerchiefs. That industry should have a 35 per cent, duty.

Mr J H CATTS:
Cook

.-! had a conversation with the Minister about the item this afternoon, and understood that his proposal was to reduce what was really a revenue duty, in order to enable these people to get at a cheaper rate their raw material, which could not be manufactured in Australia. Under, the circumstances we ought to hear from the Minister how this item came to be in the list, in order to clear up the confusion that has arisen. We are all anxious to do the proper thing.

Mr Tudor:

– If honorable members say that the manufacturers and workpeople want the old rate, and that it is better for them to have it I. am prepared to give it’ to them.

Mr J H CATTS:

– I understand that the alteration in the ‘ schedule is based on representations that have been made to the Minister. Apparently, therefore, representations are made to him in favour of the alteration, and representations are. made to individual members against it. There is something radically wrong there. We ought to have some means of determining whether we are doing right or wrong in voting for or against the item.

Mr TUDOR:
Minister of Trade and Customs · Yarra · ALP

– I am absolutely satisfied that the item, as I have introduced it, will give more Protection to the manufacturers of handkerchiefs than the one which has been suggested by other honorable members, but as they stated that the manufacturers and workers engaged in the industry desired to be left alone, I said I was perfectly willing that they should be.

Mr Groom:

– But the Minister has had evidence himself.

Mr TUDOR:

– The honorable member for East Sydney brought me some patterned stuff, and the manufacturers complained that practically the whole of their material was dutiable at 40 per cent. (general) or 35 per cent. (United Kingdom). I pointed out to them that they could get the plain stuff in at the lower rate of duty. I think 25 per cent. (general) and 20 per cent. (United Kingdom) is fair Protection for the industry of cutting up handkerchiefs from patterned stuff, because it is not a complicated one. No one can accuse me of voting for a. lower rate of duty than will adequately protect any industry. The rates I propose will give a great deal better Protection to the industry than has been granted to many others.

Mr Fenton:

– How can 20 per cent. be a better Protection than 35 per cent. ?

Mr TUDOR:

– Because previously their raw material was also dutiable at 35 per cent.

Mr West:

– Only a part of it.

Mr TUDOR:

– The largest part of it.

Mr West:

– No.

Mr TUDOR:

– If the manufacturers say that, then they deceived me when they said that practically all their material was dutiable. I guarantee that at least twothirds of the handkerchiefs which honorable members have are defined by a pattern. I shall adhere to the proposal I originally made.

Question - That the item be agreed to - put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 37

NOES: 19

Majority … … 16

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Item agreed to.

Item121 -

By adding to the item a new sub-item as follows : - “ (f) Woven bodies for Hats as prescribed by Departmental By-laws, ad valorem (General Tariff), 10 per cent.”

Mr TUDOR:
Minister of Trade and Customs · Yarra · ALP

– I ask the Committee to negative this item, because I have ascertained from those interested in the industry which it affects that, instead of being of advantage to them, it will be detrimental.

Mr PARKER MOLONEY:
INDI, VICTORIA · ALP

– I understand that a deputation waited on the Minister a few days ago, and asked for an alteration of the duties under paragraphs a and b of this item, pointing out that the men employed in the industry work only thirty-six hours a week, and that the importations have increased by over onehalf during the past twelve months. Has the Minister given consideration to the suggestion that the duty should be increased? This industry can fairly be said to be a languishing one, and the present rates of duty are inadequate.

Mr TUDOR:
Minister of Trade and Customs · Yarra · ALP

– The requests of the deputation were carefully considered by the Cabinet, but it was decided not to suggest further amendments, with the exception of those I have already mentioned this evening, as it was not thought wise to open up the Tariff to any greater extent.

Item negatived.

Item 123 -

By omitting from sub-item (e) the words “Leather Cloth;”

By omitting from sub-item (f) the words ” ad valorem (General Tariff), 5 per cent. ; (United Kingdom), Free “, and adding to the sub-item the following words : - “ 1. Inflammable, ad valorem (General Tariff), 25 per cent. ; (United Kingdom), 20 per cent. “ 2. Non-inflammable according to test prescribed by Departmental By-laws, ad valorem (General Tariff), 5 per cent. (United Kingdom), Free.”

By inserting in the item new sub-items as follows : - “ (h) Cotton and Linen Piece Goods defined for cutting up for the manufacture of hemmed or hemstitched Handkerchiefs or Serviettes, ad valorem (General Tariff), 5 per cent. ; (United Kingdom), Free.” “ (i) Leather Cloth, ad valorem (General Tariff), 25 per cent.; (United Kingdom), 20 per cent.”

Mr SINCLAIR:
Moreton

– I wish to make a personal explanation. A day or so ago, I asked the Minister if he was aware that heavy withdrawals had taken place just prior to the introduction of the Tariff, indicating a leakage of information. I did so to give him an opportunity to refute the rumour that there had been a leakage. The person on whose statement I rely is not now in Victoria, and I have no opportunity to follow the matter up. I therefore wish to absolutely withdraw the statement, and amply apologize to the Department for having made use of the information.

Mr TUDOR:
Minister of Trade and Customs · Yarra · ALP

– It is proposed to amend the proposal now before the Committee by leaving out that part relating to paragraph e and paragraph f which deals with flannelette. Paragraph h must stand, to cover the raw material for handkerchiefs and serviettes. I am also prepared to leave out paragraph 1.

Mr Fairbairn:

– Will the Minister insert “tablecloths” after “serviettes”? They are practically in the same category.

Mr TUDOR:

– I do not think that amendment can be made, because there is a much greater disproportion between the value of the tablecloth and the work put into it than between the value of a serviette and the work put into it. I move -

That the following words be left out : - 123. By omitting from sub-item (e) the words “Leather Cloth;”

By omitting from sub-item (r) the words “ad valorem (General Tariff), 5 per cent.; (United Kingdom), Free”, and adding to the sub-item the following words : - “ 1. Inflammable, ad valorem (General Tariff), 25 per cent. ; (United Kingdom), 20 per cent. “ 2. Non-inflammable according to test prescribed by Departmental By-laws, ad valorem (General Tariff), 5 per cent. ; (United Kingdom), Free.”

i) Leather Cloth, ad valorem (General Tariff), 25 per cent. ; (United Kingdom), 20 per cent.”

Dr MALONEY:
MELBOURNE, VICTORIA · ALP; FLP from 1931; ALP from 1936

– I move -

That the following new sub-item be inserted -

On and after 14th December, 191 1,

Piece goods, woollen or containing wool, namely, women’s and children’s dress goods unfit for men’s apparel, delaines, cashmeres, merinoes, voiles, Sicilians, grenadines,silurians, and like dress goods for women and children, ad valorem (General Tariff) 15 per cent. and (United Kingdom) 10 per cent.

When the honorable member for Hume was Minister of Trade and Customs, and in charge of the Tariff, the Committee passed on my motion a provision making these goods, when not exceeding in weight 5 oz. a yard, dutiable at 15 and 10 per cent. I took the weight from the United States of America Tariff, which is among the best in the world. In the Senate, because of a statement which was not correct, some Protectionists showed themselves timid, and the provision was struck out. None of these materials is made in Australia, not a square inch of any of them.

Sir William Lyne:

– Yes, they are; we had this out before.

Dr MALONEY:
MELBOURNE, VICTORIA · ALP; FLP from 1931; ALP from 1936

– My statement is correct. The honorable member kept his word on that occasion, but some malign influence came from New South Wales. A man famous in the land boom time told untruths to Senator Findley.

Sir William Lyne:

– It is very wrong to say that. He is as honorable as the honorable member.

Dr MALONEY:
MELBOURNE, VICTORIA · ALP; FLP from 1931; ALP from 1936

- His land boom record will not bear inspection. He made the statement to a senator that these goods are made here.

Sir William Lyne:

– So they are.

Mr Fairbairn:

– I think that merinoes are made by Foy and Gibson’s.

Dr MALONEY:
MELBOURNE, VICTORIA · ALP; FLP from 1931; ALP from 1936

– Not for ladies’ dresses. No one needs better tweeds than are made in Australia, and I should be prepared to increase rather than to decrease the protection given to their manufacture. I have said before that we can make garments here fit for emperor or king.

Mr BRUCE SMITH:
PARKES, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– They do not make suits’ of grenadine.

Dr MALONEY:
MELBOURNE, VICTORIA · ALP; FLP from 1931; ALP from 1936

– No. If any one had a suit of clothes made from grenadine and went down Collins-street in themhe would probably be arrested. I object to a sex tax, and this is purely one of that description. It means making an unfair impost on the women of Australia.

Mr J H CATTS:
Cook

– I understand that though withdrawing the item with reference to flannelette, the Minister proposes to issue a departmental by-law prohibiting the importation of the material. I should like to know definitely whether that is meant, because it appears to me that such would be rather a peculiar way of dealing with the matter, especially if there is a majority of the Committee who are in favour of permitting the importation of flannelette. If the Minister, before any such by-law is promulgated, would bring the subject before Parliament, so that it may be discussed, I shall be perfectly satisfied. There has been a good deal of ill-considered talk as to the danger of flannelette. I should offer strenuous objection to the withdrawal of the proposal if it simply meant the issue of a departmental by-law involving prohibition while Parliament is not sitting. For instance, a by-law issued at Christmas would run for six months before Parliament had .an opportunity of discussing the matter.

Mr TUDOR:
Minister of Trade and Customs · Yarra · ALP

– There appears to be an outcry against the use of this particular material, not only in Australia, “but also iri Great Britain. It is ‘considered to’ be a dangerous material, especially when used for the clothing of infants. On obtaining further information, however, and not being sure of the , tests which had been resorted to, I have consented to withdraw the item. Before :.any proclamation is issued prohibiting the importation of flannelette, I shall take good care that Parliament has an opportunity of considering the subject, so that -I may be informed as to what honorable members generally think about the issue of such a proclamation.

Mr KELLY:
Wentworth

– Something more is required than a mere -notice of Ministerial intention. We require an inquiry of an expert character before the Minister takes any action. If flannelette were dangerous to infant life it certainly ought not to be used, and -should, indeed, be prohibited. But as far as I can ascertain, and I have made personal tests during the last few days, flannelette seems to be just about as inflammable as ordinary cotton. I saw -no evidence of its being particularly inflammable.

Mr MASSY-GREENE:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP; NAT from 1917

– It is not nearly so inflammable as muslin.

Mr KELLY:

– Perhaps not, but we are not in the habit of allowing babies to go round clothed in muslin. I suggest that the Minister should take action only after a most careful examination of the subject.

Mr J H CATTS:
Cook

– I wish to inform the Minister that, owing to’ complaints regarding the use of flannelette in Great Britain, a Commission was appointed, which reported on 23rd August last year. I give the honorable gentleman the reference so that my honorable friend may look into the Commission’s report, which, no doubt, is available to him.

Mr BRUCE SMITH:
PARKES, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– A great deal that is unfair has been said about flannelette. I was waited upon by a shipping clerk representing one of the large warehousemen, and after some conversation with him he undertook to supply me with twenty or thirty samples. I said that I would place them in the Opposition room and give honorable members an opportunity of trying whether the material was inflammable or not. He sent up a parcel of extensive samples, containing something like twenty pieces of flannelette. Lighted matches were applied to every sample. In only one case would the nap run, and then only to the extent of one inch. I was assured by this gentleman that these were samples of the whole of the kinds of flannelette that his firm had. in stock, and that they were sold at 6d. and 6£d. per yard. I am aware that other members of the Opposition have purchased for themselves samples of flannelettes at a much cheaper price, because it was alleged that the poorer qualities would burn much more freely. They inform me, however, that these cheaper qualities would not burn at all. Not one of these flannelettes was chemically prepared, and I am informed on, I think, very good authority, that the chemical preparations which are used to neutralize the inflammability are injurious to the skin. I should like to have demonstrated the inflammability of this material as it is made to-day. I do not like to see cheap material of this kind, which poor people use very largely, libelled. I am told that although the flannelettes which used to be made years ago had the drawback of being inflammable on the nap, which was very long, they are made now with short nap, and are not inflammable. I have seen to-day the report of a Select Committee which was appointed by the House of Commons to investigate the question of the danger of flannelette as an article of clothing. I do not know whether it is the same one as the honorable member for Cook mentioned, but it was a very influential body.

Mr Archibald:

– It was not a Select Committee, but a special Commission.

Mr BRUCE SMITH:
PARKES, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– In their report they would not recommend any legislation except where goods were sold under a misrepresentation. I hope that the Minister will not be led into any hasty action, which would be injurious to this class of goods. I heard him say - and I think it was a good caution on his part - that he will not act in a hurry, because of the importations which are going on. I strongly recommend him to see the reports of all the Commissions on the subject, and to invite the warehousemen of Australia, or if he likes, the warehousemen of Melbourne, to supply him with samples for a practical test.

Mr Watkins:

– Why call it flannelette when it isreally cotton wool?

Mr BRUCE SMITH:
PARKES, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– Flannelette is a misnomer. If it is dangerous, by all means prohibit its importation. But do not take that step until the Minister has applied a practical test. He ought, I repeat, to hesitate very much before he deprives the public of the use of a material which is principally worn by the poorer classes.

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:
Hume

– I wish to mention, in reply to the last speaker, that there is a great deal of uncertainty about flannelette. On two occasions when I have been preparing a Tariff I have seen a match applied to flannelette, and it was found to be very inflammable.

Mr BRUCE SMITH:
PARKES, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– Was that test made long ago?

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:

– The first test was made a long time ago in New South Wales, and the other was made when a Federal Tariff was being prepared. Mr. Mark Foy, who is in a very large way of business in Sydney, took the trouble to see me at Parliament House, in Sydney, and advised me strongly to prohibit the introduction of flannelette. He said, “ I sell an immense quantity of flannelette, but I do not care for that. If I did not sell flannelette, I would sell the best kind of flannel, and that would pay me just as well. But, in the interests of the public, I advise you strongly to prohibit the introduction of flannelette into the colony.” I paid great attention to his statement, and I applied a test to the material, which was found to be very inflammable. If the Minister of Trade and Customs finds that it is not inflammable now, there is no necessity to prohibit its introduction.

Mr Watkins:

– Yes; but should persons- be allowed to bring in flannelette, and sell it as a cheaper kind of flannel, and at theprice of flannel ?

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:

– I think thereis a great deal in what the honorable member says. I believe that many poor persons buy this material believing that it is somesort of flannel.

Mr Kelly:

– Call it cottonette.

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:

– In that casepeople would buy the article with their eyes open. It is bought very largely for the clothing of young children. If the mothers imagine that they are doing any service to the children in buying the stuff’ they are mistaken, because it is cotton. I was imbued very much by Mr. Mark Foy with the necessity for taking some action. When the late Mr. Kingston was preparing the first Federal Tariff, he had much the same experience as I had in New South Wales, and he was very determined to have a very heavy duty placed on flannelette. He would not have done that if he had not believed that its use was injurious to the community. I think that the present Minister ought to be very careful before he accepts the statement that flannelette is not inflammable. I think that if you get. true flannelette there must be some chemical used to prevent it being inflammable. I hope that the Minister will soon investigate the matter thoroughly, and if he finds that the article is as inflammable as is stated, he should either have the name altered-

Mr Tudor:

– We do not call it flannelette ; but people can call it flannelette or anything they like, because we cannot stop them.

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:

– The honorable member might provide for the article to be branded in some way.

Mr Tudor:

– They could take thebrand off directly the shipment had passed the Customs.

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:

– If they willdo that, stop the importation of flannelette.

Dr CARTY SALMON:
Laaneccorie

– The chief objection I have . to this material is that it is a swindle. It is not what it purports to be. Nine persons out of every ten who buy flannelette think that they are buying a cheap kind of woollen clothing. Mothers so frequently clothe their children in flannelette because they believe that it gives a. certain amount of warmth, whereas it does not contain a vestige of wool. If we could prohibit the use of the word “ flannelette,” possibly “the sale of the article would come down 75 per cent. People use the article, not because they like it, or think it is suitable, ;but because they believe it is woollen clothing which is good for children. In regard to its inflammability, it is all very well to take pieces of dress goods out of a ware- house and test them with a match. What ought to be done is to take the goods, use them, and wash them. It is the dressing which prevents the material from burning. If the honorable member for Parkes will -take a piece of flannelette between his fingers, he will notice the grease which is put in to make it feel like wool.

Mr Tudor:

– It is cloth oil.

Dr CARTY SALMON:

– -I dare say it is. When the dressing goes out, the article becomes more inflammable. The -fibrous portion of the cotton becomes raised, and an artificial nap is formed, and “that is very inflammable indeed. If the honorable member for Parkes will take one -of the samples which he tested, and wash it thoroughly with soap and water, hang it in the sun, and bring it in when it is thoroughly dry, I guarantee that if a match is applied it will go off almost like gunpowder. This is a most serious matter.- I wish that the Minister had had the courage -to prohibit the importation of flannelette. It is a most extraordinary thing that a number of persons who are most anxious to protect the great masses of the people from shams, frauds, and swindles seem, because flannelette is cheap, and is used so com.monly to find it impossible to help them in this direction. I could take honorable members to the Children’s Hospital, and -show them some children who, if they had «been clothed with woollen material, would probably have been well to-day. They have treated there dozens of children who have been injured, many of them for life. We know that many children have lost their Jives from injuries they received through the wearing of flannelette clothing. Had -they been wearing woollen clothing, they -would not have been injured in that way.

Mr Fenton:

– What effect has the wearing of flannelette on the skin of a child?

Dr CARTY SALMON:

– The nap is so -irritating to the tender skin of children that it does much injury. Skin diseases caused %y the use of flannelette cause an enormous amount of trouble to the medical profes sion, and in many cases are not got rid of until years after the use of the material has been discontinued. The use of flannelette is not confined to children. It is got up so attractively, and the colours are so cunningly blended, that a very large number of women wear it, believing that it is wool, or contains a large percentage of wool. There is the danger to health as well as the danger from burning to be considered. I heard what the honorable member for Parkes said about the tests which he applied. The materials he had would be admitted upon the proposal of the Minister, because they would be noninflammable. After being thoroughly washed however, .they would become very inflammable indeed. But even if the Minister were to maintain his first proposal - that is, , to admit non-inflammable flannelette, but to place such an impost on inflammable flannelettes as to virtually prohibit their use - he would render a distinct service to the community. It would save them from a swindle and a fraud, and would protect a large number of persons from an ever present danger.

Dr MALONEY:
MELBOURNE, VICTORIA · ALP; FLP from 1931; ALP from 1936

– I can indorse most of the remarks made by the honorable member for Laanecoorie. Flannelette, when very dry, burns like tinder, but new flannelette will not burn as readily as will old flannelette, if both be equally dry. Had the Minister insisted upon the retention of this provision, he would have found it necessary to forbid the introduction of made-up flannelette garments, and I hope that, upon consideration, he will recognise that he could forbid its introduction altogether as “flannelette.” If that course were pursued, the English manufacturers would give a different name to this class of material, and if our manufacturers were mean enough to replace the word, then I think we should be able at a convenient opportunity’ *o meet such tactics.

Mr TUDOR:
Minister of Trade and Customs · Yarra · ALP

– This is probably one of the most farreaching amendments that has been proposed. I am inclined to agree with the honorable member for Melbourne that it covers materials largely used by Australian clothing manufacturers ; but it is so far-reaching that I cannot see my way to accept it. If the duty on these goods were reduced as proposed, it is quite possible that they would enter into competition with many other materials which, although not exactly similar, are being largely used at the present time. The honorable member for Melbourne is one of the most consistent advocates of Australian industries that we have in this House, and I am sure that he would not desire to injure any local manufacturer, but I cannot accept his amendment until I have had an opportunity of ascertaining how far-reaching it would be in its effect, not only upon industry, but upon the revenue. The Treasurer is entitled to obtain information concerning the effect which the adoption of such a proposal would have upon the revenue returns, and the estimates he has framed. I cannot say that I have no sympathy with the proposal, and, as a matter of fact, I believe that when it was submitted on a previous occasion, I voted with the honorable member for Melbourne in favour of it.

Sir JOHN QUICK:
Bendigo

– I am inclined to support this amendment, and do not think it would seriously conflict with any existing industry. It is intended to be a concession to a large branch of . the clothing industry which has to contend with serious competition in the shape of the importation of surplus stock from all parts of the world at the end of the season. The item particularly relates to mantles and women’s dress goods, which are largely made in Australia, from such materials as are enumerated in the amendment. At present, those materials are subject to a duty of 30 per cent., which is also imposed on woollen piece goods. It cannot be said, however, that cashmeres and delaines enter into serious competition with such goods. If I thought that they would, as the result of the adoption ‘of this amendment, I should not feel inclined to support it. These are special materials used in the manufacture of ornamental goods which cannot come into competition with woollen piece goods. The Minister has not proposed any increased duty upon ready-made clothing. On the other hand, the manufacturers complain that they have to pay a duty of 30 per cent, on their raw materials, so that they have a protection of only 10 per cent, against the ready-made article. Further, under this schedule, it is proposed to increase the rate of duty upon braids which are largely used in ornamenting the readymade goods that are placed on the market by local manufacturers. These braids cannot be tested, I am informed, by their width, of one inch, because many braids used in the making of ladies’ garmentsexceed that width, and no increased dutyis demanded in respect of them. The Minister says he sympathizes with this proposal, and he should show his sympathy byvoting for it. He says, however, that hemust consult the Treasurer as to what would be the effect of the proposed reduction of duty on the revenue. Figures submitted to the Parliament show that therehas been an expansion of revenue, and1 there is no cause for anxiety in that regard. We have had an unexpected increase of revenue from the Customs, and! no spectre of a loss of revenue should induce the Committee to refuse to reduce duties on raw materials that are the basicfabric of Australian, productions. .

Mr. W. ELLIOT JOHNSON (Lang> [12.57 a.m.]. - I am glad to find myself at least on one occasion able to support thehonorable member for Melbourne on a. Tariff question. I am pleased that the light of freedom is beginning to dawn upon his mind, and that he is now moving in what, according to my view, is a right direction. I do not think, however, that he has gone far enough. These materials, instead of being subject to any duty,, should be made free in order to relieve the pockets of the unfortunate taxpayers, and more especially of the wage-earning; classes, who are mulcted in heavy sums in respect of such purchases. I thereforemove -

That the amendment be amended by leaving, out the words “ (General Tariff), 15 per cent. ;. (United Kingdom), 10 per cent.,” with a view to insert in lieu thereof the words “ 5 per cent.”’ and “ free.”

Dr MALONEY:
MELBOURNE, VICTORIA · ALP; FLP from 1931; ALP from 1936

– I hope the honorablemember will not press his amendment. I should be quite content to secure the reduction of duty that I have proposed.

Mr W ELLIOT JOHNSON:
LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– I should prefer to have these materials madefree of duty.

Mr TUDOR:
Minister of Tradeand Customs · Yarra · ALP

– The honorable member for Franklin inquired to whatextent this proposal, which has been sprung; upon the Committee, would affect therevenue, and during his temporary absence from the chamber I . stated that I1 could not accept the amendment, as I believed it would have a rather serious effect;upon the Customs revenue. I also mentioned that, on a previous occasion, £ voted for a like proposition.

Sir John Quick:

– It was in a different form.

Mr TUDOR:

– I admit that. The statistics which are available, so far as our imports are concerned, do not differentiate ^between piece-goods which are worn by women and piece-goods which are worn by men. That being so, it is impossible to say how the revenue would be affected by the amendment of the honorable member for Melbourne. Therefore, I cannot see my way to accept it without first consulting the Treasurer. But, speaking generally, I think that his proposal would affect the revenue to the extent of £250,000 per annum. The woollens which are annually imported are valued at £2,107,000, and the duty paid upon them is £558,000.

Mr W ELLIOT JOHNSON:
LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– That is a tax which falls upon the backs of the poor.

Mr TUDOR:

– It is quite possible that the honorable member himself is wearing imported tweed upon which he has had to pay duty. If he wore Australian tweed, as I do, he would not have to pay duty upon it. It is quite possible, I repeat, that the amendment would affect the revenue to the extent of £150,000 or ^£250,000 annually.

Mr. FENTON (Maribyrnong) [1.4 a.m.]. - I trust that the Minister of Customs will not adopt the attitude which he has assumed upon this item in respect of every other item of this schedule. One of the main reasons for a revision of the Tariff is the necessity which exists lor wiping out a large number of purely revenue duties, which weigh oppressively upon the masses of the people. I do not think ‘that the Treasurer should interpose any obstacle in the way of the removal of those burdens. The experience of a Protective Tariff, in Victoria, conclusively proves that, under an effective duty, an article is procurable at a lower price than that at which it can be purchased under a Free Trade Tariff.

Mr. JOSEPH COOK (Parramatta f t-7 a.m.]. - I should like to know whether the Minister has satisfied himself that none -of these articles are. being made in Australia, or can be made here.

Mr Tudor:

– My information is that none of them are being made here. But the proposal of the honorable member for Melbourne has been sprung upon me suddenly.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

– Nor, for some time, are they likely to be made here.

Mr Tudor:

– I will not say that. They may be made here within the next five or ten years.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

– If these goods are the raw material of a very large industry, why should we tax them? If I thought that the existing duty was Protective in its incidence, I would not disturb it. But we have been told by the Minister that these goods are not being manufactured here, and I understand that they constitute the raw material of some millions of pounds worth of commodities which are made up in Australia. The clothing of women and children is the one thing which is crushing to an ordinary householder. Here we have a chance to relieve him somewhat, and I hope that the Committee will afford him that relief. Surely in these piping times of peace, when our revenue is advancing by leaps and bounds, we ought to spare the amount that is involved so as to assist in cheapening the apparel of the women and children of Australia.”

Mr CANN:
Nepean

.- The wording of the amendment has left me somewhat in a fog. I do not quite understand what are the materials to which the honorable member for Melbourne refers ; and I would like some explanation of them’. If his proposal relates to the material which is imported from other countries in the way of cashmeres and fancy material for women’s dresses, which we cannot hope to manufacture for many years, I should like to be informed of that fact. If they are a raw material which cannot be produced in Australia, they ought to be placed upon the free list. Women’s and children’s clothing involve a heavy outlay in the homes of most working people. Further, we have no plant in Australia which is capable of producing these goods. Take, for example, the materials which are manufactured in Lester’s Mills, in the Bradford district of the Old Country. Millions of pounds have been invested in those mills, and there would not be a sufficient demand in Australia for the materials which are produced there to warrant anybody in. establishing similar works here. I hope that the honorable member for Melbourne will explain the exact nature of his amendment, so that we may clearly understand what we are voting upon.

Mr FISHER:
Prime Minister and Treasurer · Wide Bay · ALP

– It is remarkable that in a wool producing country we should be told that we cannot manufacture woollen goods.

Dr MALONEY:
MELBOURNE, VICTORIA · ALP; FLP from 1931; ALP from 1936

– We do manufacture them.

Mr FISHER:

– But the amendment of the honorable member would render it dead sure that we should not be able to manufacture them. Notwithstanding that we pay a bounty to encourage the production of wool tops, it is now proposed to make it impossible to manufacture in the Commonwealth the articles’ enumerated in the amendment. So long as honorable members know exactly what they are voting for I have no objection to urge. There is a great deal to be said in favour of purely revenue duties, but whatever other fabrics may be attacked from that standpoint, certainly woollen fabrics cannot be so attacked.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– How many years has the duty upon them been in operation?

Mr FISHER:

– Since the honorable member for the Hume introduced the last Tariff - that is to say, since 1907-8. But times have improved since then. If the proposal before us means that these raw materials ought to be admitted free, it should be so stated. But I say that woollen fabrics ought not to be so admitted. Notwithstanding the statement that we ought not to trouble about revenue, it must be remembered that the machine is run by revenue. On a rough estimate, this proposal would greatly reduce the revenue from the Tariff, but that is not the point I raise. The Minister of Trade and Customs thinks his proposal the better one, but I have no objection to the reduction of revenue involved if the facts can be shown to be contrary to the information supplied by the Minister. In any case, I ask the Committee not to accept the amendment of the honorable member for Lang, which would make it quite impossible for the manufacture of these goods to be started in the Commonwealth.

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:
Hume

– This is a matter which was considered when the existing Tariff was introduced. I believe that I did make a promise to the honorable member for Melbourne on that occasion to reduce the duties on these goods to 10 and 15 per cent. ; but because of some mistake that arose - I think in the Senate - that decision was not adhered to.I agree with the Prime Minister that if these goods are woollens they ought to be manufactured here. I do not know the fantastic names which the honorable member for Melbourne has given to these materials, but I can inform him that I haveseen 5-oz. stuff made of wool producedin Sydney in considerable quantities; I believe that the goods I refer to would answerall the purposes of these light materials on which the honorable member for Melbournewould like to see a reduced duty.

Dr MALONEY:
MELBOURNE, VICTORIA · ALP; FLP from 1931; ALP from 1936

– A ball dress or a concert platform dress could not be made of tweed goods.

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:

– I do not knowthat we should make ball dresses out of cotton either. They are often made of silk.

Mr Thomas:

– It would be a strangekind of Protection that would protect only industries that have already been started, or that were started under Free Trade conditions.

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:

– I proposed many Protective duties in the Tariff I introduced, and they proved to be fruitful, in the establishment of industries. I suppose that if I agreed to the proposal of the honorable member for Melbourne it was because I wished to get the Tariff through, and desired to disarm opposition as much as I could. That was probably the reason why I gave the honorable member my promise to agree to what he proposed. I think these goods can be made of wool, and they ought to be made here.

Question - That the words “ (General Tariff) 15 per cent. and (United Kingdom) 10 per cent.,” proposed to be left out, stand part of the amendment - put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 40

NOES: 11

Majority … … 29

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Amendment of the amendment negatived.

Mr TUDOR:
Minister of Trade and Customs · Yarra · ALP

– As there are honorable members present now who were not here when the amendment was originally proposed by the honorable member for Melbourne, I think it is only right that, ‘before voting upon it, they should know exactly what it means. I stated in answer to the honorable member for Parramatta that, so far as I could learn, these goods are not made here to-day ; but in a wool-producing country like Australia, the day is not far distant when we shall be manufacturing some of them. This, however, will never be the case if the duty be reduced to 15 and 10 per cent. I have no accurate information, the matter having been sprung on the Committee, but I believe that the reduction will mean a loss in revenue of from £100,000 to £150,000 a year, with a certainty that the goods will not be made in Australia.

Mr J H CATTS:
Cook

– The statement of the Minister that the proposed reduction will result in a loss of revenue to the extent of £100,000 is about the best argument that could be advanced in its favour. I am, and always have been, opposed to revenue duties. Although the duty has been imposed for a number of years, the goods are not yet being made in Australia, nor has there been any attempt to make them. The honorable member for Melbourne, and those who are supporting him, are thorough-going Protectionists, and they would not movefor a reduction of the duty by one-half if they thought it was really Protective. As a matter of fact, the logical thing for those honorable members to do was to walk across the chamber, and vote with those who proposed to abolish the duty. However, they are, apparently, prepared to compromise ; and the next best thing is to reduce the duty. The Minister has practically admitted that this is a revenue item ; and all who are opposed to revenue duties ought to vote for the amendment. A revenue duty of this kind simply means an increase in the price of the goods, and it is essentially a tax on the poorer classes of the people.

Mr SPENCE:
Darling Downs

– It seems to me that this matter requires looking into. Australia ought to manufacture wool for export, seeing that we grow the finest in the world ; and with our present woollen mills, and the best modern machinery, there is no reason whywe should not succeed. I am surprised to hear from the Minister that, so far as he knows, none of this material has been manufactured here up to the present. Lady Northcote, who took a very keen interest in Australian affairs, had some dresses made of Australian wool, which must have been manufactured in some of our mills ; and, therefore, it is hardly correct to say that this ladies’ material has not been manufactured in Australia. This is an industry which more than any other ought to be encouraged, because the fashion set by Lady Northcote led to a demand for Australianmade goods, the virtues of which have been discovered by a number of people. We used to hear a great deal about Australian boots and other goods being sold under foreign names, but that sort of thing is now dying out. As the Minister says, this question has been sprung on the Committee, and we are not exactly sure what class of goods is referred to; and, under the circumstances, it would, perhaps, be safer to allow the item to stand, and leave the Minister to take it into further consideration. I regard a revenue Tariff as a Tariff of the worst kind; and I should vote for putting on the free list everything that cannot be manufactured here. We are, however, making first-class woollen goods ; and I know that visitors to Australia purchase light merino rugs of close texture, the fineness of which would indicate that it is quite possible to produce the lighter material for ladies’ dresses. Surely there ought to be capitalists ready to enter into this branch of the woollen industry.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
Parramatta

– As I have already said, if I believed that this duty had a Protective incidence, I should not seek to disturb it. The fact is, however, that our mills are glutted with orders for the heavier woollen goods; and we may be sure that any capitalist going into the business would turn his attention in that direction. As the Minister has frankly said, there is no prospect of the lighter materials being made here for some years.

Mr Fisher:

– The Minister of Trade and Customs did not say that, but, rather, that, so far as he knew, these goods are not made here now.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

– Nor are they likely to be made here for some time. At any rate the duties have been imposed for four years, and there is no sign of any manufactures yet. The duty is a crushing impost on other Australian manufacturers for whom these woollen goods are the raw material ; and I am surprised that any Protectionist should seek to tax them under the circumstances. This is the one item on which we might very well afford some relief from the heavy cost of clothing for the women and children of Australia.

Dr MALONEY:
MELBOURNE, VICTORIA · ALP; FLP from 1931; ALP from 1936

– It is purely a sex tax.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

– I do not know that there. is much in that argument, for there are numerous taxes which fall heavily on the male sex. Honorable members opposite have protested over and over again that they are not in favour of revenue duties ; and the advocates of Protection ought to be the last to vote for them. A large amount of revenue is obtained from this item ; and surely at a time when the country is prosperous to the last degree, we might reduce duties which do not protect anything, and are not likely to do so.

Sir William Lyne:

– Nonsense !

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

– The honorable member said “ Nonsense “ four years ago ; and yet we are now no nearer an industry of the kind then contemplated. When enterprising manufacturers are ready to embark on the industry, Parliament may be relied on to afford them the same consideration and protection that are afforded to the producers of the heavier woollens.

Mr FISHER:
Prime Minister and Treasurer · Wide Bay · ALP

– As long as the Committee knows exactly what it is voting for, I shall make no complaint ; but the proposition relates to “ piece goods, woollen or containing wool,” and wool is the principal product of Australia. Some honorable members have said that the material is not produced in Australia at present, and that, until it is produced, no Protective duty should be imposed. I am informed that it has been produced and submitted from time to time to honorable members, and to the Department.

Mr RICHARD FOSTER:
WAKEFIELD, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917; LP from 1922; NAT from 1925

– Where was it made, and at what mill?

Mr FISHER:

– I am informed that light fabrics of the kind mentioned in the amendment have been produced in New South Wales. If the mills are working full-handed on heavier material,, from which they are getting a larger return, and are not producing this material at the present time, is that any reason why this Protective duty should be attacked?

Mr RICHARD FOSTER:
WAKEFIELD, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917; LP from 1922; NAT from 1925

– The same argument would increase the duty on cotton goods.

Mr FISHER:

– Is it contended by honorable members on either side that this material cannot be produced in Australia?’ If it is so contended, they are only repeating what was said to my knowledge regarding the present production of woollen goods, only a few years ago. It was maintained that this country would never be a clothproducing country because of climatic influences.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– Whoever said that?” The Prime Minister is dreaming.

Mr FISHER:

– That statement is a. thing of yesterday.

Mr W ELLIOT JOHNSON:
LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– You are never happy unless you are taxing thewomen and children of the country.

Mr FISHER:

– The honorable membercan shout from every platform the statement that this is an attack on women and. children’s goods. Does he think there is-, no patriotism in the breasts of the women, of Australia ? Does he not know that theyare just as ready and willing to see industries of this high character started in Australia as are the best of the men ? They donot think that, because they perhapsget their dresses a little cheaper, it will mean a permanent advantage toAustralia, or help their husbands. I am not challenging the bona fides of those who are proposing or supporting thisamendment. So far as concerns the amount of revenue received, on that ground one could attack and absolutely defeat every Protective item in the Tariff, because thereis no duty in the Tariff, even with the most Protective incidence, which does not bring in a considerable amount of revenue to theCommonwealth. I warn honorable members of the effect of taking up the attitudeof not supporting any revenue duties. Thisis a duty that is bringing in revenue ; but if it is anything it is a Protective duty. If” there is any country in the world where an. industry of this kind should be established, it is Australia; and it certainly will not be established soon if the duty is reduced. I am quite prepared, on behalf of the Government, to accept a higher duty than that proposed by the honorable member for Melbourne.

Dr MALONEY:
MELBOURNE, VICTORIA · ALP; FLP from 1931; ALP from 1936

– What would you accept ?

Mr FISHER:

– That is, if it is shown that the existing duty is too high. My information is that some of these fabrics have been produced in the mills of New South Wales.

Dr MALONEY:
MELBOURNE, VICTORIA · ALP; FLP from 1931; ALP from 1936

– Not one of them has been.

Mr FISHER:

– The honorable member may see the statement which I have here, but I have no authority to read it.

Dr MALONEY:
MELBOURNE, VICTORIA · ALP; FLP from 1931; ALP from 1936

– That refers to lightweight tweed.

Mr FISHER:

– If they were lightweight woollen products, they would also be usable for -Women’s wear, and could be included in the description “ piece goods, woollen, or containing wool for women and children’s wear.” The Minister of Trade and Customs, who is the best-informed man in the Ministry on this matter, had not the information that he would have liked to have to meet this proposition when it was put forward.

Mr Fenton:

– Why not postpone it until he obtains the information?

Mr FISHER:

– Until next year?

Mr Fenton:

– No; until later on.

Mr PARKER MOLONEY:
INDI, VICTORIA · ALP

– We do not want to cut down duties.

Mr FISHER:

– The honorable member quite misunderstands me if he thinks I am afraid to cut down duties, but this is not the way to do it. If we are to revise the whole fiscal system, it must not be begun piecemeal in this fashion, and it certainly should not begin and end with woollen goods, which should be the greatest product of Australia. If honorable members have thoroughly made up their minds to alter the whole basis of the Tariff, they will find aid where they are not getting it at the present time. They will have to meet the situation which will arise. They will not be able to say, “ We will cut down the duties,” and leave it at that; they will have to be parties to providing a means of raising the revenue required to replace that which has been cut off. There will, therefore, have to be a policy that is understandable by the House, and will meet the interests of the country.

Mr W ELLIOT JOHNSON:
LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– Then they are revenue duties after all and not Protective.

Mr FISHER:

– Every duty that brings in revenue can be called a revenue duty.

Mr Kelly:

– Which thimble have you got the pea under now ?

Mr FISHER:

– The honorable member, like his confreres, evidently knows something about thimbles that I know nothing of. I am quite ignorant about either the thimble or the pea, but I do know that, under the screen of taking this duty off, as being a purely revenue one, what should be a Protective duty, and should assist a native industry to manufacture a native product, will be wiped away, and that this will make it impossible to establish the industry even when people are ready to do so.

Mr RICHARD FOSTER:
WAKEFIELD, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917; LP from 1922; NAT from 1925

– I cannot understand the Prime Minister’s reasoning. On the same basis we might as well raise the duties on cotton goods and textiles of almost every description used for ladies’ apparel. Cotton goods are not manufactured in Australia. Similarly the articles dealt with by the honorable member for Melbourne are not manufactured here, and never have been.

Sir William Lyne:

– The honorable member is very cocksure, but they have been.

Mr RICHARD FOSTER:
WAKEFIELD, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917; LP from 1922; NAT from 1925

– From what I hear, the honorable member knows about as little of the Tariff as does any member in the House, although he is regarded throughout Australia as the high priest of Protection. Honorable members, and particularly the Prime Minister, have evidently been misled by the statement of the honorable member for Darling, that Lady Northcote, in her desire to promote Australian industries, had certain garments made for herself in Australia out of Australian wool. The Prime Minister and others have construed that to mean that those garments were of the materials now under review, but they were nothing of the kind. They were made, in our woollen mills, of homespun, which is made by the looms in all the woollen mills of Australia. These materials are just as different from that as daylight is from dark. The honorable member said the amendment would discourage Australian industries, and evidenced a want of patriotism. This heavy duty, which is really intended to be Protective, and is not a revenue duty, has been in existence for four years, and during that time we have received considerably over a million pounds in revenue from it, but there has been no indication of a desire on the. part of capitalists to establish the industry in Australia. No one in the community will say that there is any prospect of the manufacture of these goods in Australia in the immediate future. When capitalists are prepared to give us a guarantee that they are willing to establish the necessary mills and machinery, it will be time enough to give the Protection needed.

Mr Ozanne:

– We have the men in Australia to-day.

Mr RICHARD FOSTER:
WAKEFIELD, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917; LP from 1922; NAT from 1925

– There are no capitalists in Australia willing to embark on this enterprise, and we are not justified in continuing a heavy impost, especially since the revenue from Customs is already more than it ought to be. It is most inconsistent for Protectionists to insist on the continuance of duties of 35 and 30 per cent, on articles which are not manufactured in Australia, and not likely to be manufactured here for many a day to come.

Mr OZANNE:
Corio

.- The honorable member for Wakefield, in saying that we must wait until capitalists come to Australia before protecting this industry, advanced an old Free Trade argument. If we had not in the past placed protective duties on many articles, we should not to-day be manufacturing them. When he says that our manufacturers are not making these goods, he does not know anything about the subject. They have been made in New South Wales and at Ballarat, and the manufacturers at Geelong are only anxious to receive encouragement to make them. The Commonwealth is now establishing woollen mills of its own, and when they are in working order they will manufacture the cloth that is now made by private mills. This will take work from the private mills, and we should do something to make up the loss. Our duties ought to be so high that manufacturers elsewhere, who are not compelled by Arbitration Courts or Wages Boards to pay a living wage to their employes, will be prevented from sending their goods to Australia. If our manufacturers had to rely on the assistance of the honorable member for Wakefield they would have the prospect of becoming bankrupt.

Mr. W. ELLIOT JOHNSON (Lang) honorable member for Corio, in trying to make us believe that the goods mentioned in the amendment are made in Australia, are throwing dust in our eyes. They are not made within the Commonwealth, and there is no machinery here for making them. It is a monstrous injustice to our women and children that this oppressive burden should be placed on their shoulders. What is the loss of revenue in comparison to the happiness of the community? Honorable members opposite under the ironical plea of “ Protection “ wish to tax our women to their utmost capacity, to produce revenue for an already overflowing treasury, and at the same time deprive them of their right to vote at elections under their new Electoral Act. Members of the Labour party should be ashamed to be identified with such proposals. Although these duties have been in operation for four years, no attempt has been made to take advantage of them to establish any local industry of the same nature. Does not the Treasurer know that the increase of revenue following upon the imposition of Tariffs is a sign that a duty is not protective? There is no reason for these duties from a Protectionist’s point of view, and I hope that the Committee will show sympathy with our women and children by voting for the amendment. I would propose a still further reduction of duties, but so little support was obtained for a similar proposal that I do not wish to waste time with a division which would be fruitless.

Dr MALONEY:
MELBOURNE, VICTORIA · ALP; FLP from 1931; ALP from 1936

– The debate has shown that the Free Trader and the Protectionist agree that revenue should be raised by means of direct taxation. The Protectionist does not like revenue duties, because they give no real protection, and the Free Trader does not like them because he wishes trade to be free. The Prime Minister when speaking had in mind light-weight tweeds 5 ozs. in weight, which have been, and are being, made in the mills of New South Wales; my amendment deals with delicate materials for women’s wear, such as even the United States of America, with its 80,000,000 people, cannot manufacture enough of to supply its own demands. Of course, if it is really intended to manufacture these goods here, it will be necessary to do it in a Government factory, because no private firm would bear the loss. The lustres of Bradford are unequalled in the world. They cannot be surpassed in Germany, France, or the United States. I have no wish to injure the woollen industry, and would gladly double its protection. I am proud to wear Australian tweeds. There are tailors here who can make coats, vests, and trousers good enough for any man to wear. I again say that the articles mentioned in my amendment have never been ‘made in Australia.

Mr Carr:

-The honorable member says that these goods are the raw material for other industries. The duty has been on for two years. Has it destroyed those other industries?

Dr MALONEY:
MELBOURNE, VICTORIA · ALP; FLP from 1931; ALP from 1936

– It has greatly impaired their success. Cotton goods are admitted free, but the manufacturer of cotton garments in this country is protected. Consequently, the manufacture of such goods has gone up by leaps and bounds. The very day alter the item as to cotton, in the existing Tariff, was passed, under the guidanceof the honorable member for Hume, a contract was made in Melbourne for the erection of a factory that at present employs 100 machines. Why was that? Because the raw material comes in free, whilst there are duties of 40 and 35 per cent. on made-up garments. The local manufacturers can even beat Welch, Margetson’s, who used to send thousands and thousands of cuffs and collars into this market. I would even make the duty on made-up articles as high as 80 per cent., but I would allow the raw material to come in at a low duty. I challenge the honorable member for Hume to name any factory in Australia where these goods are manufactured. I say again that this is a tax on one sex, and I object to it on that ground alone. If the Government cannot go as far as I desire, will they agree to reduce the duty to 20 and 1 5 per cent. ?

Mr Fisher:

– We will agree to 20 and 15 per cent if the honorable member will accept that.

Dr MALONEY:
MELBOURNE, VICTORIA · ALP; FLP from 1931; ALP from 1936

– Very well; and will the Government alter the wording of the item so as to make sure that no injury is done to the woollen industry?

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:
Hume

– I did not quite catch what the Prime Minister said.

Mr Fisher:

– I said that we would agree to reduce the duty to 20 and 15 per cent, if that would satisfy the honorable member for Melbourne.

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:

– But why should the woollen industry be injured at all? It is not a fair thing to reduce the duty in any degree. . I consider that a reduction would be most disastrous. It would have been better to leave the Tariff alone. The honorable member for Melbourne is doing more serious harm than can be imagined. He says that these goods are not made in Australia. I saythat they are being made in Sydney, and it is nonsense to say that they are not.

Mr J H Catts:

– Where is cashmere made?

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:

– I did not take down the names of the goods, but I certainly deny that they cannot be made outside Bradford. When I proposed a duty on wool tops, I was met with the retort that they could not be manufactured outside Bradford. They are being made in Sydney at this instant of better quality than any that were ever imported from Bradford. The argument was fallacious then, and it is fallacious now.

Mr BRUCE SMITH:
PARKES, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– The honorable member cannot tell the honorable member for Cook where in Australia cashmere is being made.

SirWILLIAMLYNE. - Whydoesthe honorable member go on with this ridiculous Free Trade nonsense?

Mr BRUCE SMITH:
PARKES, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– Where is cashmere made?

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:

– “ When I open my lips, let no dog bark :,” that is the honorable member’s attitude in this House.

Mr BRUCE SMITH:
PARKES, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– Still, where is cashmere made?

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:

– Let the honorable member ask some schoolboy. His patronizing air is offensive to everybody.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

- (Mr. W. Elliot Johnson). - There is so much interruption that it is almost impossible for me to hear the honorable member for Hume. I trust that honorable members will restrain themselves.

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:

– I must apologize if I was heated, but the honorable member for Parkes brought it on himself. I say that goods similar to these have been manufactured in Sydney for the last two or three years.

Mr BRUCE SMITH:
PARKES, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– It is not true.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

– I must ask the honorable member to withdraw that statement.

Mr BRUCE SMITH:
PARKES, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– Having made the statement. I withdraw it.

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:

– I was very glad to hear the Prime Minister speak so vigorously in support of this industry.

Though he was not. a very strong Protectionist, he did justice to this branch of our manufactures, and I admired him for his attitude. I hope sincerely that the duty will not be reduced. If we are going to be beaten on a division, we must put up with it; but we must let the public know that we stood to our guns.

Mr J H Catts:

– Let us know who the Revenue Tariffists are.

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:

– No; let us know who the Free Traders are. I sincerely hope that the Prime Minister will accept defeat rather than lower the duty that is already in force.

Mr J H CATTS:
Cook

.It seems to be the stock-in-trade of the honorable member for Hume, when any one disagrees with him on a Tariff matter, to accuse him of being a Free Trader.

Sir William Lyne:

– The honorable member never gave a Free-Trade vote.

Mr J H CATTS:

– The honorable member for Hume, when he was in charge of the Tariff, thanked me personally for assistance rendered.

Sir William Lyne:

– The honorable member gave me one vote.

Mr J H CATTS:

– The honorable member thanked me for the consistent support which I gave to him. I stuck to him through thick and thin, on the understanding that the Protectionist Tariff was to be accompanied by the policy of new Protection.

It was rather significant that the Prime Minister, and not the Minister of Trade and Customs, got up and declared the attitude of the Government in regard to this proposal, because, according to the Minister’s own statement, it involves a revenue of over £100,000.

Mr Tudor:

– I said that I was not speaking on very good information, but I believed that to be correct.

Mr J H CATTS:

– If the honorable” member said that it involves a revenue of £150,000 he would be nearer the mark.

Mr Tudor:

– I said from £100,000 to £150,000, as Hansard will show.

Mr J H CATTS:

– This duty has been imposed for nearly four years, and a revenue of from £500,000 to £600,000 has been collected from the consumers without giving a halfpenny worth of Protection. Probably the Treasurer does not like to give up an item of that description, but I think it is hardly fair for him to place his arguments on a Protectionist basis. One of the objections I have to the

House dealing with items of this kind without proper investigation by a tribunal is that it is only necessary for the honorable member for Hume to rise and say that all the articles are manufactured in Australia, when we are expected to swallow the statement without further investigation. I only mentioned one article, because every one knows what cashmere is. I asked the Honorable member for Hume where it is made, but he cannot tell me. If the honorable member for Melbourne Ports, with his expert knowledge, would only get up and state what he knows about these articles this proposal would not have any chance of going through. He could stand up here if he liked and tell us that the articles are not made in Australia, and that the consumption of them here, for many years to come, would not be sufficient to warrant the expenditure of a tremendous capital in laying down the necessary plant for manufacturing them.

Mr Cann:

– Knock out “ woollen.”

Mr J H CATTS:

– As a matter of fact, there is a small particle of wool in these fabrics - they cannot be made without some wool - and to ask honorable members to knock out “ woollen “ is merely to appeal to prejudice. When “ woollen “ is mentioned here the knees of some honorable members begin to knock, because they think that an alteration of the item might lend itself to some criticism outside. Let us face this question fairly and squarely, and if it can be shown that the articles mentioned by the honorable member for Melbourne are made here, I, for one, will stand with the Government, and vote against a reduction of the duty. According to the argument of the Prime Minister, however, this is only a revenue duty. -The proposal is to reduce the duty to 15 and 10 per cent., and he is prepared to accept a proposal to reduce it to 20 and 15 per cent. If it is a protective duty there is absolutely no warrant for reducing it from 30 and 25 per cent. The very fact that, after arguing that it is a Protective duty, the Prime Minister is prepared to come down 10 per cent.-

Mr Fisher:

– I did not come down at all.

Mr J H CATTS:

– Where the duty on an article is 30 per cent., and the right honorable member is prepared to accept 20 per cent., what is it but a case of coming down 10 per cent. ? The very fact that he is prepared to accept a reduction of 10 per cent., shows that it is only a revenue item, and that he is compromising with the revenue. Since this matter has been placed on a Protectionist basis I would point out that the honorable member for Melbourne is as good a Protectionist as is the Prime Minister. The former was agitating for Protection long before the latter thought of it; in fact, he has been a real tiger for Protection, and to give him a little has been only to whet his appetite, and make him roar for more. He is a lifelong Protectionist who will be trusted by the Protectionists of Australia, and when he moves not to reduce the general duty on woollen goods, but to place certain items under a lower duty, we are thoroughly justified if if is necessary to have some Protectionist justification, in accepting his proposal. The Prime Minister stated that nearly every Item in the Tariff could be called a revenue item. I think that that is perfectly true. I believe that the Tariff, as it stands, was framed as much for the purpose of producing revenue as for the purpose of giving Protection, probably more so. I have my doubt about the present proposals. I believe it will be found that their, incidence will be to bring in more revenue.

Mr Fisher:

– I think that the honorable member is wrong.

Mr J H CATTS:

– That is my opinion. I shall be greatly surprised indeed if they are not found in their incidence to be more revenue-producing than protective. The prices of these goods, which are worn by women, have been increased during the last four years by from £500,000 to £600,000, and we are asked to go on collecting this class tax. One of my aims, as far as revenue is concerned, is to wipe out taxation on the masses, and to tax those who are best able to bear the burden. I am prepared to wipe out this item and others. I hope that the honorable member for Melbourne will stick to his proposal. 1 would rather see him and others defeated on it than give way.

Mr Fisher:

– We accept that - we will take a vote.

Mr J H CATTS:

– I would prefer the honorable member to stick to his amendment, and to let each honorable member take the responsibility for the vote he gives.

Mr. CARR (Macquarie) [2.40 a.m. J. - I understand that the proposal before the Committee has emanated from the honorable member for Melbourne, and not from the Government. The latter have submitted certain proposals, but the former wants to reduce the duty on an item which has been dutiable for some years. I shall strongly oppose any reduction of the duties on woollen goods, unless we have the best expert and most reliable information possible that they cannot be manufactured in Australia. I am not at all satisfied that these articles cannot be made here. I am not prepared to accept the ipse dixit of the honorable member for Melbourne on that point. I was surprised to hear the Prime Minister say that he would concede anything. It reminded me very much of the story of a judge and a widow who received a concession because of her importunity. I hope that that will not be the position to-night. What the honorable member for Cook has said about these being revenue duties may be accepted. I hardly expect that we can have any system of Protection which will not bring in a certain amount of revenue; but we can have a system which will bring in a minimum amount of revenue, and that is what I wish to see adopted. The position is not at all clear. No one has a right to say that it is so-and-so, because he does not know. That brings me back to the point I mentioned earlier today, namely, that we want an authoritative body to inquire into these proposals. But the fact remains that it is proposed to decrease duties which have been operating for some years, while the industries affected have certainly not been ruined. That does not appeal to me. I give the honorable member for Melbourne credit for being actuated by the best intentions, but a man with his temperament may be biased or influenced, perhaps unconsciously, by local views. I intend to support the existing duties.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
Parramatta

– I ask the Prime Minister to name a single member in the House whom he has ever heard say that woollen goods cannot be manufactured in Australia. The right honorable gentleman has been making statements with a recklessness that does not do him credit. I challenge him to name one honorable member who has ever said in this House that woollen goods cannot be produced in Australia. If he cannot name one, let him be man enough to admit that he has made a misstatement to the Committee. No such assertion has ever been made in this House. What we do say is that the particular class of goods dealt with in this amendment are not being made in Australia.

Mr Carr:

– The honorable member cannot prove that statement.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

– I cannot; but the Minister, who is the only authority we have in the Committee says that, to the best of his knowledge, they are not being made in Australia. The honorable member for Hume has said that they are made in Sydney, and, according to other experts, they are being made in Ballarat and lots of other places in the Commonwealth.

Mr J H Catts:

– But the honorable member for Hume cannot give us the name of one firm that is making them.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

– Precisely. I should like some one to tell me where cashmeres, voiles, delaines, Sicilians, grenadines, or silurians are being made in Australia.

Mr Cann:

– Are they woollens?

Mr Tudor:

– The honorable member for Parramatta would not know them if he saw them.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

– I would not, nor would the honorable member for Nepean. He only knows that he is voting with the Government, and that covers all his political sins. The Minister says that the duty proposed by the Government is not a Protective one.

Mr PARKER MOLONEY:
INDI, VICTORIA · ALP

– It will not be if it is reduced as now proposed.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

– The Minister has told us that the removal of the duty altogether would mean a loss of over a quarter of a million of revenue. I am reminded that I made a mistake last night when I stated that the proposed duty on fruit cases would mean an increased price of1/2d. per case. I should have said it will mean an increased cost of11/2d. per case. I am inclined to think that the honorable member for Hume is confusing the materials covered by this amendment with the very light tweeds which are being, and can be made, in Australia.

Sir William Lyne:

– Some wool is used in their manufacture.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

– There is a slight percentage of wool, but the honorable member is confusing these materials with tweed below a certain weight, which can be made in Australia.

Sir William Lyne:

– No.

Mr Carr:

– What percentage of wool is there in these materials?

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

– Even if they were made wholly of wool, what sense would there be in protecting them if they were not made here.

Sir William Lyne:

– They will be made here if the duty is retained.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

– Every honorable member, in common fairness, would vote for a duty on these goods the moment there was any sign of their being produced here. As it is, they are the raw material of other industries, which have a huge annual turnover, and Free Traders and Protectionists alike should be the last to impose high protective duties on these raw materials. The moment a company comesalong with a proposal to manufacture them in Australia, and proves its bona fides, I am sure that honorable members generally will vote to place upon them the same duty as is imposed for the Protection of other manufactures of woollens. We are not entitled to take revenue duties in respect of these materials from the women and children of this country, when no result can be shown for them. That is our position, and the honorable member for Hume should support the amendment instead of opposing it as he is now doing.

Question - That the words proposed to be inserted be so inserted (Dr. Maloney’s amendment) - put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 18

NOES: 30

Majority … … 12

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Amendment negatived.

Item, as amended, agreed to.

Item 126 -

By omitting from the item the words “ Collar check; Collar cloth,” and inserting in their stead the words “ Collar check and Collar cloth 3b inches and over in width.”

Mr MASSY-GREENE:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP; NAT from 1917

– I would like an explanation from the Minister as to why collar cloth is to be exempt from duty only when it is 36 inches and over in width. Narrower widths are used for collar checks and collar cloths, but none of them are made in Australia, nor are they likely to be. The result of this amendment will be that these narrower widths will fall under another item of the Tariff, and will be dutiable.

Mr TUDOR:
Minister Of Trade and Customs · Yarra · ALP

– When this item was made free under the last Tariff, the object in view was to assist the saddlery and other industries. But it has been found that narrower widths of collar check and collar cloths are being imported for other pur poses.

Mr Groom:

– For what purposes?

Mr TUDOR:

– For scouring cloths.

Mr MASSY-GREENE:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP; NAT from 1917

– They make very expen sive scouring cloths.

Mr TUDOR:

– Very likely. At any rate, they are used for purposes other than those for which they were intended to be used Most of these collar cloths are more than a yard in width, and consequently the amendment will not inflict any injury.

Item agreed to.

Item 134 -

By inserting in sub-item (a) after the words “ Badges n.e.i. ; “ the words “ Braids n.e.i.;”

By omitting from sub-item (a) the words “Natural Birds and Wings;”

By omitting from sub-item (b) the semi colons after the words “ Buckles “, “Clasps”, “Slides” and “Buttons”, and inserting commas in their stead.

By inserting in sub-item (b) a comma after the word “ Fringes “

By omitting from sub-item (b) the words “Braids n.e.i.;” and inserting in their stead the following words : - “Cotton Featherstitch Braids; Plain Braids (other than Cotton Featherstitch) of one colour and not exceeding one inch in width, but not including braids containing gold silver or tinsel threads;”

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:
Hume

– The object of this amendment is to make braids subject to a duty. I have information in my possession to the effect that these braids are used, to a large extent, in manu facture, and that they are not made in Australia. Under these circumstances, I think that they may very fairly be exempt from duty.

Mr TUDOR:
Minister of Trade and Customs · Yarra · ALP

– The reason underlying this proposal is that, some three or four years ago, trimmings and ornaments, n.e.,i., for bonnets, hats, shoes, and other attire were made dutiable at 25 per cent, under the general Tariff, and 15 per cent, under the Tariff for the United Kingdom. It is impossible to distinguish between some of these braids and the articles which are used for trimmings under 134A of the Tariff. Consequently, it is proposed that they shall be of a specific width. All braids over that width will be dutiable and the balance will be admitted free. Some of these braids cost more than 10s. a yard, and are used only as ornaments for the very finest dresses. I do not think that all braids should be admitted free, seeing that some of them are of many colours and fancy patterns. As a matter of fact,they become a trimming in themselves and should, therefore, be subject to a duty. However, I am willing to exempt all braids under 2 inches in width.

Sir JOHN QUICK:
Bendigo

– I have already pointed out that this duty will be oppressive on the manufacturers of goods in Australia. These braids are necessary accessories to a madeup garment. They are not, strictly speaking,ornamental, in the sense that trimmings are ornamental, and I fail to see why a revenue duty should be placed upon braids which are necessary to the completion of a garment. I think that there is a well-known trade definition of braids which is sufficiently comprehensive to admit of a distinction being drawn between them and trimmings. Trimmings are distinctly ornamental and decorative in their character, whereas braids are necessary to the completion of garments. It is absurd to impose a duty upon an article which is a necessary component part of a finished garment.

Mr MASSY-GREENE:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP; NAT from 1917

– I would point out to the Committee that many of these braids are plain, and are manufactured up to 3 or 4 inches in width. They are used as bindings upon ladies’ dresses.

Mr Tudor:

– Not of that width.

Mr MASSY-GREENE:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP; NAT from 1917

– Yes.

Mr Tudor:

– A width of 2 inches would more than cover braids which are used for bindings.

Mr MASSY-GREENE:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP; NAT from 1917

– Only to-day I was looking at braids which are actually in use upon dresses, some of which were 3$ inches wide. I hold in my hand a black braid which is manufactured in all widths from a quarter of an inch to 4 inches. Whether a braid is separate or attached to a garment makes a great difference. This sample is over an inch wide, and dutiable, but when stretched in stitching it will not be an inch wide, and therefore not dutiable.

Sir William Lyne:

– The Minister has agreed to exempt from duty all braids up to 2 inches in width.

Mr MASSY-GREENE:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP; NAT from 1917

– Yes. But the braid which -I have exhibited to honorable members varies in width from’ a quarter of an inch to 3J inches. I think that all braids which cannot be made in Australia should be admitted free, especially when they are used in making up garments.

Mr J H CATTS:
Cook

– I understand that the Minister proposes to make an exemption in respect of braid under 2 inches in width.

Mr Tudor:

– - Because they would be of the cheaper class of braids, and more largely used in the manufacture of the cheaper class of garments.

Mr J H CATTS:

– I am satisfied that the Minister would not agree to exempt braids under 2 inches in width if this were really a Protective item. As these braids are not manufactured in Australia, *they should be removed from the list of dutiable articles, irrespective of their width.

Mr Tudor:

– If the honorable member will look at item 134A, he will find that trimmings and ornaments are dutiable at 25 per cent, and 15 per cent., and it is difficult to distinguish between braids and trimmings.

Mr J H CATTS:

– I do not think that there is any difficulty in determining what a braid is, and it appears obvious that this item is included in the Tariff for revenue purposes only.

Mr Tudor:

– I can assure the honorable member that it is not. The proposal is made for the convenience of the Department, and to assist in interpretation. The object is that one officer shall not pass an article as a braid, and another class the same article as a trimming.

Mr J H CATTS:

– The Minister, in submitting the amendment, has had no difficulty in determining what a braid is, or he would not have limited the width to 2- inches.

Mr Tudor:

– I am proposing to deal with braids not exceeding 1 inch in width, but I have agreed, at the request of thehonorable member for Hume, to increasethe width to 2 inches.

Mr J H CATTS:

– I think the Minister should accept a further amendment to make the width 6 inches. As I have somerequests to make to the honorable gentleman- later on, I shall not occupy more time on’ this item.

Mr GROOM:
Darling Downs

– I wish to know from the Minister what would be the effect’ of the proposed amendment to substitute commas for semicolons after the words “buckles; clasps > slides ; buttons “ in sub-item b. Is it intended that these articles with, fringes be governed by the letters n.e.i. following that word ? I wish to know if the amendment will make any difference in the incidence of the Tariff?

Mr TUDOR:
Minister of Trade and Customs · Yarra · ALP

– The object of the amendment is to bring buckles, clasps,, slides, and buttons under the n.e.i. provision, with the exception of gold and silver buckles, which are specially dutiable under another item of the Tariff.

Amendment (by Mr.” Tudor) agreed to -

That the words “ one inch “ be left out, witha view to insert in lieu thereof the words “ two. inches.”

Item, as amended, agreed to.

Division VI. - Metals and Machinery.

Item 139 -

By inserting in sub-item (g) before the word” “fittings” the word “service.”

Mr HEDGES:
Fremantle

.. - I should like to know from the Minister whether the insertion of the word “ service ,r as proposed will not affect gunstocks and barrels that are not fitted, and which may be required for other than service work, and may so bring these articles under someother part of the Tariff in which they would be dutiable.

Mr Tudor:

– The word “service,” if inserted as proposed, will govern only theword “fittings,” and the articles referred? to by the honorable member will not beaffected by the amendment.

Item agreed to.

Item 141 -

By omitting the -whole of sub-item (c).

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:
Hume

– This item refers to lamp and gas stoves for heating and cooking, which are- subject to a duty of 20 per cent. Will this include motor lamps? I do not see why these lamps should not be dutiable.

Mr Tudor:

– I think that motor lamps are dutiable; if they do not come under 141a, which provides for lamps and so forth, they will come under manufactures of metal.

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:

– If so, I am satisfied; but that is not how the position has been represented’ to me.

Mr W ELLIOT JOHNSON:
LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– If this item be omitted as proposed, will not lamps and gas stoves for cooking and heating, which now bear a duty of 20 per cent., be automatically transferred to item 170A, and be subject to a duty of 30 and 25 per cent. ?

Mr Tudor:

– Yes; I said so in the statement I made when I introduced the Tariff.

Mr W ELLIOT JOHNSON:
LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– What is the object of this? These lamp stoves are used by the wage-earners and the poorer sections of the community. What anomaly is being rectified by means of this increase ?

Mr TUDOR:
Minister of Trade and Customs · Yarra · ALP

– While all other stoves are rated at 30 and 25 per cent., there is no reason why gas stoves should escape with a lighter duty.

Mr Archibald:

– I am convinced that not a single kerosene stove of the stamp contemplated by the item is made in Australia.

Mr TUDOR:

– Manyof the gas companies absolutely refuse to deal in Australian stoves. It is impossible to hire an Australian stove from the Melbourne Metropolitan Gas Company; a consumer must take an imported stove or none. In 1908, the importation of these stoves represented £41,000, and in 1910 it represented £57,000. Lamp and gas stoves are not separated in the statistics, but the bulk of those imported are gas stoves. I do not know whether lamp stoves are made here or not, but gas stoves are.

Mr Sampson:

– Why do the gas companies not use Australian stoves?

Mr Hall:

– Because Australian stoves do not use as much gas as other stoves do!

Mr TUDOR:

– I do not know the reason. The importations are valued at £33,500 from the United Kingdom, £6,700 from Germany, £8,800 from Sweden, £7,400 from the United States. In the gas stove industry in New South

Wales, most of those employed are under the Wages Board, and the wages paid range from £2 10s. to £3 6s. per week.

Mr ARCHIBALD:
Hindmarsh

– I think the Minister ought to allow the item to remain. I have never seen an oil stove of the kind in Australia, except an imported one. I am now talking about the kind of kerosene stoves imported from America.

Mr Tudor:

– What about gas stoves?

Mr ARCHIBALD:

– I was speaking of what are called gas stoves, but what are really kerosene stoves. I know that ordinary coal gas stoves are made in Australia, and I do not care a rap if a duty be placed on these; but it is sought to impose an increased duty on the kerosene stove which is used in every country household where families do not exceed about four, and where economy is desired. In such households no fuel is used except for warmth in the winter. I refer more particularly to the “ Preference” stove, which is used not only in the country districts, but also in the cities.

Mr Tudor:

– If I move an amendment to the effect that Primus and other similar lamp stoves or lamps shall be subject to a duty of 20. per cent., will that satisfy the honorable member ?

Mr ARCHIBALD:

– Yes.

Amendment (by Mr. Tudor) proposed -

That this item be left out and the following words be inserted : - “ 141. By omitting the present sub-item (c) and inserting in its stead the following sub-item : -

  1. Primus and other similar heat ing lamps, ad valorem, 20 per cent.”
Mr J H CATTS:
Cook

– This item, in so far as it purports to include kerosene stoves, only confirms my suspicion that one of the main purposes of this Tariff revision is to obtain more revenue. The Minister’s action in proposing to exempt these kerosene stoves from the higher duty is an admission that they ought to be placed on the free list - an admission that, so far as these lamp stoves are concerned, this is not a Protective duty.

Mr Tudor:

– I never admitted that; the honorable member for Hindmarsh said that they are not made here.

Mr J H CATTS:

– Does the Minister accept that statement?

Mr Tudor:

– I did, to facilitate matters, and because I thought the item of gas stoves of the more importance.

Mr J H CATTS:

– Gas stoves are made here, and I do not desire to be a party to the reduction of the duty in their case.

Mr Thomas:

– Will not kerosene stoves compete with the gas stoves?

Mr J H CATTS:

– No, because kerosene stoves are used only where gas is not available. The Government would not submit an item without ascertaining the probable effect; and surely they know that to raise the duty to 30 per cent, would mean extra revenue. Kerosene stoves should be made free. I move -

That the amendment be amended by leaving out the words “ad valorem 20 per cent.,” with a view to insert in lieu thereof the word “ free.”

Mr ARCHIBALD:
Hindmarsh

– I objected to the Minister’s proposal, because I saw no reason for increasing the duty, as the articles are not made here.

Mr J H Catts:

– Twenty per cent, is a revenue duty.

Mr ARCHIBALD:

– It is now ; but I could never understand why Australian ingenuity has not been sufficient to invent a similar stove. A 20 per cent, duty would give Australians a show to do so. For that reason 1 urge the honorable member for Cook to withdraw his amendment. I have no particular love for the Standard Oil Company, to whom the stove belongs, but, while seeing that justice is done to our own people, we ought to give the Australian mechanic a chance to do something in this direction.

Mr KELLY:
Wentworth

– The two speeches to which we have just listened prove the desirability of continuing the discussion of the Tariff on some occasion when we are a little more awake. The honorable member for Hindmarsh proposed a reduction of the duty because the articles are not made here, and then he said the duty must not be abolished altogether because that would prevent them from ever being made here. The bigger the duty, the sooner things will be made here, if they can be. This way of dealing with the Tariff is “over the odds.” Is this a deliberative assembly, or is it a farce? Members are asleep all round the chamber. I cannot see why the user of an artificial stove in the city should be asked to pay a heavy price, while the user in the country is allowed to obtain it free of duty. The honorable member for Hume ought to be able to inform the Committee whether these articles are being constructed anywhere in Australia; but, under present conditions, we do not know enough about the item to pass it. Why should we not go home instead of passing items with half the Committee asleep, and the Government not caring, and prepared to compromise whenever any suggestion is made by a Government supporter? The Vacuum Oil Company has written -

Kerosene cooking stoves and heaters are not manufactured in the Commonwealth, so that no local industry is affected by the importation of same. The manufacture of kerosene cooking stoves and heaters can only be carried on under enormous expense in providing suitable plant with which to manufacture the goods, and which goods are manufactured by the thousand in the United States of America, and, we believe, elsewhere. No attempt has ever been made to manufacture kerosene cooking stoves and heaters in the Commonwealth, because the demand for same would not warrant the necessary expenditure in providing suitable plant for the manufacture of these goods, and as there is no local industry to protect, it seems somewhat of an anomaly to further increase the rate of duty on these goods, which are principally used by people of moderate means throughout the Commonwealth, and in districts in which it is practically impossible to obtain wood, except at a prohibitive cost.

We should know what the price of these stoves is. It may be fair to tax them if they are a luxury, but they should not be taxed if used chiefly by the poor.

Mr J H Catts:

– A standard heater costs about £2 ros., and a half size about £1 ios., with the present duty of 20 per cent.

Mr KELLY:

– A duty of 20 per cent, probably increases the price by 30 per cent, to the purchaser. Probably if admitted free the stoves would not cost more than 36s.

Mr FINLAYSON:
Brisbane

. -I regret that the Minister is willing to allow kerosene stoves to remain at a duty of 20 per cent. There are two kinds of these stoves on the market in Queensland. Australians, as a rule, are inclined to purchase the imported, rather than the locallymanufactured article, and a higher duty would give a stimulus to the local manufacturers. I should like to see the duty increased by at least 5 per cent. The makers of the ordinary fuel stoves also deserve consideration.

Mr Tudor:

– They have a protection of 30 and 25 per cent.

Mr FINLAYSON:

– I know that because of the competition of America and England they are not in a happy position.

The increased cost of material, and the increased rates of wages, have practically taken away the margin of profit.

Mr Hedges:

– In what part of Queensland are ‘kerosene stoves made?

Mr FINLAYSON:

– In Brisbane. The Americans are clever inventors, because of the protection pf their Tariff, and it appears to be the fact that, under Free Trade less inventive ability is. shown than under Protection. Then, too, in America the people are willing to support local inventions. If we were more patriotic in that respect, our manufactures would develop more rapidly.

Mr J H CATTS:
Cook

– I am sorry that the honorable member for Brisbane did not speak earlier. Had he done so I should not have moved my amendment, and, under the circumstances, I ask leave to withdraw it.

Mr KELLY:
Wentworth

– Before the amendment is withdrawn, we should be informed definitely as to the price at which these stoves are sold in Brisbane. Are they stoves . which can compete with the Primus, selling at about the same price? We should have full information before the amendment is withdrawn.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
Parramatta

– Has the Minister any information regarding the manufacture of stoves in Brisbane?

Mr Tudor:

– No.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

– I marvel at what the Department does not know. The Minister should send the honorable member for Brisbane into his Brisbane office, and discharge his highly-salaried men there, who, while supposed to be looking after the local manufactures, are unable to give him the information needed by the Committee. This is not the first time that we have had to grope our way through Tariff discussions in the dark. I ask the Minister what is the intention in re-arranging these duties? Is it to give protection to the manufacturers of oil stoves?

Mr TUDOR:
Minister of Trade and Customs · Yarra · ALP

– I have already explained that all stoves, except lamp and gas stoves, are dutiable at 30 and 25 per cent., and it is not thought right to treat these stoves, particularly gas stoves, differently. I have no information regarding the stoves to which the honorable member for Brisbane referred, but I am informed that gas stoves are made here. On the suggestion of the honorable member for Hindmarsh, it is proposed to make Primus and other lamp stoves dutiable at 20 per cent., and to apply the higher rates to gas stoves.

Mr ANSTEY:
Bourke

.- I have endeavoured to expedite business by remaining silent, but as we have had two hours’ discussion of the proposal of the honorable member for Cook, which I assume was put forward only after serious consideration, I do not think that it should be withdrawn without further explanation. The honorable member for Brisbane, with his lovely Doric voice, asked for stimulus for the stove-making industry, and immediately the honorable member for Cook asked leave to withdraw his amendment. Under the circumstances, it is not surprising if honorable members occupy time in discussing the matter. As I have no further remarks to make, I shall resume my seat.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
Parramatta

– It is time to protest against the frivolity and inanity of these proceedings.

Mr Thomas:

– This is a burlesque.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

– That happily describes what is taking place. It is a pity that the Minister has not more information, so that we may check the statements made by other honorable members. If” stoves are being made in Brisbane, the industry there is as much entitled to Protection as that of any other place. But weshould know who is making these stoves,, and at what prices they are being sold. Mere general statements are worthless. In the interests of his constituents, the honorable member for Brisbane should give usfurther details. We have heard from timeto time of the wonderful forests of whitepine that exist in Queensland. It is abouttime that the truth of some of these statements was demonstrated to honorable members. If they can be proved to be true, so much the better for Queensland and for her industries, but these general statementsmean nothing in the absence of verification. All the evidence we have now is that given- by the honorable member for Brisbane, and’ he confesses that he knows nothing about the working of these stoves. It is up tothe honorable member or to the Minister to assure the Committee that such stoves areactually being made.

Mr Finlayson:

– I have seen them repeatedly.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

– Who is making them in Brisbane?

Mr Finlayson:

– I could not tell the names of the makers.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

– Has the honorable member any idea of what they cost? If we impose this duty,- are they likely to be as cheap as are imported kerosene stoves ? In the absence of any particulars of this kind, is it fair to ask us to impose this duty ?

Mr Finlayson:

– We are not asked to impose any duty.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

– What does the honorable member mean by that?

Mr Tudor:

– It is not proposed to raise the duty at all, as far as ordinary kerosene stoves are concerned. We are simply putting them at the same rate as all other stoves.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

– There is not much objection to that. We are supposed to be arranging these duties for the purpose of stimulating the industries of Australia, and also for stimulating the inventive faculties of the people. The honorable member for Brisbane spoke of the way in which Americans bring out patents. Is my honorable friend aware that, according to the officials of the Patent Office ‘here in Melbourne, Australians are more inventive people than Americans? I hope that the Minister will give us a little more information about these items as we proceed. Instead of doing so, he leaves us to blunder along.

Mr Tudor:

– I have given the information twice.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

– I am satisfied now that I have got it, but does not the Minister think that his Department ought to know what is taking place in regard to these industries ? Is he going to investigate the statements made by the honorable member for Brisbane? I am going to let this item go on the strength of that honorable member’s statements, because if these stoves are being made in Brisbane they have just as much right to a duty as any . other stoves. So far, however, we have only the unsupported statement of the honorable member, who cannot even tell us the names of the stoves or of their makers. It is on the strength of information of that kind that we are shaping this Tariff. Can it be wondered at that we have constantly to be re-adjusting duties? One would not allow a builder to erect a house on such information as that on which we profess to be building a Tariff that controls and dominates the industries of this country.

Mr SAMPSON:
Wimmera

– I am quite prepared to vote for any duty that will encourage the manufac- ture of local articles, but we surely require a little more information in regard to Primus stoves. I have looked up the Tariff Commission’s report, and find that they investigated this subject. They took evidence from the manufacturers of cooking stoves in New South Wales and Queensland. The Protectionist section of the Tariff Commission decided, however, that they would not recommend an increase of duties. They appear to have made a fairly full investigation as to the different classes of stoves manufactured in Australia, and they recommended that the duty should be 20 per cent.

Mr Tudor:

– That is all I am asking for.

Mr SAMPSON:

– Apparently, kerosene stoves were not being made in Australia three years ago. If they are being made now,- there has been a development in our manufactures. Certainly no request was made for a duty for these articles. No fresh information has been supplied except by the honorable member for Brisbane, and even he could not give particulars as to the name of the manufacturers. If evidence can be given that they are being manufactured in a way that gives a promise of their supplying Australian requirements, there is a justification for the duty, but in the absence of that information, I shall have to vote against the item.

Mr SINCLAIR:
Moreton

– The honorable member for Cook has moved an amendment to this item, which he now proposes to withdraw. In fact, he is so much interested in the question that at this moment he is asleep. He is withdrawing his amendment on the statement of the honorable member for Brisbane, who, said that Primus stoves are being made in the city which he represents.

Mr Finlayson:

– No, I did not.

Mr SINCLAIR:

– If I misunderstood the honorable member I beg his pardon, but I fancy that the Committee understood him to say that Primus and Perfection stoves were made in Brisbane.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– He said that he had seen them in Brisbane.

Mr SINCLAIR:

– I should like the honorable member to name a firm in Brisbane which makes kerosene stoves. While I am not against the duty I think that the Committee is entitled to reliable information.

Mr Finlayson:

– I know half-a-dozen firms in Brisbane which sell kerosene stoves..

Mr SINCLAIR:

– I endorse the honorable member’s statement with regard to the languishing condition of the stove industry. Quite a number of gas and ordinary household stoves are made, but the industry needs a little more help, which I am prepared to grant. I shall not support the reduction of the duty even on Primus stoves, but I think that we have a right at this hour of the morning to protest against needless waste of time.

Mr KELLY:
Wentworth

– I did rather resent the remarks of the honorable member for Moreton, because the honorable member for Cook was in a very difficult position. He moved in good faith for the reduction of the duty. He was given to understand by the honorable member for Hindmarsh, and also by the admission of the Minister, that no such stoves are made in Australia. He did not move against an industry in existence here but against a revenue duty - a duty which would never have any Protective value. Other honorable members perceived the force of his proposal and debated it, and then suddenly the honorable member for Brisbane rose and said that he had seen such stoves made in Brisbane.

Mr Mathews:

– So have I; in South Melbourne.

Mr KELLY:

– The honorable member knows they are made in Australia?

Mr Mathews:

– Yes.

Mr KELLY:

– Our only difficulty has been that we cannot get this information from the Department. I do not blame the Minister, who is infinitely preferable to his predecessor in conducting a Tariff through the Chamber. If there has been any waste of time it has been due to the fact that the Department has failed to supply the information to which the Committee is entitled.

Mr GORDON:
Boothby

– Like the honorable member for Bourke, I have been practising a good deal of selfrestraint. With the exception of one or two amendments I should have been prepared to allow the remaining items in the schedule to pass. I am very glad that on the item before the Committee the Minister has seen his way clear to follow the lead of the honorable member for Hindmarsh. The question of fuel supply is becoming one of the most serious items in domestic economy, and the Primus stove is becoming a necessary article in every home, particularly in the summer months. I am pleased that the Minister has seen his way to make the duty as low as possible. If it can be shown at any time that there is any firm or inventor who can provide a stove equal to that which is imported from America I shall be prepared to vote for a duty to help a deserving industry. But I think that that time has not yet arrived-, and that we should be doing a serious injustice to the people if we levied a higher duty than that which is proposed by the Minister.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Is it the pleasure of the Committee that the honorable member for Cook have leave to withdraw his amendment ?

Mr W ELLIOT JOHNSON:
LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– I object. If the honorable member for Cook is serious I am prepared to support his proposal to remove the difficulties which are proposed to be placed in the way of persons getting these stoves at a reasonable price. The only effect of the duty will be to enhance the price of the article to the working classes.’ The Primus stove has been found to be very handy, and very economical in places where cheap gas and other cheap fuel are not available. These stoves cannot be and are not manufactured in Australia. This is purely a revenue duty. Again, there is no anomaly to be rectified. I marvel that the honorable member for Cook should seek to withdraw the proposal which he made in face of his declaration that he would not support any revenue duty. He has declared that this is a pure revenue duty.

Mr J H Catts:

– Since then, I have had further information from the honorable member for Brisbane.

Mr W ELLIOT JOHNSON:
LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– The honorable member has not had any reliable information, and there has not been any evidence to substantiate the statement that these stoves are made in any part of Australia, or any stove which comes into competition with them. I hope that the amendment will be pressed to a division.

Amendment of the amendment negatived.

Amendment agreed to.

Item 147 -

By inserting in sub-item (a) after the word “grain” the letters “n.e.i.”

Mr. J. H. CATTS (Cook) [4.50 a.m. - Does not the Minister think that it will be a fair thing to adjourn now?

Honorable Members. - No !

Mr J H CATTS:

– It is remarkable how many Ministers of Trade and Customs there are in the Chamber.

Mr Charlton:

– The honorable member stops away one week, and then comes here and keeps us up all night.

Mr J H CATTS:

– The honorable member is talking through his neck like a blatant fool.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order. The hon- orable member will withdraw that remark.

Mr J H CATTS:

– I do so, sir, and ask you to protect me against these insults.

The CHAIRMAN:

– I will protect the honorable member.

Mr J H CATTS:

– I admit that pro bably during the last hour a little time might have been saved, but I submit that up to that point reasonable progress has been made. It is impossible for us to deal with the whole of the Tariff at one sitting.

Mr Tudor:

– I understand that the Prime Minister desires that the Tariff should go right through at the present sit ting. I am quite prepared to go on.

Mr J H CATTS:

– Then we shall have a few divisions.

Mr Tudor:

– I am quite prepared for that.

Mr J H CATTS:

– Some honorable members are in bed all night, while others are here to do the business.

Mr Tudor:

– I have not closed my eyes.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
Parramatta

– I also ask that we should be allowed to get a little sleep before proceeding further with this item.

Mr Tudor:

– I have not the slightest objection to the honorable member having some sleep.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

– But I want to be here to do my duty while the items are going through. I was very much surprised at the loud demand by the honorable mem ber for Hunter that we should go on.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The honorable member should not refer to that matter, as it has been settled.

Item agreed to.

Item 148 -

By inserting in the item after the word “ Refrigerators “ the words “ other than for household use.”

Mr W ELLIOT JOHNSON:
LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– Under item 148 of the Tariff a duty of 25 per cent, is imposed on churns of all kinds, cheese-presses, dairy coolers, refrigerators, supply cans, incu bators n.e.i., and foster-mothers. The

Minister might explain the reason for mak ing the proposed alteration. So far as I have been able to discover, it will be another blow at the householders, particularly the wage-earners, who seem to be aimed at all the time. The effect of the alteration will be to bring household refrigerators under item 299.a, “ furniture,” dutiable at 35 and 30 per cent., being an increase of 10 per cent, against the householder, or 5 per cent, if British articles are used. Where is the anomaly that is being rectified to justify this further increase?

Mr Tudor:

– I tried to show where the anomaly comes in when I was introducing the Tariff. I shall do so again.

Mr W ELLIOT JOHNSON:
LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– The Minister’s interjection shows the necessity of dealing with general principles,and not with details, when he is introducing the Tariff. At nearly 5 o’clock in the morning we are expected to remember all that was said several days ago. Perhaps he will now explain the reason for this alteration.

Mr TUDOR:
Minister of Trade and Customs · Yarra · ALP

.. - When re frigerators were included in this item they were understood to be refrigerators used in connexion with dairying, and not the ordinary ice-chests which are used in households. As every one knows, the latter are articles of furniture.

Mr J H Catts:

– Does the honorable member think that they are imported?

Mr TUDOR:

– I believe that nearly all of the ice-chests which are used are im ported. There is no reason why they should not be made here. In Victoria, and, I believe, in New South Wales too, the men who are engaged in the furniture trade or in ordinary factories are working under Wages Boards, and the rate of wages runs from £2 16s. to £3 4s. a week.

Mr J H CATTS:
Cook

– I think the proposal of the Minister in this case is quite justified. It does seem to be an anomaly that ice-chests tor household purposes should not be dutiable, whereas similar appliances which are not for household purposes should be dutiable.

Mr Tudor:

– They have been dutiable, but they will now come in at a higher rate.

Mr J H CATTS:

– They are being put into their proper classification now?

Mr Tudor:

– That is so.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– In spite of a duty of 25 per cent., these articles are not being made here.

Mr J H CATTS:

– They are. The making of an ice-chest is one of the simplest mechanical operations, and I was surprised to hear that any were being imported. I do not regard this as the introduction of a new item, but as the rectification of an apparent anomaly.

Mr KELLY:
Wentworth

– It has been represented to me that it is rather extraordinary that cheese caps should be dutiable.

Mr Tudor:

– They do not come under this item.

Mr KELLY:

– No, but they come under a kindred item. I suggest to the Minister that he might ascertain why they are not admitted free, like cheese wrappings.

Mr Tudor:

– Piece goods are 5 per cent, or free. If persons like to get in the material free, surely there is no difficulty in cutting out the caps here.

Mr KELLY:

– It is a rather vexatious proceeding ; in fact, it is not worth the trouble. At any rate, I make the suggestion to the Minister.

Mr Tudor:

– I shall be very pleased to look into the matter.

Mr W ELLIOT JOHNSON:
LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– It is perfectly clear now that the object in taking out refrigerators and safes for household use is so that the cost of the articles shall be increased to the householder by being brought under a higher duty. This is, I think, a gross injustice to the householder, who needs these articles to keep food fresh and wholesome, and to keep flies and other pests from destroying it. In order to encourage the use of these safes as much as possible in the interests of public health, I move -

That the following words be added - “ Refrigerators and meat safes for household use free.”

Mr. Tudor.Meat safes come in under the head of furniture now.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
Parramatta

– The duty, so far as refrigerators for household use are concerned, is being increased from 25 per cent, to 35 per cent, as against the foreigner, and a preference of 5 per cent, is now proposed in the case of imports from the United Kingdom. Originally, no preference was granted, but it will be small comfort to the manufacturers of refrigerators in Great Britain to know that this preference to them takes the shape of a 5 per cent, added duty. This is about the trickiest Tariff schedule I have ever seen. By a mere alteration of phraseology, the Minister makes it impossible for us to test these items. I should like to move a reduction of the duty on imports from Great Britain, with a view “ of increasing the preference, but I cannot owing to the way in which the item is submitted to the Committee. We have not been able to obtain a 5 per cent, preference for goods from the dear old Mother Country all night.

Mr Thomas:

– It is too bad.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

– We well remember how the Minister of External Affairs, with tears in his voice, used to plead for preference for the dear old Mother Country.

Mr Thomas:

– That is not correct, but it is near enough for the honorable member. I used to oppose any preference.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

– I repeat that it is correct.

Mr Thomas:

– But no one will believe the honorable member if he does say so.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

– I ask that that remark be withdrawn.

Mr Thomas:

– I withdraw it.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

– Will the Minister point out how I may move in the direction I have indicated?

Mr Tudor:

– It is open to the honorable member to move the insertion of a new sub-item.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

– Very well.I shall do so.

Amendment negatived.

Item agreed to.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
Parramatta

– I move -

That the following item be inserted : - “ 148A - Refrigerators for household use (General Tariff), 35 per cent. ; (United Kingdom), 25 per cent.”

I understand that the object of the Minister, so far as this item is concerned, is to make refrigerators for household use dutiable at 35 and 30 per cent, instead of 25 per cent, all round at present.

Mr Tudor:

– That is so.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

– The Minister desires to increase the duty as against British imports by 5 per cent., and as against the foreigner by 10 per cent. I desire that the duty shall remain as it was, so far as imports from Great Britain are concerned, leaving the Government the advantage of the higher duty in respect of imports from foreign countries.

Amendment negatived.

Item 152 -

By inserting in sub-item (a) after the word “cultivators” the words “handworked seeddrills.”

Mr TUDOR:
Minister of Trade and Customs · Yarra · ALP

[5.10 a.m. J. - Under the Tariff as it stands, handworked cultivators are free. There is no real difference be- tween the handworked cultivators and handworked seed-drills, and it is therefore proposed to make both free.

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:
Hume

– Comb-cutters and sheep-shearing machines are being manufactured in Syd- ney, and also, I think, in another part of the Commonwealth, and they ought to be made dutiable. When the principal Act : was under consideration I attempted to make them dutiable, but failed to induce the. Committee to agree to my proposal. I : should be glad if the Minister would move to make them dutiable.

Mr Spence:

– Such combs are not made here. : Sir WILLIAM LYNE. - They are being made in a factory at Wooloomooloo.

Mr Tudor:

– I know that the honorable member for Hume did put up a fight in the direction named by him, but was not successful. It is not my intention to deal with the item to which he refers.

Item agreed to.

Item 153- ; By omitting the whole item and inserting in its stead the following item : - “ 153. - Cutlery n.e.i., Forks, spoons, and knife-sharpeners, including silver ferruled or plated articles, but not including any article otherwise partly or wholly made of gold or silver (General Tariff) ad valorem, 15 per cent. ; (United Kingdom), 10 per cent.”

Mr TUDOR:
Minister of Trade and Customs · Yarra · ALP

– There has been a difficulty in definitely determining what come within the definition of cutlery. It was decided in one case that knives were cutlery but that forks were not, and it has even been held that spoons do not come within that category. We now propose to define “ cutlery “ in the terms of the new item, so that the ordinary silver ferruled article will not be treated as a silver article. There will be a uniform rate of duty for all these knives, forks, and spoons, and it will be slightly lower, so far as spoons are con- cerned, than that at present levied.

Mr. JOSEPH COOK (Parramatta) £5.17 a.m.]. - Whilst the Minister is curing one anomaly he is creating another.

Mr Tudor:

– I do not think so.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

– My information is that under this proposal manicure sets will be omitted from item 153 in the present Tariff, and that in future, whether of gold or silver, or in cases or not, they will be subject to at least three different rates of duty as the result of their removal from this classification.

Mr Tudor:

– I do not think so.

Mr MASSY-GREENE:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP; NAT from 1917

– I think that as the result of this alteration of the existing Tariff all plated articles will now come under duties of 10 and 15 per cent. That, at all events, is my reading of the item.

Mr Tudor:

– N.e.i.

Mr MASSY-GREENE:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP; NAT from 1917

– The item does not say that forks, spoons, or knife sharpeners are cutlery, and the result of the amendment, will be that all plated articles will be rendered dutiable at 15 per cent, under the general Tariff, and at 10 per cent, under the Tariff for the United Kingdom. Under the old Tariff they were dutiable at 25 per cent, and 20 per cent, respectively. Consequently it is proposed to reduce the duty levied upon these articles, some of which are made in Australia.

Mr Tudor:

– That is not the intention.

Mr MASSY-GREENE:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP; NAT from 1917

– But unless the letters “ n.e.i.” be inserted in the item later than they now appear that will be its effect.

Mr TUDOR:
Minister of Trade and Customs · Yarra · ALP

, - The point raised by the honorable member has already occupied the attention of the departmental officers, who are of opinion that the item! as it stands will not permit of electroplate being admitted under the duties which are here scheduled. But before the Tariff is finally dealt with elsewhere, the Government will, if that course be deemed desirable, take steps to secure the insertion of a qualification which will make the position perfectly clear.

Item agreed to.

Item 157 -

By omitting the whole item and inserting in its stead the following item : - “ 157. Tanks, not exceeding 400 gallons in capacity, whether imported empty or as containers of goods, free.”

Mr HEDGES:
Fremantle

– In, submitting for our consideration the amendments which are contained in this schedule, the Minister of Trade and Customs men- tioned that some tanks of 30,000 gallons capacity had been introduced into Australia. I should like to know whether those tanks were imported whole or in parts ?

Mr.Tudor.-In parts.

Mr HEDGES:

– If that be so, what harm could result?

Mr Tudor:

– The parts were brought in and assembled here, and the tanks thus evaded the payment of duty.

Mr HEDGES:

– There was no duty to be evaded. There are many parts of the Commonwealth, such as the north-west of Western Australia, in which these tanks can be landed from some other part of the world cheaper than they can be landed from Melbourne. I understood the Minister to say that the tanks were imported full of goods, and consequently I could not understand how they were landed. But the Minister’s explanation has dispelled my doubts. The tanks to which he alluded were not tanks at all, but only parts of tanks, and those parts had to be assembled here.

Mr Tudor:

-The parts could be put together on board ship.

Mr HEDGES:

– No. I have built a number of them, and I know that tanks 25 ft. in diameter and 10 ft. high are very awkward articles to handle. I suggest that the Minister should make further inquiries into the matter.

Mr W ELLIOT JOHNSON:
LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– I think that the Committee should have more information on this subject. The proposal is that tanks not exceeding 400 gallons in capacity, whether they be imported empty or as containers of goods, should be admitted free. Previously all tanks, irrespective of whether they contained goods or were imported empty, were thus admitted. The effect of the Minister’s proposal will be to render all tanks which exceed a capacity of 400 gallons dutiable under item 170a of the Tariff at 30 per cent. under the general Tariff, and 25 per cent. under the Tariff for the United Kingdom.

Mr MASSY-GREENE:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP; NAT from 1917

– But tanks in excess of 400 gallons capacity are not made.

Mr W ELLIOT JOHNSON:
LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– Some tanks have a capacity of 600 gallons.

Mr Tudor:

– Then let the honorable member move that tanks not exceeding a capacity of 600 gallons should be admitted free.

Mr W ELLIOT JOHNSON:
LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– Some tanks have a capacity of 1,200 gallons, and these are used by settlers in the back blocks for storing water for domestic purposes.

Mr Sampson:

– Not square tanks.

Mr W ELLIOT JOHNSON:
LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– No, but cylindrical tanks. If tanks in excess of 400 gallons capacity are not used, there is no need for the proposed alteration of the Tariff. This proposal means that settlers who use tanks for the storage of water will in future be called upon to pay more for those articles than they have hitherto paid.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– The Minister has stated that he is willing to make the item apply to tanks of a capacity of 600 gallons.

Mr Tudor:

– A capacity of 400 gallons represents the ordinary sized tank.

Mr W ELLIOT JOHNSON:
LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– I move -

That the figure “4” be left out with a view to insert in lieuthereof the figure “ 6.”

Dr CARTY SALMON:
Laanecoorie

– I hope that the Committee will not agree to the amendment submitted by the honorable member, which would have an injurious effect upon a large number of men who are engaged in the tankmaking industry. The 400-gallon tank is that in which articles such as mustard are imported into Australia. These tanks compete with tanks of local manufacture which are admirably adapted to the purposes for which they are intended to be used. Moreover, the imported tanks are frequently improperly riveted and unfit for use.

Mr SAMPSON:
Wimmera

. -It seems to me that this item should be retained in its present form. The 400- gallon tanks which are used by settlers in the back blocks are square tanks, which are utilized for carting water long distances. Persons who wish to store water for domestic purposes use the locally made article, which has a capacity ranging from 400 gallons upwards. So that the amendment proposed is an unnecessary one.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Item agreed to.

Item 163 -

By omitting from the item the words “ and parts thereof.”

Mr HEDGES:
Fremantle

. -Ifsewing and other machines are to be admitted free, I would like to know why parts of’ machines should not be exempt from duty. It seems curious that sewing machines, darning machines, and straw envelope making machines should be placed upon the free list, and that the words “ and parts thereof,” should be omitted from this item.

Mr TUDOR:
Minister of Trade and Customs · Yarra · ALP

.- The reason why it is proposed to omit the words “ and parts thereof “ is that it is desirable to give the Minister the same power over parts of machinery which is admitted free, that he at present exercises over parts of machinery which are subject to duty. We propose to do away with the necessity for retaining those words in any part of the Tariff.

Item agreed to.

Items 164 (Machinery), 165 (Machinery and machines), and 169 (Mixed Metalware and Plated Ware), agreedto.

Item 1 70 -

By omitting the whole of sub-item (c).

By omitting the whole of sub-item (d) and inserting in, its stead the following sub-item : - “ (d) Kettles and Kitchen Cooking Utensils (but not including Stoves) of Cast Iron (tinned or plain) Aluminium or Nickel, free.”

Mr TUDOR:
Minister of Trade and Customs · Yarra · ALP

– Sub-item (c) of this item reads -

Articles made of aluminium for household use, free.

And the following sub-item reads -

Articles to be used as kitchen utensils made of cast-iron, tinned or plain, free.

Up to the present, articles of aluminium for household use have been admitted free. This item specifies the articles to which it will apply, and does not give one metal an advantage over another.

Item agreed to.

Items 172 (Brass and Gunmetal Work), 177 (Electrical Machines), 178 (Electrical and Gas Appliances), 179 (Electrical Articles and Materials), 182 (Iron and Steel Tubes), 189 (Plates and Sheets and Pipes), 191 (Aluminium, Bronze, &c), 195 (Brass), 198 (Copper), 206 (Pins), 224 (Tubes, empty), 227 (Zinc), agreed to.

Division VIa. - Metals and Machinery.

Item 229 (Machinery, Machines, and parts) agreed to.

Division VII. - Oils, Paints, and Varnishes.

Items 230 (Blacking), 231 (Graphite or Plumbago), agreed to.

Item 234 -

By omitting the whole of sub-items (f), (g), (h), and (i), and inserting in their stead the following sub-items : - “ (f) Vegetable oils, edible, including salad, cooking and fish-frying oils, per gallon, 2s.

Vegetable oils, edible, n.e.i., when denaturated as prescribed by Departmental Bylaws, per gallon, 6d.

China, sesame, and soya bean oils, when denaturated as prescribed by Departmental Bylaws, free.

Castor, Turkey-red oil, commercial oleic acid, linseed, tung and other vegetable paint oils, per gallon, 6d.”

By omitting the whole of sub-item (k) and inserting in its stead the following sub-item : - “ (k) Mineral and Coal Tar, viz. : - Naphtha, Benzine, Benzoline, Gasoline,. Pentane, Petrol, Turpentine Substitutes, and all Petroleum Spirit under 790 gravity, per gallon (General Tariff),¾d. ; (United Kingdom),½d.”

By omitting the whole of sub-item (n).

By omitting the whole of sub-item (o).

By inserting in sub-item (p) after the word “ Petroleum “ the word “ Burning.”

Mr GORDON:
Boothby

– The Minister is in possession of certain information which I supplied to him on behalf of the olive oil makers of South Australia. They point out that at the present time olive oil in bulk is dutiable at 2s. per gallon, and they complain that quantities of low-grade foreign oils are being sold in Australia. As a result they ask for the imposition of a higher duty. I do not press the matternow, but I would like the Minister to promise that he will consider their request. I can quite understand that the question of the adulteration of oils is a State, rather than a Federal, matter; but I have deemed it to be my duty to bring it under the notice of the Minister. I hope that he will take into consideration the representations whichhave been made to him by the manufacturers of olive oil in South Australia.

Mr TUDOR:
Minister of Trade and Customs · Yarra · ALP

– The honorable member for Boothby, in common, I think, with every other honorable member fromSouth Australia, has brought under my notice the interests of the olive oil industry of that State. No alteration in the present rates of duty is now proposed, but it hasbeen found that, owing to certain improvements in the process of refining, burning and other oils are entering into competition with edible oils. The proposed alteration of classification is intended to enable us to deal more effectively with imported oils which are competing at the present time with the edible oils manufactured in Australia.

Item agreed to.

Item 235-

By inserting in the item after the words “ cloth oil “ the words “ for use in the manufacture of textile goods as prescribed by Departmental By-laws.”

By omitting from the item the words “ China oil “ when denaturated as prescribed by Departmental By-law.

Mr Kelly:

-Perhaps the Minister will explain this item.

Mr TUDOR:
Minister of Trade and Customs · Yarra · ALP

– At present there is no sufficient definition of “cloth oil,” and the exemption is exceedingly wide. It is proposed to qualify “ cloth oil “ by adding the words “ for use in the manufacture of textile goods as prescribed by departmental by-laws.” This will in no way reduce She protection afforded to manufacturing industries, but it is hoped that it will be possible to amply protect the revenue by the departmental by-law which will be enforced under the amended item.

Item agreed to.

Item 236 -

By omitting the whole of sub-item (b) and inserting in its stead the following sub-item : - “(b) Ground in liquid in packages containing 14 lb. and under; paints and colours prepared for use; and tattoo oil, per cwt. (General Tariff), 6s.; (United Kingdom), 6s. ; or ad valorem (General Tariff), 20 per cent. ; (United Kingdom), 15 per cent., whichever rate returns the higher duty.”

By omitting the whole of sub-item (c) and inserting in its stead the following sub-item : - “(g) (1) Barytes crude, per cwt., 2s.

Barytes ground, per cwt., 3s.”

By inserting a new sub-item as follows : - “ (h) Kalsomine, water paints, and distempers, in powder form, per cwt., 4s.”

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
Parramatta

– We have in this instance fixed duties as alternative for ad valorem duties. I was under the impression that in the last Tariff we had struck out all fixed duties. I am very sorry to find that we did not do so. A fixed duty is, in my opinion, a wooden-headed way of giving protection to an industry. A fixed duty on an article which varies in quality and in value may result in a duty of 100 per cent. upon a low-priced article, and at the same time a very moderate duty upon an article of high value. I think that all our duties should be ad valorem duties, so that people may know exactly what percentage of duty they are paying. I am disposed to move that the duty of 6s. should in each case be left out,

Mr TUDOR:
Minister of Trade and Customs · Yarra · ALP

– I trust that the Committee will notagree to the suggestion of the honorable member for Parramatta. These are the duties which were fixed by the last Tariff - 6s. per cwt., or 20 per cent. under the General Tariff, and 6s. per cwt., or 15 per cent., from the United Kingdom. The amendment is proposed because importers have endeavoured to bring these articles in as dry colours at a lower rate of duty than would be payable upon them if ground in liquid and prepared for use. It is not proposed to alter the duties, but to alter the wording of the item, so as to give effect beyond doubt to the intention of Parliament in passing the last Tariff. The importations of these articles for 1906 were valued at £47,000, and in 1910 at £60,000.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– I shall not press the amendment.

Mr TUDOR:

– Underthe existing Tariff there is a duty of 2s. per cwt. on barytes, and it is now proposed that barytes crude shall be dutiable at 2s. per cwt., and barytes ground at 3s. per cwt. There are workable deposits of barytes in the Commonwealth, and their development should be assisted. Barytes at present are imported chiefly from Germany, ready ground for use. There is no reason why barytes crude and ground should be dutiable at the same rate. Barytes deposits are being worked at the present time in New South Wales, near Cooma, and in the neighbourhood of the Federal Capital.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– What are two rates proposed for?

Mr TUDOR:

– It is proposed to impose a duty of 3s. per cwt. on barytes ground, with a view to having thegrinding done here.

Mr HEDGES:
Fremantle

. -Barytes is found in large quantities in South Australia, and is used, I believe; chiefly to adulterate white lead. I do not know why there should be any objection to the Government proposal. I think there is nothingseriously wrong with it.

Mr. JOSEPH COOK (Parramatta [5.51 a.m.]. - If there are workable deposits of barytes in the Commonwealth, and this is intended to assist their development, why does the Minister propose two rates - one for crude, and the other for ground barytes ?

Mr Tudor:

– It is better to have the two rates, so that, at all events, we may have the grinding done here if a higher rate is charged on the prepared article.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

– Is barytes being ground now in the Commonwealth ?

Mr Tudor:

– I do not know. It is considered better to charge a higher rate of duty on the prepared article.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

– The Minister is asking for a 50 per cent. increase of duty, on the strength of a statement that some one somewhere has a deposit of barytes on his ground.

Mr Tudor:

– There are deposits in South Australia, as well as in New South Wales, Queensland, and the other States.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

– Why are they not being worked, when there is a duty of 2s. per cwt. on barytes at present? Has the honorable gentleman any figures as to the importations of this article?

Mr Tudor:

– The importations for last year were valued at £774; I have not the figures for 1906.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

– Such importations are enough to crush the Commonwealth.

Mr PAGE:
Maranoa

– I have received the following letter on the subject of this item from a friend of mine in Northern Queensland : -

I notice with satisfaction that in the Tariff Bill you propose to put 2s. per cwt. on raw barytes and 3s. per cwt. on the ground product. The increase of 50 per cent. between the two is out of all proportion as you could get barytes ground for about 10s. per ton. It is a soft ore and easily ground. What really is wanted is a higher duty on the ore, say 2s. 6d. per cwt., and on the ground product 3s. per cwt. The production of barytes is essentially a poor man’s industry, and, moreover, one that a person suffering from miner’s complaint can carry on, because, in the greater number of instances, it is purely a surface mining industry. To make a difference of 20s.. per ton in favour of the ground product will simply be giving the greater part of the increased protection to the miller and not to the producer.

I ask the Minister, in view of the fact that this is a poor man’s industry, which may be engaged in even by men who have suffered from miners’ phthisis, to accept the suggestion of my correspondent and make the duty on crude barytes 2s. 6d. per cwt., and on the ground product 3s. per cwt.

Mr TUDOR:
Minister of Trade and Customs · Yarra · ALP

– Until the honorable member for Maranoa produced the letter which he has read I had no idea that he was interested in this item at all. It is not a matter of very much importance, and if an additional duty of 6d. per cwt. will be the means of giving employment even to a few persons in this industry I am prepared to accept the suggestion made, and I therefore move -

That the following words be inserted after the figure “ 2s.,” line 13 : - “ and on and after 14th December, 191 1 - 2s. 6d.”

Amendment agreed to.

Item, as amended, agreed to.

Item 237 (Varnishes) agreed to.

Item 240 -

By inserting in the item before the word “ Portland “ the letter “ (a).”

By inserting in sub-item (a) after the word “ basis ; “ the words “ Magnesia, Magnesium Carbonate, and Magnesium Chloride, in packages over 14 lb ; “

By adding a new sub-item as follows : - “ (D) Articles, n.e.i., composed wholly or in chief value of cement, and articles of reinforced cement, per cwt. (General Tariff), 2s. ; (United Kingdom),1s. 6d. ; or ad valorem (General Tariff), 25 per cent. ; (United Kingdom), 20. per cent., whichever rate returns the higher duty.”

Mr MASSY-GREENE:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP; NAT from 1917

– I should like to know at what rate packages under 14 lbs. will be dutiable. I am afraid that the effect of this proposal will be to bring them under Item 88 - Oilmen’s stores - and if that be so, the result will be to increase the duty materially. If these goods in packages under 14 lbs. come under Item 88 they will be subject to ad valoremduties of 20 and 15 per cent. I may inform the Minister that a package of magnesium carbonate weighing 14 lbs. would measure 3 feet by 2 feet by 2 feet.

Mr Tudor:

– Would the honorable member suggest a package of less than 14 lbs. ?

Mr MASSY-GREENE:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP; NAT from 1917

– I do not know how we can meet the difficulty, but I am informed that this proposal may bring packages under 14 lbs. in weight under Item 88, and so materially increase the duty on these goods.

Mr TUDOR:
Minister of Trade and Customs · Yarra · ALP

– lt is possible that if packages of these goods under 14 lbs. in weight fall out of this Item 240 they may not be subject to any duty at alias unspecified articles, and, on the otherhand, they might come under Item 88, oilmen’s stores, and.be dutiable at 20 and 15: per cent. If the honorable member for Richmond thinks that’ packages of these goods of the weight specified would be of an unwieldy size be might be prepared to suggest an alteration in the rate and make the item read, packages under 7 lbs. or 5 lbs. in weight.

Mr MASSY-GREENE:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP; NAT from 1917

– Can the Minister say what was the idea of splitting up the item in the way proposed?

Mr TUDOR:

– As a rule small packages are dutiable at a higher rate of duty than goods in bulk, because they are usually packed ready for use. The honorable member has referred to the size of a package of magnesium carbonate 14 lbs. in weight, but he will admit that a package of Portland cement or of plaster of paris of the same weight would not be a very large package. However, I shall have the matter inquired into, for I have no desire to impose an unduly heavy duty.

Mr DEAKIN:
Ballarat

Are not these chemicals covered by item 287, under which chemicals and drugs other than those packed for use in the household are admitted free?

Mr Tudor:

-i do not think so.

Mr DEAKIN:

– Of course, if the articles are prepared for toilet purposes, they become dutiable, but, otherwise, they seem to come under item 287.

Mr MASSY-GREENE:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP; NAT from 1917

– If that be so, I am quite satisfied.

Dr CARTY SALMON:
Laanecoorie

– How will this item affect these chemicals when they are intended to be used for medicine and drugs, for which they are specially prepared, and are packed in smaller packages? It would be unfortunate to admit the larger quantities used for manufacturing at a lower rate than that charged in the case of medicines. Further, one of these substances is used very largely by hairdressers for application after shaving. It is imported in small blocks of a very refined character; and it would be a pity if it were subject to a high duty.

Mr TUDOR:
Minister of Trade and Customs · Yarra · ALP

– I cannot see how the duty of 9d. per cwt. could affect any medicine. As to the limitation of 14 lbs., there is probably some good and sufficient reason; but I undertake that, before the Tariff is finally passed, to have the matter inquired into, and the limitation removed if that be shown to be the proper course.

Item agreed to.

Item 247 (Fire and glazed bricks, &c), agreed to.

Item 250 -

By inserting in sub-item (b) after the word “ Sheet “ the words “, viz. : - Plain Clear,”

By omitting from sub-item (c) the words “ up to 25 superficial feet “ and inserting in their stead the words “ not exceeding 25 superficial feet.”

Mr FENTON:
Maribyrnong

– Has the Minister considered the advisability of imposing a duty on bevelled glass cut to sizes? Representations have been made to me that bevelled glass is cut to trade sizes in other countries, and is used by Chinese furniture manufacturers here to the detriment of the local industry. Glass bevelling is carried or in nearly every capital of Australia, and a large number of men are employed.

Mr TUDOR:
Minister of Trade and Customs · Yarra · ALP

– Item 249 of the Tariff, which is not touched by this revision, and which imposes a duty of 30 and 25 per cent. on bevelled glass, will, I think, meet the case referred to by the honorable member. Item 250 refers only to ordinary plate glass used for windows, and it is to make that intention quite definite that it is proposed to insert the words “ plain clear.” The stipulation as to the measurement is to insure that all sizes under 25 superficial feet will be entitled to come in free. This is the bevelled glass workers’ raw material, and was made free at my instance when the Tariff was last considered.

Item agreed to.

Item 253 (Smelling and perfume bottles, etc.) agreed to.

Division VIII. - Earthenware, Cement, China, Glass, and Stone.

Item 255-

By inserting in the item before the word “ Glass” the letter “ (a).”

By adding to the item a new sub-item as follows : - “ (b) Tubes and rods of resistant glass; articles of fused silica, ad valorem, (General Tariff), 5 per cent. ; (United Kingdom), free.”

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:
Hume

– It has been represented to me that glassware for plated ware should be free, because none is manufactured here, nor is it likely to be, though a good deal is used.

Mr TUDOR:
Minister of Trade and Customs · Yarra · ALP

– So far as I know I have received no communication on the subject. I do not think it could be provided that glassware for any special purpose should be free, and similar glassware for other purposes made dutiable, because this would necessitate the employment of Customs officers to see that the glass was used for the purpose declared. The Minister has power to admit minor articles for the advantage of Australian manufacturers, and those interested in this particular duty are already allowed to have stamped mounts ready for cruets admitted free, and, with the additional duty on electroplated ware, I think, the manufacturers are in a better position than before. I move -

That after the words “fused silica” the words “ glass retorts exceeding a quart in capacity” be inserted.

Amendment agreed to.

Item, as amended, agreed to.

Items 259 (Bottles) and 260 (Bottles, ni.e.L, etc.) agreed to.

Item 261. -

By omitting the whole of sub-item (b) and inserting in its stead the following sub-item : - “ (b) Cements and prepared adhesives n.e.i., including acetyllated starch, caseine, dextrine,, mucilage ; also belting com. pounds, ad valorem (General Tariff), 30 per cent. ; (United Kingdom)^ 25 per cent.”

Mr RYRIE:
North Sydney

.’ -Dextrine, which is made from a substance, like flour, arid forms a sort of. gum, is largely used in envelope-making, bookbinding, box-making and so forth; and it is not manufactured here or likely to be, at any rate, for a very considerable time. It is’ a hardship’ that this raw material should have to pay a heavy duty, and I ask the Minister whether it cannot be made free. The envelope-makers, especially, regard the duty as oppressive.

Mr TUDOR:
Minister of Trade and Customs · Yarra · ALP

’ [6.16 a.m.). - I am often faced with the fact, that manufacturers are glad to get all the protection they can for their own products, but “ kick “ exceedingly hard when they are asked to extend protection, to any one else. Cements, mucilage, and so forth have to pay duty, and dextrine, when admitted free, comes into competition with them. Further, so long as dextrine is free it will not be manufactured here. The Commonwealth Analyst points out that it is an anomaly that starch and starch flours should be dutiable while other products like dextrine should be free, seeing that dextrine is based on a comparatively simple process which might easily be performed here.

Mr MASSY-GREENE:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP; NAT from 1917

– Why is caseine included?

Mr Tudor:

– The manufacture of it has been started.

Mr MASSY-GREENE:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP; NAT from 1917

– So far as I know the manufacture of caseine started before there was any thought of a duty. The whole of the caseine the manufacturers propose to make is, I understand, already sold for export to Europe, where it is used in the manufacture of knife handles, buttons, and a variety of other articles. Of course, if the duty is asked for and needed I am willing that it should be imposed, because a large factory is being started in my electorate, and I do not desire to see it exposed to competition, from abroad.

Mr Tudor:

– I have not the information in. regard to caseine.

Mr GORDON:
Boothby

– I have no personal knowledge of this matter, but the Master . Printers and Allied Trades Association of South Australia have asked me to bring the following facts under the notice of the Committee : -

Landed invoice price of dextrine is £18 to j£’20 per ton.

In, the first Federal’ Customs. Bill duty was proposed at 2d. per lb., which passed the Houses in the first instance, but was afterwards rescinded,, and dextrine was placed on the free list.

The duty now proposed is 25 per cent, on English invoice price.

This material is largely used as an adhesive in making; up cardboard boxes, envelope- making, and paper manufactures. It is also used extensively in Leather manufactures and in the hat. industry as. well as many others.

No firm of boxmakers in South Australia has, any knowledge of this material being, made in the Commonwealth, nor have they ever received samples: of quotations from local manufacturers.

These increased’ duties on the raw material used in manuffactures, combined with. the. added rates of wages, will so. add to the cost of producing, many articles that they will be imported at less cost than they can be made up in the Commonwealth, which will mean less work for our employes, and reduction in. the staff of workers.

Mr MASSY-GREENE:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP; NAT from 1917

– I understand that a number- of industries use this substance a good deal. I do not want to see any article made dutiable if it cannot be manufactured here. Dextrine is made from potato starch, and it is as much as Australia can do to supply enough potatoes for its own use.

Mr HALL:
Werriwa

– I see no reason why we should tax the raw material of industries, unless there is a reasonable prospect of making it here. If the Minister can show that there is a reasonable prospect of manufacturing dextrine in Australia, I am prepared to vote for the duty. Otherwise, it should be free.

Mr RYRIE:
North Sydney

– The imposition of a duty on dextrine will be a hardship on many manufacturers, who use it largely. It is not manufactured in Australia, and it is to no one’s interest to impose a duty on it. I move-

That the word “dextrine” be left out.

Mr CANN:
Nepean

– I cannot see the force of the Minister’s argument, for I know no one in the Commonwealth who is manufacturing dextrine, which is used largely as a raw material by boxmakers, printers, and bookbinders. To raise it from free to 30 per cent. is a big jump. Only last Saturday 1 was shown a box in Sydney by one of the directors of Firth’s, and was told that they used a large quantity of it.

Mr J H Catts:

– Firth’s do not use it. The secretary told me so.

Mr CANN:

– The honorable member’s information may be more accurate than mine, but since I came here this week another Sydney box manufacturer said he could get no other substance that answers the purpose so well. He told me that the 30 per cent. duty would be a serious handicap, particularly in view of the Minister’s proposal to impose a duty on strawboard. I hope both this and the strawboard duty will be left out.

Mr FINLAYSON:
Brisbane

– There is considerable strength in the Minister’s argument that dextrine is one of four substances that seem to have a common use, but, in view of the objections to raising the duty suddenly to 30 per cent., the Minister might make the duty on the whole item 20 per cent. These four substances enter largely into the manufacture of other articles, and dextrine is not manufactured here.

Mr Tudor:

– What would the manufacturers of cement, mucilage, &c, which are dutiable now at 30 per cent., say to a proposal to reduce them to 20 per cent?

Mr FINLAYSON:

– All the articles are necessary in the production of the goods of which we wish to encourage the manufacture. As they are minor and subsidiary articles after all, a duty of 20 per cent. would be fair and sufficient.

Mr KELLY:
Wentworth

– I cannot understand why these irritating pin-pricks should be inflicted upon the greatest of the many noble industries of which Australia is so justly proud. We are making envelopes and, even more important, boxes, and dextrine is a raw material in both industries, which are dependent on the Tariff for their existence. The duty on strawboard is most serious to the boxmaking industry, which employs 5,000 persons, and is being suddenly hit in its raw material.

Mr TUDOR:
Minister of Trade and Customs · Yarra · ALP

– It is said that this article is largely used in a struggling industry. Twenty-one thousand pounds worth of dry gums, sandarc, dextrine, and mastic was imported into the Commonwealth last year, of which over £14,000 worth came to Victoria alone. There has not been a single complaint from Victoria, so far as I know, about the imposition of duty on this article as a raw material. I do not care to do what the honorable member for Brisbane suggests.. Recently an importer delivered four samples for analysis, representing two lines, which he said were used by box manufacturers to replace dextrine, and which he thought should also be on the free list. On examination they were found to be practically the same substance.

Mr McWilliams:

– Is not that an argument for leaving dextrine on the free list ?

Mr TUDOR:

– I do not think so. In my opinion the duty should be imposed.

Question - That the word “ dextrine “ proposed to be left out stand part of the item (Mr. Ryrie’s amendment) - put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 27

NOES: 18

Majority … … 9

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Amendment negatived.

Item agreed to.

Item 263 (Dextrine, &c.), agreed to.

Item 268 -

By inserting in sub-item (a) after the word “ Marble “ the words “ and Granite.”

By omitting from sub-item (d) the words “30 per cent.” and inserting in their stead the words “35per cent.”

Mr FENTON:
Maribyrnong

– Themaster masons and working masons of New South Wales, Victoria, and South Australia ask for the insertion of the following sub-items -

Marble, unwrought (white Carrara), including rough and scabbled from the pick, free.

Slabs or scantlings (white Carrara), sawn on one or two faces, free.

Slabs or scantlings (while Carrara), sawn on one or two faces and one or more edges, ad valorem, 10 per cent.

Australian coloured or spotted marble is well protected.

Dr Carty Salmon:

– We have white marble, too.

Mr FENTON:

– If we have white marble equal to the white Carrara, I am prepared to extend protection to it. The masons also ask for this item -

Wrought, n.e.i., ad valorem, 40 per cent.

That is in place of the Government proposal, which is 35 per cent. The Secre tary to the Marble and Stone Workers’

Union of Melbourne and Sydney writes -

Notwithstanding any assertions to the contrary, there is at present no suitable white marble in Australia, and there is no prospect of any being placed on the marked ; therefore, it is in the interests of the workers to have the same placed on the free list.

As to the admission free of slabs or scantlings sawn on one or two faces, he says -

This proposal practically means unwrought material, as all the work with the exception of the sawing is done by the workmen in Australia. The reason advanced for placing the 15 per cent. on was on account of the sawing plants here. But notwithstanding this duty, not one single slab of Carrara has been sawn here. Therefore, it is very questionable protection for the workers to impose a duty which has theeffect of lowering the duty on the wrought, and the difference of 15 per cent, on the practically unwrought and the finished article is totally inadequate.

It is thought that 10 per cent. is enough to put on slabs or scantlings sawn on one or more edges, as invariably the sawn edges have to be masoned, and there should be at least 30 per cent. between these and the finished article. As to the duty on wrought marble, n.e.i., it is said that the Government proposal is not high enough-

Under the old duty of 30 per cent. headstones and table tops, &c, of the plainest description, have been imported, and the disparity of the wages paid in Italy and Australia accounts for the importation. Unfortunately, the majority of the employers in this industry are indifferent as to whether the profit is made by the imported article or the locally-worked. Whilst 40 per cent. may be a high duty in some cases, in this it is a very moderate one, and is not as much as desired. At the present time the large furniture manufacturers, including the Chinese, import table tops largely. . . The whole of this work should be done here. The coloured marbles of which we have large deposits here, are provided for in the old sub-items (a), (b), and (c). We are of the opinion that if the foregoing subitems and the increase on the wrought to 40 per cent. are carried, the workers will benefit to a considerable extent, and the polishing branch will be quite a flourishing industry in itself.

These requests come from practically all the States, and from both employes and employers. Whatever our fiscal faith may be, we ought to give reasonable consideration to such representations as these. I appeal to honorable members to assist me in this matter, and hope that the Minister will take into consideration the suggestion made in the document I have quoted.

Mr GORDON:
Boothby

.I do not expect that the Minister will be able at this juncture to do what I should like. I draw attention to the fact that we have in South Australia very important flagstone quarries. Considerable difficulty is found in competing in the Melbourne and Sydney markets against the imported article. Italian and other slates are being brought to Australia on a freightage which is not higher than the freightage from Port Adelaide to Melbourne and Sydney. It seems rather ridiculous that that should be the condition of the freight market, but nevertheless it is a fact that Italian stone is entering into competition, with the Mintaro flagstone quarries. These South Australian slates have a world-wide reputation. Their quality is such that they are being used to-day in the new Federal buildings in Melbourne, as well as in other official structures. There is no question of their quality. If honorable members can see their way to give this important South Australian industry a measure of protection, I hope that they will do so, if not on the present occasion, at least when the next amending Tariff Bill is brought down.

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:
Hume

– The question of granting protection to the Australian marble quarries is not new to us. We had a strong fight about it when the last Tariff was being debated. The man to whom- we were chiefly indebted for information respecting white marble was Mr. Summers, of Melbourne. At that time certain white marble quarries at Bathurst were being developed. This stone is not at its best when obtained near the surface, because it is discoloured by percolations from ironstone and other earths. At the time to which I refer it was not known whether the quality of the marble would improve as the quarries were worked further down. Since then they have been developed to a considerable extent, and I am informed that the marble obtained is as pure as any that can be found at Carrara or elsewhere. This marble is being used very largely in Sydney. The only man whom I have found to be against a good Protective duty is an importer in George-street, who does a great deal of marble work, and who finds the Carrara marble softer, and therefore easier to carve. The Australian white marble, however, is much more durable. A good deal of it is being used for tombstone and monumental work, for which purposes it is far better adapted than Carrara marble. Mr. Summers furnished a report, which the Minister can get, on the marble obtained on the Murray. He showed that there were magnificent quarries of marble of all colours, in addition to white marble. I find, turning up Hansard, that when the existing Tariff was under consideration we had a strong fight on this question. The division was 32 to 9. Amongst the majority were the honorable members for Cook, Macquarie, Parramatta, Swan, Darling Downs, Bendigo, Melbourne Ports, Wimmera, and Laanecoorie, as well as Mr. Watson and the late Mr. Batchelor. The vote was a decisive one. I hope that none of the protection will be removed, because the marble quarries have been developed to such an extent that the industry may now be considered to be established.

Mr HEDGES:
Fremantle

– I support the statement of the honorable member for Boothby in regard to the Mintaro slate. I believe it to be one of the finest slates in the world, and if, as he says, the industry is languishing through, the competition of imported slate, I shall be very pleased if the Minister will include a Protective duty in his next Tariff, even if he is not able to provide for it on the present occasion. I have personal knowledge that the slate is of first-class quality.

Mr TUDOR:
Minister of Trade and Customs · Yarra · ALP

– With regard to the point raised by the honorable member for Boothby and the honorable member for Fremantle, if they will turn to item 264 of the existing Tariff, they will find that slates are there made dutiable. Practically the slate duties are on a par with the marble and granite duties. I think, however, that the marble and granite duties should be higher in proportion than those on slate. As to the point raised by the honorable member for Maribyrnong in connexion with the raw material for monumental masons, I may state that I made inquiries when the last Tariff was under discussion, and I was strongly supported by the honorable member for Hume. I voted against him in connexion with the marble duty. In fact, I voted to make white marble free, because I did not then believe that we had good white monumental marble in Australia. I admitted that we had a good substitute. I am informed that there is not a monument of white marble, which is’ Australian marble, in any Australian cemetery.

Sir William Lyne:

– Yes ; there are any number in the Waverley cemetery.

Mr TUDOR:

– I regret that I cannot see my way to accept the amendment suggested by the honorable member for Maribyrnong, though I candidly admit that I believe he is on the right lines. I am, however, prepared to accept the suggestion that there shall be an increase of the duty on wrought marble. I propose to make that duty 40 per cent. I therefore move -

That the following words be added : “ and on and after 14th December, 191 1, ad valorem 40 per cent.”

Amendment agreed to.

Item, as amended, agreed to.

Item 271 (Pestles and mortars - agate) agreed to.

Division IX. - Drugs and Chemicals.

Item 273 -

By omitting the whole of sub-item (a) and inserting in its stead the following sub-item : - “ (a) Vinegar containing not more than 6 per cent. of absolute acetic acid, per gallon,1s.”

By omitting the whole of sub-item (b).

Mr FULLER:
Illawarra

– I hope that the Minister will not insist upon the proposed alteration in this instance. By doing so we shall be putting a premium on the manufacture of vinegar which will operate in a very unfair manner. Under this proposal there will be an increase of duty of 100 per cent., raising the rate from 6d. to1s. per gallon. The whole of the importations come from the United Kingdom, and the vinegar sent to us is absolutely the best that can be made. It is manufactured wholly from malt. I object very strongly to the raising of duties 100 per cent. against goods coming from the United Kingdom, particularly when they are of the quality of such articles as Crosse and Blackwell’s vinegar, and other imported vinegars. The Minister has given no evidence to show that the Australian manufacturers of vinegar demand this duty. On the contrary, we have a statement made by Mr. Thurlow, a British manufacturer, that the existing duty is quite adequate. His firm is the largest manufacturer of vinegar in Australia.

Mr W ELLIOT JOHNSON:
LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– I desire to read a statement which I have received from a firm particularly interested in this item. I refer to Scott, Henderson and Company, of Sydney, who say -

We beg to draw your attention to the extraordinary statement made by Mr. Tudor, Minister of Customs, as reported in the Daily Telegraph of the 1st instant, page 9. Mr. Tudor said, inter alia - “ At present vinegar was dutiable at two rates, and his analyst contended that it was impossible to tell malt and fruit from other vinegar. The new duty would be1s. all round instead of 6d on the malt and fruit and 2s. on the other class.”

We beg to say that the duty has been 6d. per gallon on vinegar of any description up to6 per cent. acetic acid, the apparent object being, to equalize the duties on the former and on concentrated vinegar, which used to be importedhere for the purpose of sale after reduction by water.

That is a statement from a firm who know what they are talking about, and who areparticularly interested in this commodity. In the light of what he states in that communication, I submit that we ought to befurnished with fuller information as to thereason for the increase.

Me. TUDOR (Yarra- Minister of Trade and Customs) [7.22 a.m.]. - TheTariff Commission recommended two ratesof duty, namely, 6d. per gallon if the vinegar was made from malt or grain or fruit juice, and 2s. per gallon if it was not the product of malt - that is, ordinary wood vinegar. The Analyst advises that it is impossible to tell one kind from the other. I have not the slightest doubt that most of the vinegar which is imported is made frominferior materials.

Mr Fuller:

– That which comes from the United Kingdom is mostly of the best quality.

Mr TUDOR:
ALP

– If there is to be a lengthy fight, I would sooner abandon the item, and let the article fall under the old rate of 6d. per gallon.

Mr MASSY-GREENE:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP; NAT from 1917

– I am prepared to vote any duty which may be necessary for the protection of any article which can be manufactured in Australia, but the local manufacturers of vinegar say that they do not require this duty. According to a paragraph in the BrisbaneCourier -

Messrs. R. W. Thurlow and Company, the largest manufacturers of vinegar in Australia, state with reference to the proposed Tariff increase on vinegar that they made no request for increased protection, and they consider the old duty quite adequate.

The best brands of Australian vinegar aresold in the open market at 6s. per dozen.quarts cased, while Champion’s pure malt English vinegar, which commands thelargest sale in Australia, sells at 9s., so that the former is underselling the latter by 3s. per dozen.

Mr Tudor:

-The value of that which was imported last year was 2s. 3d. per gallon.

Mr MASSY-GREENE:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP; NAT from 1917

– I think that in these circumstances an increase in the duty is not warranted. The Minister has stated that the reason for proposing an increase is that the Department cannot distinguish between the good article and that which we all admit to be. bad. Surely it is most extraordinary that he should propose to lower the duty on the bad article, and increase the duty on the good article.

Mr Tudor:

– The honorable member will see that, according to the reports made, the one cannot be distinguished from the other.

Mr MASSY-GREENE:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP; NAT from 1917

– I admit that, but where is the logic in raising the duty on the good article because the Department cannot distinguish the bad article from the good one?

Mr FINLAYSON:
Brisbane

– I have two objections to an alteration of the duty. My first objection is that the duty of 2s. per gallon on the inferior vinegar has been so successful as to reduce the importation of the article to the value of £5 a year. That proves its efficacy. To reduce the duty by 50 per cent. will facilitate the introduction of the very thing we want To keep out. My second objection is that the present rate of duty seems to have no prohibitive effect so far as local manufacture is concerned. Messrs. R. W. Thurlow and Company, of Brisbane, are not, by any means, the only manufacturers of vinegar in Australia. Australian manufacturers are able to supply an article of good quality at a reasonable price, and they say that they are doing sufficiently well not to need an increase of the duty. The inevitable result of increasing the duty will be to enable them to increase the price of vinegar by1d., 2d., or 3d. per bottle. As it enters intothe everyday life of the -people, an increase in the duty would add an unnecessary burden to the taxpayers. These two objections, I think, should be sufficient to defeat the proposal.

Mr GROOM:
Darling Downs

.- I sympathize with the desire of the Minister. I draw his attention to a suggestion made by a correspondent to the press in Brisbane -

There should be no difficulty in excluding the importation of false vinegar if the authorities take the same action as they have in regard to synthetical - or artificially made or imitation brandy, rum, and whisky. Let shipments of vinegar purporting to be pure be accompanied by a brewer’s certificate countersigned by a Government authority.

I suggest that even if the Minister decides to stand by the existing duty he should try to get this duty as well.

Mr TUDOR:
Minister of Trade and Customs · Yarra · ALP

– I am prepared to drop the proposed alteration and to allow the old item to stand. If we can tighten up the item, well and good. But the analysts say that it is absolutely impossible to distinguish one kind of vinegar from the other.

Mr MATHEWS:
Melbourne Ports

– I regret that the Minister has decided to drop the item because of silly arguments advanced by several honorable members. I would suspect any manufacturer who told me that he did not want more duty. He must have some reason for saying that. Either he does not want other competitors, or he imports more largely than he manufactures. I under stood the Minister to say that he would withdraw the proposal.

Mr Tudor:

– Yes, and let the rate stand at what it was before, and try to get a Government certificate as to the purity of the vinegar.

Mr MATHEWS:

– If the honorable member can do that I think that he will collect an enormous amount of revenue, because most of that which is imported is not made from malt but from some concoction, and is passed off as malt vinegar. Many honorable members will, I suppose, hold up their hands aghast at that reference by me to a so-called reputable firm. In Victoria we had to pass Food Acts to stop the use of a lot of imported stuffs. It is quite likely, as the honorable member for Richmond said, that while the Australian vinegar is offered at 6s. per dozen quarts, imported vinegar is sold at 9s., and that more of the imported article is sold. In Australia we have people who would buy bread from a baker in London every morning if they could get it telegraphed out. I hope that if the Minister has agreed to allow the item to drop with a view to making better provision in the future to protect fruit vinegar from any other, he will be able to do so, but I think that it is rather discrediting the officials. My view is that as the honorable member had the opportunity he should have taken advantage of it. I hope that very shortly we shall have another Tariff, and that when it is before us next session the Government will make honorable members sit every night until it is perfected.

Mr FENTON:
Maribyrnong

– I understand that the Minister has assured the Committee that his analyst will get to work and find out the component parts of imported vinegar.

Mr Tudor:

– It is absolutely impossible to tell them.

Mr FENTON:

– Is it beyond the skill of the analyst to do so?

Mr Tudor:

– Yes, according to the report of Mr. Wilkinson, the Government Analyst, than whom, I suppose, there is not a better man in Australia.

Mr FENTON:

– The locally made article will be in the same category as the imported article. I am sorry to hear that about an article which is used on the table every day. I hope that the Minister will exercise, with his officers, the strictest vigilance over the importation of vinegar.

Mr DEAKIN:
Ballarat

.Surely the common-sense suggestion is that the test required to be applied is not to the constituents of the vinegar, although that may be desirable, but is simply as to its wholesomeness. Let the inferior article pay the higher duty.

Item negatived.

Items 275 (Ammonia) and 282 (Cyanide of Potassium, &c.) agreed to.

Item 284 -

By omitting the whole of sub-item (a) and inserting in its stead the following sub-item : “ (a) Sheep washes and cattle and horse washes ; insecticides and disinfectants in liquid form in drums containing not less than 5 gallons and, when in other than liquid form, in packages containing not less than 28 lbs., free.

By inserting in sub-item (b) before the word “insecticides” the word “formalin;”

Mr THOMAS BROWN:
Calare

– I wish to know the reason for proposing this change. In a previous Tariff the item was, contested very strongly, and it would seem that while the Minister agrees with a previous decision as to the quantity of 28 lbs., he proposes to eliminate a further concession in regard to the stuff which is contained in tins. Under the old item there was an exemption up to 5 gallons, as well as 28 lbs., and I wish to know the reason for the proposed change.

Mr TUDOR:
Minister of Trade and Customs · YARRA, VICTORIA · ALP

– Under this item sheep washes and cattle and horse washes, insecticides, and disinfectants are still free.

Mr Deakin:

– Why free when £60,000 worth is exported every year?

Mr TUDOR:
ALP

– That duty has not been altered. The only alteration is in connexion with formalin, which has been added as a disinfectant. Formalin is being made here at a factory in which methylic alcohol is being produced, and it will now be dutiable at 10 and 15 per cent., according to the country of origin. Sub-item a, which relates to sheep-washes, is really designed to correct defective wording in the old schedule.

Mr HEDGES:
Fremantle

., - Formalin is largely used in pickling wheat. On the recommendation of Professor Lowrie it has been used for that purpose with much success all over Western Australia, and I should be glad if the Minister could see his way clear to place it on the free list.

Mr TUDOR:
Minister of Trade and Customs · Yarra · ALP

– Formalin is being manufactured on a commercial scale in Victoria, and the local production has had the effect of reducing the price from 12s. or 14s. per gallon to 8s. per gallon. Formalin is obtained from a waste product of the saw-mill trade, and this duty will thus assist a country industry.

Mr W ELLIOT JOHNSON:
LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– Formalin is used not only in connexion with agricultural pursuits, but largely in hospitals and sick rooms, and it ought to be made as cheap as possible. Already in the absence of a duty the price has been reduced from 12s. to 8s. per gallon.

Mr Tudor:

– It was probably reduced with the object of destroying the local industry.

Mr W ELLIOT JOHNSON:
LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– The people got the benefit of the reduction, and the more general the use of formalin for disinfectant purposes the better for the health of the people. The Ministerial proposal, however, will increase the price of formalin, and make it more difficult for the poorer classes who live in the least sanitary houses to obtain it. In other words the Government are offering a premium to insanitary conditions. The death rate will be increased, and the health of the people will suffer as the result of this duty.

Mr MATHEWS:
Melbourne Ports

– The evident joy with which the honorable member for Lang urged that as the result of this proposal, formalin would be dearer and more difficult for the poor invalid to obtain, induces me to remind him that since its manufacture was commenced locally, the price has been reduced by 50 per cent. That alone constitutes a reply to the honorable member, who must know that if the importer could do so he would destroy the local industry, with the result that the price would at once be increased to the poor invalid.

Mr KELLY:
Wentworth

.The medical profession all over the world is fomenting a crusade against flies as germ carriers. In America there are whole societies dealing with that very plague, and the Australian’ Government is proposing to lend its assistance to that world wide project by imposing a special tax upon things which are mainly used in other countries for fighting the fly pest. In the very next item we find that fly papers are taken from the free list and made dutiable at 10 per cent.

Mr W ELLIOT JOHNSON:
LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– Everything to encourage disease.

Mr KELLY:

-Exactly. While the Government do everything to encourage disease by means of a tax of this sort, they have already done something to discourage death, because they have put up the price of tombstones. Formalin is being used all over the world for the destruction of flies which are the pest of every table, and if the Minister of Trade and Customs, who administers the Pure Food Act, has any real desire to preserve the purity of the food of the people, he will see that its purity as they get it originally has not a chance of being adulterated by flies. The fact that there is a formalin industry here is not going to weigh with us. Surely we are not to put the profits of a small local industry against the health of the people. The Minister has stated that the local factory is so successful that it has been able to bring about a reduction in the price of formalin from 14s. to 8s. per gallon.

Mr Tudor:

– Might not that reduction be due to an attempt to wipe out the local industry ?

Mr KELLY:

– If it is a struggling industry, would it not be better to let it rather than the people die. There is no difficulty in the manufacture of formalin.

Mr Groom:

– Then it will be readily manufactured here.

Mr KELLY:

– But the duty will mean an increased price to the people. I hope honorable members will vote to abolish these duties against fly destruction.

Mr THOMAS BROWN:
Calare

– Formalin was originally free; but the Minister is now proposing to place it in a paragraph where it will be dutiable at 15 per cent. and 10 per cent. according to the country of origin. As the honorable member for Fremantle has very properly pointed out, formalin, during recent years,” has come largely into use amongst farmers for the purpose of removing germ diseases, particularly smut, from wheat. It is also being used to a considerable extent in connexion with stock. In New South Wales during the past two or three years sheep have been attacked by a veritable plague of flies, and great losses have occurred. The farmers and graziers are now using a preparation of formalin for the purpose of combating the plague. Any proposal to levy a duty upon this article - which has hitherto been admitted into the Commonwealth free - will inflict a grave injustice upon the classes I have mentioned. I trust that the Minister will allow the condition of things, which has heretofore obtained, to remain unaltered.

Mr HEDGES:
Fremantle

– I am quite content to allow the party which is in power to advertise the fact that they intend to tax such a very necessary article as formalin. We all know that in Queensland last year the destruction wrought by the fly upon sheep was greater than it Has ever been previously. There has never been an article which possessed such an all round value as formalin, and yet it is to be specially selected for an impost of 15 per cent. It has been urged that formalin is being manufactured in Australia. But even if the statement be true, this commodity is being produced locally, notwithstanding that it has hitherto figured upon the free list. That being so, where is the necessity to levy a duty upon it ? I have employed it in the seeding of hundreds of acres of wheat, and I say that formalin is much simpler to use than is bluestone. It is quite as effective, and is more easily handled. I fail to see why the Government should subject it to.a duty. If it were a poison, or if it were an inflammable article, I could understand the Government prohibiting its importation. I am sorry, indeed, that it is to be subjected to a duty, because that will impose a handicap upon our producers throughout Australia. Somebody has evidently got the ear of the Minister of Trade and Customs, who has been supplied with wrong information. I ask him to reconsider the matter with a view to placing this article upon the free list.

Mr W ELLIOT JOHNSON:
LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– Just now the honorable member for Melbourne Ports made a statement which would lead us to believe that he intends to vote for the proposed duty at all costs, although not the slightest evidence has been forthcoming to show that a single worker in the Commonwealth will be benefited by it Yet so recently as 7 th September, of the present year - as will be seen by reference to Hansard, page 199 - the honorable member said -

I represent what I believe to be the largest manufacturing electorate in Australia. I have been almost a Prohibitionist, and would keep out of the country every article that could be manufactured in it; but until we are able to protect the men who sent me here I shall not vote for any further protection to the manufacturers.

The honorable member is now supporting this Bill despite that declaration. I claim hisvote against the proposed tax. Again on page 201 of Hansard of the present year he is thus reported: -

I desire to say to all manufacturers that I am as good a Protectionist as ever I was, but I do not intend to vote for any more protection until I am assured by the men employed, through their organizations, that the wages paid are sufficient to keep them in a civilized state.

Has he made an inquiry in connexion with this industry ? I do not think he has had time to do so. If the honorable member is a man of his word - and I believe that he is - he must have overlooked the declaration, which is thus reported on page 199 of Hansard for the current year -

I shall not vote for any further protection to the manufacturers. During the referenda campaign, the Age said that the workers already enjoy New Protection. I deny it. It declared that New Protection was given by means of the Victorian Wages Boards and similiar tribunals in other States. I denv that the Wages- Boards, as they exist, give protection to the workers in anything like the same sense that the manufacturers are protected by the Customs duties.

In the face of these declarations I would like to know whether the honorable member is still of the same mind. Upon that occasion he took up a very heroic stand, but has he the courage to abide by it, and to refuse to sanction the imposition of an increased duty either upon this or any other item of the Bill until he has been assured that the employes in any industry thus protected shall share in the benefits which flow from that increased protection ?

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
Parramatta

– I should like to know from the Minister whether any great quantity of formalin is being manufactured in the Com monwealth at the present time. Tomy mind this is one of the most important items in the Tariff, seeing that it profoundly affects many branches of our primary industries.

Mr KELLY:
Wentworth

– I wish to remind honorable members that: formalin is used largely to prevent thespread of disease. Its use was one of themost effective means adopted to check thespread of the plague that broke out in the city of Sydney some time ago, and it is used also to combat the great white plague, consumption. It is almost criminal to propose the imposition of a duty upon such an article.

Sitting suspended from 8.30 to 10.30 a.m. (Thursday).

Item agreed to.

Items 285 (Fly Papers), and 287 (Chemical Compounds, n.e.i., &c.) agreed! to.

Item 292 -

By omitting from sub-item (a) the words “ medical compounds (not chemical),” and inserting in their stead the words “ chemicals and’ drugs packed for use in the household, n.e.i.”

Mr Kelly:

– This is another item dealing with medicines. Perhaps the Minister would explain the scope of it.

Mr TUDOR:
Minister of Tradeand Customs · Yarra · ALP

– If honorablemembers will look at item 287, they will find that chemical compounds n.e.i. and simple drugs are, under the existing Tariff, admitted free. The Committee has just agreed to the amendment of that item, and1 has provided that chemicals and drugs n.e.i., other than those packed for use in the household, should be admitted free. What is now proposed is that if thesearticles are packed for use in the household, they will be admitted under item 292. The effect of this alteration will be that if drugs are imported in bulk they will be admitted free, but if packed for use in the household they will be considered as medicines, and will be dutiable under item 292.

Item agreed to.

Item 295 (Perfumery), agreed to.

Division X. - Wood, Wicker, and Cane.

Item 303 -

By omitting the whole of sub-item (b) and inserting in its stead the following sub-item : - “ (b) New Zealand White Pine, undressed, for butter boxes in ‘sizes not less than 9 in. x¾ in. nor exceeding 12 in. x 2 in., but not cut to shape, subject, to Departmental By-laws, free.”

By inserting in sub-item (d) before the word “Timber” the figure “(1)”

By adding to sub-item (d) the following words : - “ (2) Timber undressed, cut to size for making boxes, per 100 super feet, 4s.”

By omitting from sub-item (I) the words “ per 100 feet super face, 2s. 6d.” and inserting in their stead the words” per 100 super, feet 5s.”

By omitting from sub-item (x) the word “ Free “ and inserting in its stead the words “ ad val. 10 per cent.”

By omitting the whole of sub-item (z) and inserting in its stead the following sub-item : - “ (z) Hubs, Elm, with or without metal bands ad. val., 10 per cent.”

By omitting from sub-item (dd) the words ‘” Rims, and Felloes “ and inserting in sub-item (dd) before the word “Spokes” the figure “(i).”

By adding to sub-item (dd) the following words : - “ (2) Felloes of hickory, cut, shaped, or bent, plain, in the rough, ad. val., 10 per cent.

  1. Rims of Hickory, bent, squared, plain, in the rough, ad. val., 10 per cent.”

By omitting the whole of the note defining “super, face”, immediately following item 303.

Mr.W. ELLIOT JOHNSON (Lang) [10.34 a.m.]. - I am informed by those interested in the timber trade that the effect of this proposal will be very injurious to their interests. I propose to quote some passages from a circular issued by the Sydney Timber Merchants’ Association, which, I suppose, has been sent to every member ofthe Committee, and which states the case from the point of view of the timber merchants of the Commonwealth, who are thoroughly conversant with the requirements of the trade. They say -

We employ approximately 3,600 bands.

We pay in wages yearly between £455,300 and £470,000.

We estimate the cost of labour in converting rough timber into dressed at1s. 6d. per 100 feet super.

Fifty per cent. of the work done in Sydney Mills is in New Zealand white pine and Rimu timbers’ in the shape of dressing and re-sawing. This timber is imported in the rough, and is dressed in Sydney. Should the proposed duty of2s. 6d. on New Zealand timbers remain, this 50 per cent. of our Sydney work would be lost to our workers.

Notwithstanding the duty of 3s. per 100 feet on dressed timber for the past 10 years the importation has increased in some States, so 3s. is not enough to stop timber coming’ in dressed.

There is an average loss of 25 per cent. in converting rough timber into dressed flooring and lining, add _ 25 per cent. to the proposed duty of2s. 6d.,this will bring the duty on rough timber higher than the duty on timber dressed. Although we lost this 25 per cent. of rough timber we have to pay duty on it.

It takes 1 12.5 feet of rough timber to produce what is known in the trade as 100 feet of 4 x7/8 dressed flooring, the duty on this 112.5 feet at 2s. 6d. would be 2s.9¾d. The super of inch measurement of this 100 feet of dressed flooring is 87.5 feet, and would pay if imported dressed, under the 3s. duty 2s.7½d., so the duty is less by 2¼d. per 100 feet on the finished article than would be paid on sufficient rough timber to manufacture the same quantity.

If 2s. 6d. duty is imposed on rough timber, then we ask for a duty on rough box timber, cut to size, 8s. per 100 feet super of inch, and 10s. on the same timber dressed.

We wish to draw your attention to the following facts referring to Imported Dressed Timber, and showing how Sydney trade will be at a disadvantage should the extra 2s. be placed on white pine and Rimu timbers : -

We shew here that the dressed timber has an advantage over the rough timber of 6s. per 100 feet. The above figures refer to 4 x½ lining, which is very extensively used in the Sydney Building Trade. Sydney Timber Merchants convert 80 per cent. of their flooring and lining used from rough timber. This timber is stacked and seasoned in Sydney for at least six weeks before being dressed, and, therefore, gives additional labour.

With regard to timber for butter boxes, there is this further statement -

Box-makers in the Commonwealth are in the habit of manufacturing butter boxes out of12 and 14 x¾ timber. Should there be a duty put on all timber other than these sizes, it will necessarily follow that the New Zealand millers will have to charge a higher price for this timber than the other timbers of smaller sizes -

Any man with commercial experience knows that that is no exaggerated statement. The timber suppliers are not going to suffer any loss, but must necessarily charge a higher price to their customers - on which it is proposed to place a duty of 2s. 6d. per 100 feet, because taking into consideration that the log will only produce at the most 50 per cent. of this butter box size, they will have to find a market for the narrower sizes, so that they will be forced to ask 2s. per 100 feet more for the butter box size to enable them to self the small sizes on the market at the same price as at present.

I am credibly informed that after all the best of the timber is used for making butter boxes, whereas the refuse or dead pieces, unsuitable for such a purpose, are used for making fruit cases, rabbit crates, and similar articles. This really gives the butter industry an advantage at the expense of the fruit and other industries which have to pay the extra duty on the timber used in making the cases -

The Sydney box trade use quite 70 per cent. of the imported white pine and rimu into ordinary boxes, and so find a market for all the white pine produced that is not fit for butter box making, and we are firmly of opinion that if the duty remains as proposed, it will have the effect of increasing, not only the price of the ordinary boxes, but more especially butter boxes.

Here is a table showing a comparison of prices, and how timbers are affected in connexion with the duties. As to American timbers we are told -

This will show that there is nothing gained by taking advantage of the sixpenny duty on sizes 12 x 6 and upwards.

Sellers of American timber, if asked for all large sizes of 12 x 6 and upwards, leaving out the smaller sizes, ask1s. 6d. per 100 feet super, advance. As a matter of fact, this advance is recognised in the trade.

This shows that it is cheaper to import rough timber in smaller sizes, and only pay the duty of 2s. 6d.

The above examples should demonstrate the fact that 3s. on dressed timber is not enough.

The average log brought to any mill in the world would not yield more than 50 per cent. of sizes of 12 x 6 and upwards, and the miller must naturally dispose of his smaller sizes.

White pine makes the most attractive box of any timber known. It is free from any woody odour, takes print like paper, brands show out . well, and our exports packed in boxes made of this timber have a good start in any market.

Mr Tudor:

– Will the honorable member explain how only12½ per cent, is allowed for waste in saving in one case, while 25 per cent. is allowed in the other?

Mr W ELLIOT JOHNSON:
LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– I am now referring to American timber, and there may be a difference between the two.

Mr Tudor:

– We may take12½ per cent, as correct.

Mr W ELLIOT JOHNSON:
LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– I am not making these statements on my own authority, but on the authority of information supplied to me by the merchants. The circular I read a few moments ago is from the Sydney Timber Merchants’ Association ; and I quote it because I think that association is in the best position to give correct information. A great deal more might be urged ; but I content myself with asking the Minister to carefully reconsider the whole question of New Zealand timber in the light of facts which may hitherto have escaped his notice. I do not suppose that it is the honorable gentleman’s desire to place any industry at a special disadvantage, or that it is the will of Parliament to show any unjust discrimination between the interests of the fruit-growers, for instance, and the interests of the butter producers. There is no reason why we should give any special advantage to the dairying industry, while penalizing another industry equally entitled to our consideration. The readjustment proposed will dislocate trade and place timber merchants, fruit-growers, and others at a grave disadvantage, with the probable result, in some cases, of ruin. Failing recourse to the old duty, they ask for a compensating advantage in order to rectify the anomaly which the Government, under these proposals, must immediately create. I do not advocate an increase of duty to equalize the disadvantage, but urge strongly the removal of duties on timber altogether. I hope the Minister will give the matter his very serious consideration.

Mr FENTON:
Maribyrnong

– The Minister has thought fit to put New Zealand white pine on the free list, so far as butter boxes are concerned; and I think he might have gone further. It seems to me that the concessions that have been made to the dairying industry might well be extendedto the fruit-growing and other industries.

Mr McWILLIAMS:
FRANKLIN, TASMANIA · REV TAR; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917; CP from 1920; IND from 1928

– Is there no timber in Australia fit for fruit cases?

Mr FENTON:

– I am speaking of the timber with which I have had much to do in the butter trade. I have no desire to detract from the merits of any other timber ; but it is said that New Zealand white pine boxes are the finest in the world for butter.

Mr Mcwilliams:

– I was speaking of fruit cases.

Mr FENTON:

– Sometimes I think our Queensland brethren think we are encroaching on their preserves. It is a fact that, in the hoop and other pines of that State, we have the finest commercial timbers in Australasia ; and it is too good to be made into butter boxes. I understand that many of these New Zealand white pine butter boxes ‘which are exported find their way from the Old Country to Sweden, where they are use3 in the manufacture of matches. The Queensland ‘dairymen, I understand, paraffin their boxes, so that they may beSafely used for packing for butter export. I have several communications from Melbourne and Sydney merchants on this question, including one from Messrs. G. Gunnersen and Company, who published a letter in the Age, from which the following is an extract: -

Approximately, 35 per cent. to 45 per cent. only is used for butter boxes, therefore, the average duty on New Zealand white pine will really be increased from 6d. per 100 super feet to about1s. 3d., and this is principally at the expense of the fruit-growing industry. According to an article in your paper this morning, we notice that you state - “ Members admit that the removal of duty against New Zealand woods for butter boxes, while benefiting butter producers, would have a doubtful effect on the Queensland timber industry.”

We beg to state that it could in no way affect the Queensland timber industry. Queensland produces some very fine timbers indeed, but the only kind which has been found at all suitable for butter boxes is the hoop pine. This timber is of such a fine nature and quality that it is far loo good for such common purposes as boxmaking, and it is a shame to use it for such. Furthermore, the demand for hoop pine has been so great for a long time past that suppliersare not able to fulfil orders.

I think that that is a well-known fact. Queensland timber is recognised as one of the very best for certain purposes, and I understand that the merchants can obtain from 5s. to 7s. per 100 superficial feet more than is paid for New Zealand pine. The millers of Melbourne were, I believe, prepared to give orders for millions, of feet, but they found that these orders could not be fulfilled. The Queensland mills are kept more than fully occupied, not being able to overtake the Australian demands.

Mr Fuller:

– Orders have to be given months ahead.

Mr FENTON:

– I know there is great difficulty in that respect; and I congratulate Queensland on the possession of such a magnificent asset.

Mr Groom:

– Queensland will be able to supply all the requirements of Australia.

Mr FENTON:

– I have no doubt as to that, and, as I have already said, I regard this timber as too valuable for the purpose of butter boxes. New Zealand dairymen have been urging on successive Governments in the Dominion the advisability of imposing an export duty on white pine, so that they may be sure of an adequate supply in years to come. I should like to suggest, however, that we might even now show a friendly spirit towards New Zealand, apart altogether from Tariff considerations. We were given to understand in the GovernorGeneral’s speech that the Government were endeavouring to arrange for reciprocity between New Zealand, Canada, and the Commonwealth.

Mr W ELLIOT JOHNSON:
LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– It is an Australian firm that is working the New Zealand timber in the Dominion.

Mr Tudor:

– Is it not that New Zealanders have come over here?

Mr W ELLIOT JOHNSON:
LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– No; Australians have gone to New Zealand.

Mr FENTON:

– We have our own boxmaking factories ; and I think, with the Minister, that it is only fair to impose a duty of 4s. per 100 superficial feet on timber cut into box sizes.

Mr W ELLIOT JOHNSON:
LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– Such a duty will result in much of the work nowdone in Australia being taken over to New Zealand.

Mr FENTON:

– There is no fear of that. When the New Zealand pine is cut into butter-box sizes, there is very little left but the off-cuts. My desire is that the free list shall embrace New Zealand white pine. In Sydney, Melbourne, and I suppose all the capital cities, this timber is the raw material of many other industries. It is preferred for washing boards, broom handles, salt boxes, knife boxes, and many other domestic utensils. The following is a letter I have received from Messrs. Spencer and Krigsman, timber importers and general woodware manufacturers, Melbourne : -

We have submitted the following particulars to the Honorable the Minister of Customs : -

Every item in the enclosed list is made out of New Zealand white pine.

Every article enumerated is used by the housewife; therefore, higher duty on the raw material means a correspondingly lower protection on manufactured imported woodware, which would soon flood Australian markets.

Because Melbourne is in the unique position of being the manufacturers’ distributing centre, we ourselves exporting to every State.

Because cheaper freights can be arranged from New York to Melbourne, than is charged between Melbourne and Fremantle.

Because the lowest workman’s wages in our employ is £2 8s., others £2 10s., £2 18s., £2 18s 6d., up to £3 ros. per week of 48 hours.

Because the margin of profit on these small lines is very small.

Because the duty on New Zealand white pine will not benefit Australian timbers.

Because there is no timber to substitute for white pine at the price.

The nearest, Queensland hoop, which costs ros. per 100 super, ft. more.

I find I underestimated the difference in price -

Because Queensland Mills cannot supply the normal demand at the present time, therefore restricting the woodware manufacturer if he could use timber at above price.

Mr Groom:

– Are you going on the principle that if a local industry cannot supply an article it ought to come in free?

Mr FENTON:

– I am in connexion with this matter, but there is in one sense an inter-relation between these various industries. When a New Zealand while pine log is cut, the main cuts are used for butter-boxes, because for that purpose we want the very best timber. The New Zealand saw-miller will say, “ I have to send to Australia the very best cuts out of the log for butter-box purposes. What am I going to do with the off -cuts?” ‘ If he cannot find a ready market for the offcuts, the chances are that instead of. our receiving a benefit by the removal of the duty on the timber for butter-boxes, the New Zealand miller will have to charge more for his best cuts because he will no! be able to find so ready a market for the off-cuts. It is further stated -

Re Tariff Item 303 (v) :- “ Square timber rough sawn into sizes suitable for manufacture of broom handles, which means any length timber ii by ii inches square.” We consider that this item should be recast and placed on the free list instead of 20 per cent, ad valorem.

Because we ourselves cannot get sufficient supplies from seven Queensland mills to keep us going. We bought from Queensland this year, January to October, 356,000 pieces, we wanted at least. 600,000:

Because this size is really an off-cut, i.e., small widths that cannot be used any other way.

Because no mill in Australia will cut planks or logs up into broom squares, we, as manufacturers having the necessary machinery, are unable to do it on account of the advancing cost of all lines of Australian timbers.

Because not one timber in a 100 varieties rs suitable for so small diameter.

Because we are not able to import New Zealand white pine in manufacturers size, viz., 3 ft. 6 in. in length for household brooms at the present on account of the duty which is equal to 3s. per gross on broom handle squares.

Unless the New Zealand miller can sell practically the whole log, he will not sell us the best at the present rates, and allow the rest to rot in his mill yard. Grave consideration should certainly be given to these representations.

Mr MASSY-GREENE:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP; NAT from 1917

.. - The New Zealand Government impose an export duty on white pine logs, with the result that all the white pine we import from that country is already cut up. Naturally the New Zealand millers want to sell all the sizes they cut out of the log, and unless the Australian importer is prepared to take them, the millers will raise the price for the parts which he does take. It is quite possible therefore that, instead of the removal of duties on white pine used for butter-boxes benefiting the butter-producing industry of Australia, it may work out the other way.

Mr Tudor:

– Does the honorable member want all New Zealand pine admitted, or only New Zealand white pine?

Mr MASSY-GREENE:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP; NAT from 1917

– I mean the white pine, which is used principally for making butter-boxes, crates,, and fruit cases. The only Australian timber so far as we know suitable for this class of work, and growing in any quantity, is the hoop pine. It is a splendid timber, but owing to the great demand for it for house-building purposes and joinery work, the supplies are not sufficient. If we admit New Zealand white pine free, it will not embarrass any Australian industry. If I thought it would, I should refuse, as a Protectionist, to have anything to do with it.

Mr Fenton:

– It would be better to leave the duty at 6d. on the lot as it is now.

Mr MASSY-GREENE:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP; NAT from 1917

– I believe it would te. The Minister has already stated that he intends to alter the sizes specified in the schedule. I have here a statutory declaration by the manager of the Cooperative Box Company of New South Wales, which supplies eighty co-operative factories with butter-boxes, and uses from 5,000,000 to 7,000,000 superficial feet of timber every year. He says -

The sizes required primarily for butter boxes are 12 x j, and 14 x j New Zealand white pine. 12 x1½ and 14 x1½ New Zealand white pine are planed first and re-sawed afterwards, and 12 x15/8 and 14 x15/8 New Zealand white pine are re-sawed first and planed afterwards.

When unable to procure sufficient boards of the six sizes above mentioned, narrow boards of the same thicknesses are used by tongue and grooving. 3x¾,3½x¾,4x¾,4½x¾,5x¾,6x¾, 6½x¾,7x¾,8x¾,9x¾,10x¾,and11x¾ are all used to joint together…… 3x1½,3½x1½,4x1½,4½x1½,5x1½, 6x1½,6½x1½,7x1½,8x1½,9x1½,10x1½ 11 x1½, are used for dressing, splitting, and jointing together. 3x15/8,3½x15/8,4x15/8,4½x15/8,5x15/8,6x15/8, 6½ x15/8, 7 x15/8, 8 x15/8, 9 x15/8, 10 x15/8, 11 x15/8, are used for splitting first, dressing and joining together.

All these sizes are used in the butter-box making industry, but some of them’ are shut out by the Minister’s proposal. I hope that before we commit ourselves to the item the Minister will go thoroughly into it. I am not at all certain that the proposed re-arrangement of duties will benefit the butter industry, and it will certainly penalize the fruit, rabbit, and other industries.

Mr HIGGS:
Capricornia

– I oppose the proposal to allow any New Zealand timber for butter boxes to come in free. It is somewhat disconcerting to find that there are still some members in the Committee who are only one-sided Protectionists.

Mr Thomas Brown:

– One-eyed.

Mr HIGGS:

– They have two eyes, both of which are merely used in the interests of certain industries in their own electorates.

Mr Kelly:

– Have you any Queensland timbers in yours?

Mr HIGGS:

– There are in Queensland certain industries, among them that of timber, but I doubt if the honorable member can find a single industry throughout Australia to which I have not voted to give the most ample protection possible. If it were proposed to remove the present duty of 3d. per lb., or 25 per cent., on butter, or the duty on raw and preserved fruits, the honorable member for Maribyrnong would be up in arms. He wants, however, to allow New Zealand timber tocome in free for fruit boxes. Some time ago, when Mr. Justice Isaacs was a member of this House, he was censured by the Fruitgrowers’ Association in his electorate for voting for a duty on timber. If there is anything in the Protectionist idea, all industries ought to receive adequate protection. I do not claim that Protection is a panacea for all the ills that fleshis heir to, but it is a method of enabling the Labour party to carry out its ideals in Australia. If we take the duty off timber for fruit and butter boxes, other consumers should have the same consideration extended to them. The removal of the duty which it is proposed to levy on butterbox timber will not increase by a single copper the amount which the dairy farmer will receive for his butter, nor will the removal of the duty from timber for fruit boxes help the fruit-grower an atom. The trouble with the fruit-grower and other producers to-day is that the commission agents and companies rob them of a great deal of the produce of their labour.

Mr MASSY-GREENE:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP; NAT from 1917

– It is not so with the butter industry now.

Mr HIGGS:

– It was a few years ago.It is only because of the wealthy and prosperous co-operative . companies mentioned: by the honorable member for Richmond, that the farmer is now getting something like a fair return for his labourThe wealthy co-operative dairy companies are well able to pay an import duty on timber. The one-sided Protectionists of whom I have spoken have short memories and queer methods. When it was proposed some time ago to put an import duty on New Zealand pine, so that Queensland timber might be used for butter boxes, we were told that that timber was not suitable, and when we proved that it was, the objection was raised that it was too good. In our big cities the public is charged 5d., 6d., and even 8d. a lb. for apples, and when in London recently I saw white grapes marked up at 8d. and black grapes at 7d. a lb., while as much as9d. each was being charged for pears, and10d., for peaches.

Mr Page:

– Did not the honorable member wish himself back in Australia?

Mr HIGGS:

– I was glad to . find onmy return to Adelaide how reasonable, incomparison, are the prices charged here. The removal of the timber duty would not help the fruit-growers. What is necessary to improve their position is an attack on the system of distribution. I intend to move -

That the words “ (b) New Zealand white pine, undressed, for butter boxes, in sizes not less than 9 in. x¾ in. nor exceeding 12 in. x 2 in., but not cut to shape, subject to Departmental By-laws, free,” be left out.

Mr FULLER:
Illawarra

., - It is open to grave doubt whether the’ laudable desire of the Minister to protect the butter industry will be achieved by the proposal submitted to the Committee. The honorable member for Maribyrnong pointed out the position very clearly. He showed that the New Zealand suppliers of pine would have to charge higher prices if they could not dispose of the smaller portions of the log, and the honorable member for Richmond has expressed a doubt as to whether the proposal will do what is aimed at.

Mr Tudor:

– We are placing the New Zealand timber on the same footing as other timber.

Mr FULLER:

– The timber business is a very intricate one, and I do not feel competent to express an opinion, except generally, on the Minister’s proposal. It has been freely stated that fruit-growers and others engaged in rural industries, whom we wish to encourage, will be injured by what is proposed. I suggest that, before anything is done, the Minister should obtain the opinion of those engaged in the timber business in Melbourne and Sydney. As the representative of a large dairying district, I am very pleased that the Minister intends to make butter boxes as cheap as possible, but, although I am glad that my constituents are to be assisted, I do not desire that the fruit-grower shall suffer. We should try to deal justly with all. The manager of the company to which the honorable member for Richmond has referred says -

If the intention is to remove the 6d. duty now charged on butter box timber, and this concession is granted as well as on the smaller sizes referred to, it should make a difference of something like fd. per box.

Butter boxes are made in a number of sizes, and the timbers in use are 12 inches by ¾, 12 inches by½, 12 inches by15/8, 14 x¾, 14 x½ and 14 x15/8. This is timber for boxes with the sides, ends, tops, and bottoms in one piece. It is found that the use of improved tonguing and grooving and gluing machines, and the making of the sides and bottoms in two pieces, is an advantage, and enables smaller sized timbers, which must be purchased at the same time as the others, to be used up. The manager says -

We do not think the Tariff mentions anything below g inches by¾ inch. To use the size in the side or bottom of a butter box, we would need also to attach thereto another piece of 3-inch by¾ in order to make a full side or bottom.

According to Mr. W. M. Pearson, of Pearson’s Proprietary Limited, who are very big people in the city of Melbourne -

The operation of the revised tariff on New Zealand white pine for butter box purposes is likely to prove the opposite to that in tended by the Government. Hitherto New Zealand pine, undressed, of all sizes, has been dutiable at 6d. per 100 super, feet. It is now proposed to make sizes suitable for manufacture into butter: boxes free (that is not less than gin. x fin., and not exceeding 12in. x 2in.), but to make other sizes dutiable at as. to 2s. 6d. per 100 super, feet. These other sizes, or offcuts, which constitute about 60 per cent. of the original timber, have to rely upon Australia as a market, being sold as a by-product. But while off-cuts will become dutiable at 2s. to 2s. 6d., instead of 6d., it is feared that the extra duty cannot be recovered, as they have to be sold in Australia, in competition with spruce and hardwood. In this case, therefore, the net return to the New Zealand saw-miller will be reduced, and in order to obtain the same total amount from the whole log as before it would be necessary to obtain a higher price for the butter-box timber. Some of the leading sellers from New Zealand are asking an advance of1s. per 100 feet, and it is thought possible that a greater advance may have to be asked, the result being that the concession represented by the Government proposals will be more than neutralised.

I have also before me a report of the annual meeting of the Kauri Timber Company Limited which was held recently. The chairman of the company in his report to the shareholders said -

The Federal Government, in bringing in a Bill to do away with the anomalies of the Tariff, had made a considerable change in the duties on New Zealand pine, this being practically the only alteration in timber. While the Bill was supposed to do away with anomalies, it only served to create bigger anomalies than existed before. The Minister of Customs, in introducing the Bill, said that he recognised something had to be done to assist the butter industry, and this he proposed to do by remitting the present duty, equal to1s. 3d. per ton on butter value £112. To make up for this, however, he proposed to tax the fruitgrowing industry to the extent of 4s. 6d. per ton value £14, so that the fruit-growers would have to carry the impost for the benefit of the butter factories. As a matter of fact, however, the price of butter boxes would not be reduced by the alteration, but the effect would be to raise the prices, as in producing the better grades for the butter business, they were compelled to make a large quantity of sizes suitable only for fruit cases, and if the market for this line was to be restricted or taxed so heavily the better qualities would have to be raised in price to compensate for the loss on the lower grades.

These large firms have pointed out that the Minister’s proposal will not work in the direction he desires. Turning from the dairying industry, it seems quite clear that the fruit-growing industry will, under this proposition, have to bear a heavier burden than it has ever borne before. The fruitgrowers of New South Wales have had a very bad time for some years past. Any one who will take the trouble to look up the statistics of the State will find that at the present time there are about 3,000 acres less under orchard in New South Wales today than there were some years back. That shows that the fruit-growing industry, instead of being prosperous, is going back. I am quite aware that what the honorable member for Capricornia said is perfectly true, that the unfortunate men on the land do not get the price to which they are entitled. We know from sad experience in connexion with the butter industry that the dairy farmers in the Illawarra, district, up to fifteen years ago, allowed the middlemen in Sussex-street, Sydney, to get rich at their expense. But the South-West and West Camden Co-operative Company was formed, which has since developed into the New South Wales Co-operative Company, and which does about 80 per cent, of the butter trade of the State. It would be well if the fruit-growers of New South Wales also formed a co-operative association.

Mr Sampson:

– That is being done in Victoria.

Mr FULLER:

– I am glad to hear that. It is a step in the right direction. But at the same time we should be very careful indeed that we do not by any action of ours handicap those men who have been having such a bad time in the past. I feel certain that the Minister realizes the position. We appreciate the effort he is making to assist those men who are at present handicapped. I hope that, to avoid bungling in connexion with the matter, regard will be paid to the suggestion which I have made, and that the Minister will agree to submit the whole matter to the best experts he can obtain in connexion with the timber business, in order to find out whether these duties will work out in the way he desires.

Mr TUDOR:
Minister of Trade and Customs · Yarra · ALP

– I think that all those honorable members who took part in the debates on the Kingston Tariff and the Lyne Tariff will agree that the most difficult items were those relating to timber. On the last occasion when we were dealing with the Tariff I admit that, in common with other honorable members, I considered that in voting that New Zealand pine should be free we were practically conferring an advantage on the butter-box industry, and that alone. But I am persuaded that the Committee at that time did not know the whole facts of the case. I do not think that they intended that New Zealand white pine, kauri, rimu, and other varieties of timber should come in at lower rates, irrespective of size. Any one who looks up the Hansard debates will be convinced that what I say is true.

Mr Fisher:

– The New Zealand importing interest is too ‘strongly represented here.

Mr Kelly:

– Is it because we have a Queensland Prime Minister that there is such a necessity for these alterations of duty?

Mr TUDOR:

– No, it is not. The Prime Minister had no idea as to what duties I intended to bring down until I submitted them to the Cabinet. -

Mr Fisher:

– It is quite unnecessary to defend me.

Mr TUDOR:

– I know that very well. As nearly as I can remember, the duties in regard to timber which I submitted to the Government are those which I submitted to Parliament. Of course, I have since suggested an alteration. I could not say the same as to all the items. The position is this : By granting concessions to New Zealand timber, irrespective of size, we are allowing the small pieces - the offcuts as they are known in the trade - to come in at lower rates; whereas our object was in every instance to make the duties correspond with the amount of work which had to be done in the Commonwealth. In the last Tariff .it was proposed, for instance, that there should be a duty of 6d. per 100 superficial feet on timber undressed, 12 in. x 6 in. and over. We also provided that New Zealand pine, undressed, all sizes, was to pay 6d. per 100 superficial. What was the result? Instead of New Zealand allowing us to receive large timber, the Dominion Parliament imposed export duties with the object of preventing logs and large timbers from being exported to the Commonwealth to be worked up here. I have not before me at the moment the figures showing the amount of exports from New Zealand to Australia, but I am confident that 90 per cent, of the whole quantity of timber exported from the Dominion last year was sent to this country. The result of sending timber of small sizes was that the offcuts of our own mills could not be disposed of at a profit. The off-cuts from New Zealand undersold our own millers in the. market.

Mr Groom:

– That applies not only to Queensland saw-millers, but also to those of Victoria and other States.

Mr TUDOR:

– Quite so. I am given to understand that in consequence of Australian saw-millers not being able to dispose of their off-cuts they have had to charge a higher price for the larger timber which they had to sell. It stands to reason that if a saw-miller can only sell the principal article which he is producing, and can do nothing with the by products - because the off -cuts or small cuts are the by-products of the timber trade - the consequence must be that he must charge more than he otherwise would do for the more bulky timbers. If our saw-millers were able to sell these off-cuts at a profit, as New Zealand does, purchasers would reap a great advantage all round. If Parliament wants white pine to be free, let it say that white pine and white pine alone shall be so treated. But do not let us permit white pine to carry on the top of it all other varieties of New Zealand timber.

Mr Groom:

– If this timber is wanted for casing only, why not say, “ White pine for casing 1 ‘ ?

Mr Deakin:

– It would be better not to define what it is wanted for.

Mr TUDOR:

– Directly we start to specialize and pick out the uses to which timber is to be put - whether for butter boxes or any other purpose - we shall, be creating trouble for ourselves.

Mr Groom:

– It would be better to say, “ White pine, 6d. per 100 feet super.”

Mr TUDOR:

– There are several alternatives which I am prepared to submit to the Committee ; but I am very anxious that honorable members shall thoroughly understand what they are voting upon, and that we shall not, with the idea of letting in one variety -of timber, let in a great deal more than we intend. New Zealand has imposed an export duty of 5s. per 100 on logs cut into halves. I presume that that means sawn straight down the centre. But she has also imposed an export duty of 3s. per 100 on flitches 12 inches in width and 4 inches in thickness, or its equivalent, or less than the equivalent of 10 x 10. Those timbers would be dutiable at our 6d. rate. The object of New Zealand, in fact, has been to prevent work being done in Australia. They want the whole work to be done there. I find no fault with them for that.

Mr Hedges:

– What about reciprocity?

Mr TUDOR:

– When the late Mr. Batchelor, while member for Boothby, raised the question of reciprocity with New

Zealand with regard to wine, the Dominion, did not respond, but charged 2s. a gallonon South Australian wine. We have noreciprocity with New Zealand. If we treat her timber as we have been doing, we shall have nothing to give away when we begin to talk about reciprocity. We shall not be able to negotiate on reasonable terms. New Zealand will say to us, “ Thank you for nothing’; you have given us what we want under your Tariff ; your Parliament has decided that our timber* shallenter the Commonwealth at low rates.” The New Zealand Tariff also gives rebates for kauri exported at the same rates as applied to other timbers. If the Committee chooses to decide that New Zealand pine, whether for butter boxes or otherwise, shall come in at a lower rate than any other timber, it can do so. But let us thoroughly understand what we are doing. We can do that, not necessarily by fixing the size, but by saying that New Zealand white pine, which is used for thisparticular purpose, shall come in at a certain rate, and all other New Zealand pine at the ordinary rates which are fixed for other timbers ; or alternately we can say that New Zealand pine for the manufacture of butter-boxes shall come in at a low rate, but that all other New Zealand pine in sizes less than 12 in. by 6 in. shall come inat the rate of 2s. or 2s. 6d. per 100 super., feet. If it is desired to give an advantage to New Zealand let the Committee adopt some other rate, say, is. or is. 3d. dr is. 6d., or any sum it likes. I have heard,, and no doubt other honorable members have heard, that this item, if passed, will interfere with our timber mills, which are used for the cutting and dressing of timber. If we are anxious that they shall receive what we consider justice, or to put them on their old footing, we can increase the rate on dressed timber, so that they shall not suffer any hardship as compared with their previous position. I admit that it is a difficult’ question to deal” with. I believe that the best thing which the Committee could do would.be to say that New Zealand white pine of any size, and that alone, shall come in at the f ormer rate, namely, 6d. per .100 feet super., or any other rate which it might care to fix, and’ that all other New Zealand pine shall fall under the ordinary rates for other timber.: The anomaly which the Ministry tried tocorrect was the treatment of New Zealand pine differently from other timber. But in our anxiety to do that, we have apparently bumped up against one or two vested interests which have been worked up in connexion with the importation of New Zealand pine. We should, I think, consider, first of all, our own industries. I admit that it is very difficult, perhaps, to get the truth concerning a number of these articles, whether they are imported or manufactured.

Mr Kelly:

– This affects building, one of the biggest industries in one of the largest cities of Australia to-day.

Mr TUDOR:

– I grant that, and I feel sure that we are all delighted that building is booming in Sydney. I have stated the position to the best of my ability. I believe that in the making of butter-boxes not more than 30 per cent. of New Zealand pine is used, and not 80 per cent., as we believed on a previous occasion. I do not think that this or any other timber should be allowed to come in practically on the back of another industry. I suggest that the Committee should fix the duty on white pine independently of the other pine.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
Parramatta

– I was glad to hear the Minister’s suggestion, which I confess relieves me very much indeed. Whatever his intentions may have been in regard to relieving the dairy industry generally, there is not a shadow of a doubt that he would have failed to achieve the object with which he set out. It is well-known that the merchants, millers, and others would have spread this duty over all sorts of timber used for various purposes. Butter-box timber would not have been let off more than any other. It would have had to contribute its share. The Minister may impose a duty with that intention in his mind, but once the duty is paid he is no longer master of the log or the sawn timber, and the miller passes on the duty in any way he pleases. It is an absolute certainty that if the item were allowed to remain as it is butter-box timber would not be free, but would pay part of the duty which is imposed on timber as a whole. I appeal to my honorable friends who are interested in the timber industry in Australia to take a sensible view, and not attempt to press the interests of a particular industry in their own State.

Mr McWilliams:

– Why not give timber exactly the same protection as any other article?

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

– For the simple reason that the timber is not available.

Mr McWilliams:

– Oh, nonsense. I will take an order now.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

– My honorable friend might take an order now, but he would find that he could not fulfil it in Sydney or Brisbane. I am told on the best authority that, notwithstanding all the forests of pine in Queensland, a large boatload of New Zealand pine is on its way to Brisbane. Queensland does not, and cannot supply its own requirements.

Mr Finlayson:

– That is not the reason for the importation of New Zealand timber.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

– It is. Everybody knows that Queensland has pine forests. Who would be gladder than any one of us to see this timber being utilized instead of N ew Zealand timber if it were equally available. The Queensland forests have not been opened up or tapped with railways. The timber is there, but it cannot be put on the market; it is not commercially profitable as yet, except in a very limited sphere. So it is with the hardwood of Tasmania. It cannot be placed in Sydney at a rate which will enable a case to be made as cheaply as it is to-day. As this duty was proposed by the Minister it meant a tax of 2s. 6d. per twenty cases, or1½d. per case.

Mr J H Catts:

– Does this duty apply to fruit cases as well as to butter boxes ?

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

– No. It is proposed to exempt butter-box timber, leaving the timber for fruit cases dutiable at 2s. 6d. per 100 superficial feet. That is our complaint.

Mr RICHARD FOSTER:
WAKEFIELD, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917; LP from 1922; NAT from 1925

– We can supply you with fruit cases of the cheapest kind.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

– I have been hearing that statement for the last ten years. It is said that Tasmania and Queensland can supply us, but they do not.

Mr RICHARD FOSTER:
WAKEFIELD, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917; LP from 1922; NAT from 1925

– Because you do not order any cases.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

– We have to get our fruit cases made from New Zealand pine, and there is a fortune in Sydney waiting for anybody who can supply the timber more cheaply from Tasmania or Queensland. Would I be here advocating free pine from New Zealand if it could be obtained in Australia? It would be madness.

Mr McWilliams:

– That is just what I think it is.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

– Itis madness on my honorable friend’s part that he does not go in to make the huge fortune which awaits him in Sydney.I wish him joy of all his timber, and all he can get out of it, but I appeal to him not to penalize his fellow fruit-growers in New South Wales. If we are going to have the Federal spirit here is a case in which it may be manifested, I think.

Mr McWilliams:

– We have just passed a duty on formalin, which will be a tax on the fruit-growers.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

– That cannot be helped, but do not let us add to the burdens of the citrus orchardists to the extent of1½d. per case. The industry cannot carry an impost of that kind. The orchardists are holding their own with the greatest possible difficulty. Citrus fruits are pouring in from Italy. The present duty is a very small one. The orchards are dwindling in number and acreage, and have been doing so for ten years.

Mr Chanter:

– The duty will come to not three half-pence, but three-eighths of a penny per case.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

– I am speaking of the ordinary gin case, which takes about 5 feet of timber, and that is a twentieth part of100 feet super.

Mr McWilliams:

– What do you pay forthe cases now?

Mr JOSEPH COOK:

-About1s., which is far too much. I wish that the cases could be cheapened. I for one shall hail with delight the period when Queensland and Tasmanian timber can get into our market and provide some seasonable and reasonable competition. Then we shall stand a chance of getting these cases more cheaply than we get them now. To put a tax of1½d. per case on the industry would cripple it. The margin is so slender now that it cannot be done. I am glad to hear that the Minister will give this relief to the orchardists. I can promise him, as soon as the forests of Queensland are opened up by railways and the honorable member for Franklin can get facilities to put his timber rapidly on the Sydney market, he will not find me advocating that timber shall come in free while everything else is taxed. In the meantime we have to reduce the duty in the interests of the industry.

Mr J H CATTS:
Cook

– I find myself in very considerable difficulty in regard to this proposal. Probably it is accentuated by the fact that we have been here for about twenty-six hours. I have listened as carefully as I have been able to the remarks of various honorable members, and I find that there is, not only a conflict between Free Traders and Protectionists, but a very considerable conflict between Protectionists themselves. I find the honorable member for Maribrynong, who is a good Protectionist, protesting that a duty will operate to the disadvantage of the butter-box industry.

Mr Fenton:

– No, the timber is coming in free.

Mr J H CATTS:

– The honorable member wants to keep it free.

Mr Joseph Cook:

– The honorable member wants to keep it free for his particular section.

Mr Fenton:

– Not necessarily. I say that as New Zealand pine is used as the raw material for so many industries it ought to come in free.

Mr J H CATTS:

– Yes, but that ought not to be limited to the makers of butter-boxes. Here is the honorable member with his plea as to butter-boxes, and on the other hand we have the honorable member for Parramatta and others with a plea as to fruit cases. What about the other sections of the community affected? In the metropolitan areas of Australia, and particularly of Sydney, rents are increasing by leaps and bounds. The prices of timber for building purposes are going up, and probably an increase in the prices of those timbers will mean a further impost upon occupiers of houses.

The honorable member for Capricornia is not able to supply us with any definite information as. to how the timber industry of Queensland is prejudiced. He simply says, “ There are duties on other items; let us have a duty on this.” We have no facts to show that he believes that to place New Zealand timbers on the free list would be to disadvantage any other timbers. My impression is that there is a general shortage of timber in Australia. I have lived in some parts of New South Wales where pine is available, but the pine forests there have been disappearing with marvellous rapidity, and a demand is being made for afforestation. The Minister of Trade and Customs is as much in the dark in this matter as are other honorable members, and it seems to me that we shall make a mistake if we interfere with this matter at all. If the Minister does not know what the effect of this alteration is going to be, and if other honorable members who are Protectionists are ill at ease with respect to it, surely we have a case made out for post- poning action until we have some reliable information for our guidance. The existing Tariff was carried by a Protectionist Government, supported by a Protectionist House.

Mr McWilliams:

– There was a compromise between the honorable member for Barrier and others on the timber duties.

Mr J H CATTS:

– What is the use of talking of a compromise regarding the timber duties when there was in the House an overwhelming majority of Protectionists. There was, however, a difference of opinion between Protectionists. We have again to-day a Protectionist House, and I should like to know in what respect our present position is different, so far as the Protectionists are concerned, from what it was when the Lyne Tariff was dealt with. We are still in the same condition of doubt. Free Traders and Protectionists alike are positive in the belief that these duties will prejudice the butter-box and fruit-box industry in some respects, and in regard to other matters we have no information. We are operating entirely in the dark, and a strong case has been made out for postponing this particular item. If a reasonable case can be made out for doing so, I am prepared to vote the fullest amount of protection that the strongest Protectionist is ready to advocate in respect of timber.

I have here a statement that there are some 3,500 employes engaged in the saw -milling establishments in the metropolitan area of Sydney ; that from £450,000 to £470,000 per annum is paid in wages, and that fully 50 per cent. of these employes are engaged in dressing New Zealand timber. We have first of all the admissioni by the Minister that there is an export duty of 5s. per 100 on New Zealand timber over certain sizes. That in itself is a large impost on the industry, and it is now proposed that there shall be an import duty of 2s. 6d. per 100 on undressed timber, and of only 3s. per 100 upon dressed timber entering Australia. The difference of 6d. per 100 is not sufficient to encourage the dressing of timbers in the Commonwealth. The obvious result must be to drive this work out of the hands of Australian operatives into the hands of New Zealand workers. I believe it would be better to leave the duties as they are.

Mr Tudor:

– Is it not an anomaly that New Zealand timber should come in at a rate different from that imposed in respect of any other timber?

Mr J H CATTS:

– Not if we are short of those particular timbers. If it can be shown that Australian timbers can supply the trade now being catered for by New Zealand timbers, I shall be prepared to vote for any duties that the Minister chooses to propose with respect to timbers from the Dominion. It appears to me that this alteration will simply mean an increase in the price of timber used in Australia, but if the majority of the Committee favour the higher rate, 1 urge that there should be an increased duty upon the dressed timbers.

Mr Tudor:

– I think that should be done.

Mr J H CATTS:

– On dressed timbers there should be a duty of at least 6s. per 100.

Mr Riley:

– What nonsense; the price of timber will not go up that much.

Mr J H CATTS:

– If the honorable member, as a Protectionist, admits that the imposition of the duty will not mean an increase in the price, then he must also admit that it will not protect Australian timber.

Mr Riley:

– I am anxious to protect the workers in the industry, and the only effect of a 6s. duty would be to put men but of employment here.

Mr J H CATTS:

– Then Australian timber . would not take the place of New Zealand timber?

Mr Riley:

– In a good many cases it would not.

Mr J H CATTS:

– That shows that this is not a protective duty, and the honorable member should therefore vote with me for the present rate of 6d. per 100 super, feet on undressed New Zealand pine.

Mr Riley:

– I would rather keep it at 6d.

Mr J H CATTS:

– Hear, hear! I think this increase will drive employment from Sydney to New Zealand, and also increase the price of timber used in building. We are anxious to be able to obtain our timbers in the metropolitan areas as cheaply as possible, without damaging any industry, owing to the exorbitant rentals of the present day. If the Committee insists on increasing this duty to 2s. 6d., I askthat the duty on the dressed timber shall be increased to 6s.

Mr Tudor:

– At the present time there is only a difference of 2s. 6d. between the duties on dressed and undressed timbers. The honorable member asks for a difference of 3s.6d.

Mr J H CATTS:

– The honorable member admits that the present Tariff is not satisfactory, and since it is not competent for a private member to move in the direction I have indicated, I ask him to move that the rate be increased as I have suggested to enable a vote to be taken on the question. We are all very anxious to do what is best, and I am not taking up an attitude of opposition to the protection of this industry.. I wish to assist it, but I am anxious at the same time to do the right thing.

Mr West:

– What is the right thing?

Mr J H CATTS:

– That is what I want to know.

Mr West:

– The honorable member has been talking for half-an-hour, and yet he does not know.

Mr J H CATTS:

– Does the honorable member know what is the right thing to do?

Mr West:

– Yes.

Mr J’ H CATTS:
COOK, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Then I shall resume my seat, and allow the honorable member to explain the position.

Mr SAMPSON:
Wimmera

.- I am very pleased to find that the Minister has been doing all that he possibly can to meet the views of those who represent the dairying and fruit industries of Australia. The honorable member for Capricornia has adversely criticised the attitude Which certain Protectionist members’ of this Chamber have adopted towards this proposal. But I contend that the question of the admission of New Zealand white pine free of duty is one which stands entirely by itself. The’ Minister, strong Protectionist though he is, will recognise that a special case can be made out for the free admission of that timber in connexion with our fruit and butter industries. We must recollect that the great bulk of the cases which are used in those industries are used for the purpose of packing our products for despatch to the Old Country. It is not as if the timber imported from New Zealand competed with our own timber. Most of the former finds its way to London in the form of cases, where it has to compete with timber from all parts pf the world. It has been said that we should not attempt to introduce New Zealand white pine free until our own resources had been exhausted, and we 1 were thoroughly convinced that we could not supply a single butter-box from our own timber. But if honorable members will read the. evidence which was given before the Tariff Commission in 1906 they will see that it is not possible for us to produce butter-boxes ‘from our own timber as cheaply as it is to produce them from NewZealand white pine. The estimates which were presented to that body showed that the use of the hoop pine of Queensland would cost at least id. per box more than would be involved by the use of the white pine of New Zealand^ Seeing that the great majority of these boxes are forwarded to the London market, it is plain that we are now called upon to deal with quite a special case. Under these circumstances, I hope that the Minister, who has already intimated that he is partly favorable to the idea which has been put forward by several honorable members, will reconsider this matter during the luncheon adjournment, with1 a view’ to submitting a proposal which will enable New Zealand white pine, for use as boxes in our butter and fruit industries, to be admitted free. I am not sure that it is necessary at this stage to make any distinction between New Zealand importations and importations from the Baltic, the United States, and other places. I believe that much can be said in favour of timber being regarded as a raw material. After all, there is a great similarity between a national asset, such as a large timber supply, and a national asset such as a coal supply.

Mr W ELLIOT JOHNSON:
LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– In New Zealand measures are taken to preserve the young timber.

Mr SAMPSON:

– I am aware of that. A splendid system of afforestation has been adopted there upon which I would like to dwell. But time forbids that. I think we should provide that New Zealand white pine for use as boxes in our butter and fruit industries may be imported into Australia free of duty.

Mr ARCHIBALD:
Hindmarsh

– There seems to be a strong element of doubt in the minds of the Committee in’ regard to this item. In these circumstances, especially as we have not time to enter into the question thoroughly, and also because of the great demand which exists for timber, I think the wisest plan for us to adopt would be to retain the old duty. Consequently, I suggest that the Minister should withdraw the item. The more the last Tariff is discussed the more I am satisfied that it reflects great credit upon the Commonwealth Parliament. Hence the necessity for great care being exercised in tinkering with it. I urge upon the Minister the advisableness of withdrawing tha item.

Mr GORDON:
Boothby

.- I join with the honorable member for Hindmarsh in asking that more time should be given to the consideration of these important duties. I was very much relieved to hear the Minister say just now that he and others who have had an opportunity of going through the previous Tariff have always experienced great difficulty in understanding the timber duties. I have been struggling with them during the last two or three days, and the more I wander into the labyrinth of this forest the more I am bewildered. I certainly do not understand anything about the question which is before the Chair at the present moment, nor do I quite appreciate the alterations which the Minister has outlined. I rose chiefly to voice, in a few brief sentences, a protest which has been sent to me from South Australia. In doing so I wish it to be distinctly understood that I hold no brief for the timber merchants who have forwarded their protest I merely wish to say that I think the timber industry of Australia is deserving of consideration and of protection. What that measure of protection ought to be, I am not prepared to suggest at the present moment. But the timber merchants of South Australia wish to enter their protest against the proposed alteration of this duty. They contend that on apple cases the proposed extra duty will amount to 7s. 6d. per 100 cases, and as many thousands of these cases are used yearly they urge-that trie impost will be a very serious one. They also point out that -

Cabinetmakers and other large users of this timber will also suffer, because there is no other timber so suitable for cheap articles of furniture that can be obtained at equal prices, and the merchants submit that there is no justification in making the alteration, because the duty is not wanted for revenue purposes, nor is protection needed for Queensland p’ines, seeing that the sawmillers in that State cannot supply much, if any, beyond their own State requirements; and South Australia has no timber of its own.

They further claim that the matter should be reconsidered with a view to retaining the old duty; the Tariff in their opinion being already sufficiently high to afford adequate protection to, without interfering with, these rural industries.

Mr WEST:
East Sydney

.- I think that the Government would be acting wisely if they withdrew this item, because there is not a city in Australia to-day in which there does not exist an urgent demand for timber. I am a Protectionist, and I do not wish honorable members to think that I am in any way a renegade to my fiscal principles. The representatives of Queensland have no need to worry about the admission of New Zealand white pine into Australia free of duty, because all the timber which Queensland can send to New South Wales, that State can take from her. At the present time the demand for timber is so active that it is being taken out ofthe ships’ holds, placed upon the wharfs, and carted direct to the buildings in which it is being used. No attention whatever is being paid to the seasoning of timber., As honorable members apparently cannot make up their minds upon this question, the Minister should withdraw the item and allow us to deal with it when our thoughts have clarified somewhat.

Mr HEDGES:
Fremantle

.- I consider that the discussion upon this item has proved that, so far as the timber duties are concerned, we made a good job of the Tariff when we last considered it. The Tariff on that occasion was given more conssideration than we are able to give to this proposal. . I believe that it would do no harm to leave white pine dutiable at 6d. per 100 superficial feet, as it is at present ; but I hope that whatever is done will benefit the producers of butter and fruit alike. I think there should be no distinction made between them. I have a communication from the Western Australian Fruit-growers’’ Association in which they strongly protest against any extra duty on timber for fruit cases. They contend that it is . almost impossible to secure satisfactory cases from the use of the local hardwood. I know that the attempt has been made, and that it has not been considered successful. At one time I thought it might be better, in dealing with this item, to make provision for rebates, but I am afraid that that would cost too much for supervision. I direct attention to the reference in this item to hickory felloes. I have seen hickory rims, but I never knew hickory to be cut’ into felloes. If honorable members are prepared to come to a vote I shall not speak at greater length, but I hope theMinister will state that it is his intention to retain the present duty on white pine.

Mr FINLAYSON:
Brisbane

.- I oppose the proposal to admit New Zealand’ white pine free of duty, for reasons other; than those which have so far been advanced.: I take it that the mam object of this pro* posed alteration of the Tariff is to protect and assist industries that need protection and assistance. The party on this side of the House are anxious that the workers in industries receiving protection under the Tariff shall share in the profits derived from the prosecution of those industries. I think that we are agreed that an industry which does not give the workers engaged in it a fair return for their labour is not entitled, at least, to further protection under the Tariff. To show how little the dairying industry is entitled to any consideration in the shape of a remission of duties or increased protection, I submit for the consideration of honorable members the following figures for 1909 taken from the Commonwealth Year-Book No. 4. It will be seen that I have compared the dairying industry with groups of other industries whose output is approximately of the same value, and I ask honorable members to study the contrast which the figures disclose : -

It will be seen from these figures that the dairying industry sweats its employes and pays them miserable wages. It does not, therefore, deserve consideration from this House. There is no industry in Australia that is more in need of reform in regard to its wages, hours, and conditions of labour than is the dairying industry. I am not prepared to vote to-day, or on any other day, for further assistance by means of the Tariff to this industry until those engaged in it pay fair wages and give reasonable conditions to their employes. It is somewhat disgraceful that this is about the only industry in connexion with which .there is no Wages Board to fix rates of pay and conditions of labour. Those engaged in this industry strongly object to their employes forming themselves into a union. I suppose it was more difficult to organize the Rural Workers’ Union than any other body of workers in the Commonwealth, and yet the employers in this industry come to this House and ask for the remission of a miserable duty of 6d. per 100 feet on butter-box timber.

Mr Sampson:

– The honorable member considers that the dairying industry is of little value to Australia?

Mr FINLAYSON:

– No; I look upon it as one of the most beneficial and useful industries we have.

Mr Sampson:

– I suppose that is the reason the honorable member is trying to help it?

Mr FINLAYSON:

– Until the dairying industry gives a better return for their labour to those employed in it, it is not deserving of protection from the people of Australia Before this industry can make a legitimate claim for Tariff assistance, it should put its house in order and be prepared to give the employes in it reasonable wages and fair conditions of labour. It might very easily do so, because it is one of the most profitable industries in Australia. I say that it is to the credit of those who are carrying on the industry that they have developed it in the way they have done, and seeing they have done so well during past years, it is to their disgrace that they should have treated their employes so atrociously as they have done. With regard to the duties proposed on other timbers, I may say that I am utterly opposed to the suggestion to increase the dutv in one case from 2s. 6d. to 4s., and .in another from 2s. 6d. to 5s. I am heartily in accord with the honorable member for

Parramatta on this subject. I consider that the fruit industry is deserving of great consideration. My main objection to the proposed increased duties is that there is a timber ring operating in Australia to-day that has forced the price of timber up until what cost from 12s. to 14s. some little time ago, costs now anything from 25s. up to 30s. The timber ring has taken advantage of the great demand for timber, and the comparative difficulty of getting supplies, to force up prices, and if we are going to increase these duties by1s. 6d. and 2s. we shall be only saying to the timber ring, “ You can now put up your prices by another1s. 6d. or 2s.” I am against handicapping the public, who have to buy timber at the present extortionate prices, by imposing a duty amounting to an additional1s. 6d. We all know that every additional penny of duty is an excuse to raise the price to the consumer, who always has to pay in the long run. I hope the Minister will adhere to the duties as they at present stand, with the exception of the alteration in regard to New Zealand white pine.

Progress reported.

page 4373

SEAMEN’S COMPENSATION BILL

Message received from the Senate, intimating that it had agreed to the amendment recommended by HisExcellency the Governor-General in this Bill.

page 4373

SUPPLY BILL (No. 4)

Bill returned from the Senate, without request.

page 4373

PAPERS

Mr. KING O’MALLEY laid upon the table the following papers : -

Lands Acquisition Act - Land acquired under, at -

Bellbird, New South Wales - for Commonwealth purposes.

Parramatta, New South Wales - for Commonwealth purposes.

page 4373

GOVERNMENT HOUSE LUNCHEON

Mr FISHER:
ALP

– As honorable members know, we are to be the guests of His Excellency the Governor-General at luncheon at Government House this afternoon. Cabs have been provided for honorable members ; and Mr. Speaker will afterwards resume the Chair at an hour most convenient.

page 4373

SUPPLY BILL (No. 4)

Assent reported.

page 4373

QUESTION

TARIFF

In Committee of Ways and Means:

Consideration resumed of item 303, Timber (vide preceding column).

Mr TUDOR:
Minister of Trade and Customs · Yarra · ALP

– I trust that honorable members will come to a decision on this item. If they do not desire to accept die proposals in the schedule, I shall move to make New Zealand white pine dutiable at 6d. per 100 superficial feet, and all other New Zealand timbers dutiable at 6d., 2s., or 2s. 6d. per 100 superficial feet, according to size. If honorable members desire to revert to the old duty it would be better for them to defeat the proposal in the schedule straight away, and allow the business to proceed.

Mr KELLY:
Wentworth

.- Honorable members seem to have overlooked the fact that there is a regular boom in the building trade in every capital in Australia. If we interfere with its raw material by making it difficult to obtain timber, we shall disorganize the industry.

Mr John Thomson:

– What about our own timber for building? There is none better in the world.

Mr KELLY:

– I find that the Queenslanders are actually writing to Sydney to obtain New Zealand timber. I have here an order for 69,000 cases of white pine, showing conclusively that in the butter trade the Queenslanders are wanting this New Zealand timber. I have here another order for 54,400 cases, and also a letter stating that 350,000 cases had been sent to Brisbane from Auckland. I believe the Committee are anxious to leave existing conditions as they are, especially remembering that not only the fruit trade, the rabbit trade, and the butter trade, but also the building trade throughout Australia depend upon the maintenance of the existing duties, or on their not being greatly disturbed.

According to the facts at my disposal, to alter the duties in the way proposed in the schedule by the Minister would drive out of employment in Sydney thousands of men who are employed in planing and handling New Zealand timber. I implore the Committee not to interfere with the building trade of Sydney, which is employing tens of thousands of artisans. The Minister “proposes to leave the white pine duty as it was in the old Tariff. That meets the objections of the butter-box people completely, but it only affects about half the trade. There is great pressure in Sydney in the building trade, which is now hampered for the want of material, and an absolute block will occur if further supplies are stopped. I appeal to the Committee to vote out the proposed alterations of the old Tariff, so that we may get this business through. If we do not deal with it in that way, I can see this Chamber sitting for another twenty-four hours discussing the timber duties.

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:
Hume

– Does the Minister propose to accept the decision of the Committee as to whether the duty shall remain as it was in the old Tariff, or does he propose any alterations, and, if so, what? The timber duties present a very difficult problem, and I find from those interested that the proposals made by the Minister do not give satisfaction at all. We shall have to have some duties higher than at present, and others somewhat lower.

The CHAIRMAN:

-The amendment proposed by the honorable member for Capricornia would increase a proposed charge upon the people, and in consequence is out of order.

Amendment (by Mr. Tudor) proposed-

That the portion of the first paragraph from “ (b) “ to “ Free “ be left out, with a view to insert in lieu thereof - “ (b) New Zealand White Pine, undressed, n.e.i., per 100 super feet., 6d.”

Motion (by Mr Anstey) negatived -

That the questionbenow put.

Mr GROOM:
DARLING DOWNS, QUEENSLAND · PROT; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917; IND from 1931; UAP from 1934

.- The Minister has tried to meet us fairly, and we might well accept his proposition. Those who have been very much interested in the duty have kept quiet, so far, in order to prevent delay. The Minister tried to meet those interested in butter boxes, but an objection was raised regarding those engaged in the fruit and other industries. The Minister then generously tried to meet them by giving them exactly the same privileges as were given in the butter industry. The Committee should remember that the general scheme of these duties was intended to be a protection to the timber industry of Australia.

Mr Kelly:

– The duties would have disorganized the building trade.

Mr GROOM:

– Certainly not. The whole building trade of Australia will not be disorganized by a falling off in the importation of certain pine woods from New Zealand. That is a monstrous proposition. The Australian timber industry gives employment to thousands of men. It is not a mushroom industry, but is paying good wages throughout Australia, and doing justice between man and man. It is alleged by one or two that they desire consideration in regard to certain timber, but the Minister’s proposal is a faircompromise, which I hope the Committee will accept. I am amazed at the honorable member for Brisbane, who was elected as a Protectionist, denying protection to the saw-milling and timber-getting industry of Australia, and attacking those engaged in the dairying industry in such an unjust manner. I am sure that his remarks were not received with sympathy by honorable members. .

Mr ANSTEY:
Bourke

.- This matter has now been discussed for hours, and no finality can be arrived at without taking a vote. We find disagreement everywhere. Even Free Traders like the honorable members for Parramatta and Franklin are disagreeing. The Minister has tried to meet the wishes of the Committee, and has expressed himself ready to accept itsdecision, so that we might as well divide.

Mr Thomas Brown:

– We should not have been in this position had it not been for the discussion.

Mr ANSTEY:

– If we discussed the matter for another day, we should not be in any better position. I have been sitting silent, but if others are going to talk, I shall take my part, and I can, if necessary, speak for hours.

Mr McWILLIAMS:
Franklin

– As the timber duties largely affect Tasmania, and my electorate in particular, I feel under an obligation to say a few words. It is absurd to contend that we cannot supply timber for the fruit cases needed on the mainland. During the last twenty years we have exported probably over 15,000,000 bushels of apples, in cases made of Tasmanian hardwood. New South Wales fruit-growers find that they cannot get timber from Tasmania because one man needs only enough to make 200 cases, and another to make 50 cases, perhaps ; but were they to co-operate as the dairymen have done, and give reasonable orders, they could be supplied from Tasmania for1d. per case less than they pay for cases made from other imported timber. It is said that it would injure the rabbit export trade to put a duty on imported pine, but Tasmania sends to New Zealand timber to make crates for the carriage of rabbits, while New South Wales and Victoria import pine for the same purpose. The timber industry of Tasmania to-day is stagnant. The largest and one of the best mills in Australia has been sold recently for 7s; in the£1, and has not paid a dividend for the past five or six years, because Australia is flooded with Oregon, and Tasmanian timber has to be exported to find a market. The honorable member for Hume in 1907 proposed a duty of1s. 6d. per 100 feet on Oregon, but as the result of a combination between the honorable member for Barrier and the then honorable member for Kooyong, representing the miners and proprietors of Broken Hill, it was reduced to 6d. The duty on oregon does not exceed 6 or7½ per cent. The timber used in the Broken Hill mines, if supplied from Tasmania, would keep our mills going for the greater part of the year.

Mr Hedges:

– Tasmanian timber cannot be used at Broken Hill.

Mr McWILLIAMS:

– That was a gag which was employed successfully on the last occasion. Every bit of timber in the Mount Lyell mine is local timber, and the directorate of that mine is practically the same as that of the Broken Hill” Proprietary.

Mr Spence:

– The nature of the “ country “ is different.

Mr McWILLIAMS:

– In the wettest mine in Australia, and perhaps the most dangerous so far as the “ country “ is concerned, all the timber used during the last ten or twelve years has been Tasmanian timber, and Tasmanian timber was largelyused before that.

Mr Anstey:

– What duties does the honorable member want?

Mr Mcwilliams:

-I do not ask for any concessions for the timber industry, but I say that it should receive the same assistance and protection as every other. Most of the mills in southern Tasmania have been sold within recent years, or are being offered for sale. After a long struggle we have obtained a Wages Board for the mill men. This will be a great boon, but those of us who have had the facts brought under our notice know that the timber industry of Tasmania is not to-day in a posi tion to pay the wages which honorable members would like to see paid. Were it a Melbourne or Sydney industry it would be protected by duties of 25 or 35 per cent. But because it is a bush industry, and its representatives do not fill the Queen’s Hall, lobbying for assistance, it does not receive the attention which is its due. When the proposal of the honorable member for Hume was under discussion, the Prime Minister said -

If we are to have Protection, let us have Protection all round, and especially give some attention to the pioneer who is doing so much to open up the country.

I ask him if the pioneer has ceased to do this ? I ask the Minister of Home Affairs, who then pleaded so eloquently for the industry in his district, what has changed his attitude? The honorable member for Herbert then urged that the men working in the bush should receive as much consideration as those working in the factories. The timber used in Broken Hill alone, if produced in Australia instead of being imported, would be sufficient to give constant employment to 1,000 men. We have been dealing with various anomalies, and have been granting Protective duties to assist such magnificent industries as those of vinegar making, and cardboard and matchmaking. We spent some hours early this morning in determining what encouragement should be given to the great industry of hemming pocket handkerchiefs, yet we find many honorable members are unprepared to give any consideration to a great rural industry which, if properly developed, must provide employment to many thousands of men.

Mr J H Catts:

– Does the honorable member say that the men in this industry are not fully occupied ?

Mr McWILLIAMS:

– The mills have not been working full handed, and the men have not been able to obtain the wages they ought to be receiving.

Mr J H Catts:

– Then there is no shortage of labour in that industry.

Mr.McWilliams. - No. Owing. largely to the fact that Australia is flooded with timber from Japan, which is got by men receiving very small wages, and from Europe and America, our own timber gettersare in a very grievous condition. I have never pleaded for high duties, but if Protection is to be the national policy of Australia, why should we grant it to some industries and deny it to others? We have reached a critical stage in the history of the timber industry from the point of view of not only the employers, but the employes. The wages of the men are to be fixed by a Wages Board, and the award of that Board will be based very largely upon the earnings and profits of the mills. These men, as the result of the imposition of Protective duties, have to pay increased prices for everything they use, yet are denied a full measure of Protection for the industry in which they are engaged. Last year we imported timber valued at over £2,500,000. Such an importation in respect of any other industry would have led at once to an outcry that Protection had failed, and that increased duties were necessary. With the exception of tobacco, spirits, and one or two other items, in no case did our importations last year reach this level. Our own timber getting industry is being practically knocked out by the imported article, and yet the Committee, apparently, is not prepared to grant assistance to it. No one works under harder conditions than does the man in the bush. In Tasmania, for seven or eight months in the year, he is wet all day long, and the state of the industry is such that he does not receive a fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work.

Mr LAIRD SMITH:
DENISON, TASMANIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– The Minister’s proposal will meet our requirements.

Mr McWILLIAMS:

– He is not proposing to assist the saw-mill industry of Tasmania in the only possible way - by giving those engaged in it the same measure of Protection as is accorded to other industries. I should have failed in my duty had I allowed to pass unchallenged statements that have been made to the effect that these duties must be removed, because Australia is not in a position to supply its own wants.

Mr LAIRD SMITH:
DENISON, TASMANIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– The Minister is willing to allow the duty of 6d. to go on.

Mr McWILLIAMS:

– That is not equal to 6 per cent. If we are to have Protection, why not give the timber-getting industry the same rates of duty as we have passed to-day to encourage the local manufacture of formalin and other industries ?

Mr THOMAS BROWN:
Calare

– This is another of those hoaryheaded old Protectionist items that have been discussed from time to time since the original Federal Tariff was submitted. Again and again these requests for special favours for the timber industry have been made to us, honorable members interested in the timber- getting and sawmilling industry, and who have no regard for other industries dependent upon them, being invariably anxious to have competing timber shut out of Australia. As was pointed out on a previous occasion, to comply with the request of the honorable member who has just resumed his seat would be to penalize the mining industry, which is of far greater importance to Australia than is that of timber-getting. The honorable member for Darling, who is familiar with the timber-getting industry of Tasmania, and also with the mining industry, tells me that even if we granted all that the honorable member for Franklin has asked, we should not benefit Tasmania to the extent of a pound, whereas we should seriously penalize the mining industryof the Commonwealth. The use of Oregon in the Broken Hill mines is a matter of life and death to the miners concerned, yet the honorable member for Franklin would have a heavy duty imposed upon it. A special class of timber is necessary for making butter boxes. It must be free from resin and sap, which would be quickly absorbed by the butter, and it is found that New Zealand white pine is the most suitable. Then, again, the fruit-growing industry requires special consideration. Whilst fruitgrowers are too individualistic to reap the full advantage that is obtainable from a little co-operation, that is no reason why we should punish them by placing a heavy impost on the timber they require for fruit cases. Large quantities of timber are also used in making the crates in which rabbits are exported, so that we should penalize yet another industry by complying with the request made by the honorable member who has just resumed his seat.

Mr Higgs:

– The additional expense, would be only about1d. per box.

Mr THOMAS BROWN:

– That additional impost would make a very serious difference in the returns to those engaged in the butter, fruit, and rabbit industries. I read in the Sydney daily newspapers a statement to the effect that as soon as the present schedule was introduced, the men engaged in the timber trade in that city held a meeting and determined to pass on theincreased duty to the consumer - in other words, to pass it on to dairymen, fruit-growers, exporters of rabbits, and others, who find imported timber absolutely necessary for their requirements. At this meeting it was agreed that the timber charges should be re-adjusted by making the following additions : - Half -inch timber,1s. per 100 feet extra ;5/8 -in. and3/8-in.,1s. 6d. per 100 feet extra; and 1-in. and over, 2s. per 100 feet. These extra charges relate to lines that have hitherto been admitted at the 6d. rate. Another point to be remembered in this connexion is that the suburbs of Sydney are being rapidly extended ; that small blocks are being sold on the deferredpayment system to the workers, and that various firms are erecting on such blocks cheap dwellings made from timber of the class now under consideration. The firm of Messrs. Hudson Brothers were the pioneers of those enterprises, and other firms have developed a large trade. Now it is proposed, by means of the Tariff, to penalize, not only these firms and their employes, but the poorer sections of the community who are endeavouring to get homes of their own. At the same time, it does not appear to me that the Tariff will confer £1 of benefit on the mill-owners of Tasmania or elsewhere. I hope the Minister will see the wisdom of making some further concessions. The original Tariff permitted the development of new interests ; and, if a great injustice is not to be done, we shall have to allow the duties to remain as they were. If the Minister cannot be brought to take that view, I hope the Committee will give me their support.

Mr HEDGES:
Fremantle

– I desire to say a few words in case the Minister or the’ Committee are influenced by the Statements of the honorable member for Franklin. There are many reasons why Tasmanian hardwood cannot be used at Broken Hill, Kalgoorlie, and other inland places. The first is that the weight makes it impossible to pay the freight with profit, and, further, the cost of handling in the stopes is too high. The mine-owners are to-day paying a bigger price for oregon than for Tasmanian hardwood; and that fact, in itself, is sufficient proof that the market is open to the latter at any time. Tasmanian hardwood shrinks¾-inch in 10 inches, and twists into all shapes when exposed to the heat of the sun in the interior. I am speaking with authority, since, for a period of two years, I had the contract for timbering the Broken Hill Proprietary Company’s mine. During that time, owing to a scarcity oforegon, Tasmanian hardwood was tried ; but the expense proved so great that the mine-owners never desire to see it again. The honorable member for Franklin has told us that the men who procure this wood are wet through from morning until night; and we may well ask ourselves what sort of haulage this means to the horses and bullocks. We cannot expect work to be done at reasonable rates in a country like that, and, therefore, the mine-owners, in view of the nature of the wood, cannot afford to pay the price. The honorable member also told us that some £2,500,000 worth of soft wood is imported each year ; but we must remember that this wood1 is used for ceilings, linings, floorings, and a variety of purposes for which Tasmanian hardwood is entirely unsuitable. The difference in the railway freight alone would make it impossible to use Tasmanian hardwood for the mines at Broken Hill ; and if honorable members had the handling of a 7-ft. length of 10 inch x 10 inch in a mine, they would realize the truth of what I am now saying. I hope the Minister will not be influenced by “hifalutin” or pathetic appeals. This Tasmanian hardwood has been produced for thirty or forty years ; and yet we are told that last week one of the biggest mills was sold at 7s. in the £1.

Mr Mcwilliams:

– A Western Australian firm has bought the mill in order that this hardwood may take the place of jarrah.

Mr HEDGES:

– It is more likely that they have purchased the mill for the sake of the machinery. I hope the Minister will revert to the old Tariff, which was carefully thought out, and not press his proposal on the Committee.

Mr BAMFORD:
Herbert

.- As the representative of, perhaps, the largest timber district in Australia, I should like to say a few words, more especially as I have been referred to by more than one member as advocating a higher duty. When the timber duties were being considered in the first Tariff. I contended that some Protection was necessary to put the industry on its feet, and keep it there. At the present time, although I represent a. timber constituency, in which, beyond Cairns and along the coast, there are many millions of feet of pine, hickory, and so forth, I do not advocate a higher duty. This timber is the raw material of several other trades ; and it cannot be made dutiable without penalizing those trades. The building industry, at the present time, is suffering heavily ; and all the timber and saw-mills in Queensland are unable to supply local requirements, much less develop an export trade. During my last election campaign I visited Atherton, and some people interested in the numerous saw-mills there were in favour of the imposition of a higher duty. One of their reasons was disclosed in a Sydney newspaper clipping, which stated that a vessel had arrived there with something like 3,000.000 feet of timber. I suppose that there are ships arriving with large cargoes of timber every week, and that fact alone proves that Queensland cannot meet the demand. Another argument used in favour of a higher duty was that the freights are so high - up to £4 per 1,000 feet, I think - that the timber producers cannot reach the market in the south. I asked them if they thought for a moment that any body of intelligent men would impose such a duty as would equalize that freight.

Mr Fairbairn:

– Does the honorable member regard us as intelligent men when he talks like that?

Mr BAMFORD:

– Of course, I bow to the honorable member for Fawkner; but, still, I may be pardoned for having an opinion of my own, and for estimating my intelligence as highly as, perhaps, he estimates his. Under the circumstances I agree with the honorable member for Calare and others that the duty ought to remain; but I ask what on earth is the good; of 6d. per 100 superficial feet as a protective duty in the case of New Zealand pine!

Mr Tudor:

– That is what the duty was before.

Mr BAMFORD:

– I say that it is absolutely useless.

Mr Tudor:

– Then why does the honorable member propose to vote for it?

Mr BAMFORD:

– I do not know that I shall vote for it. This is a question that should be thoroughly discussed ; and the attempt of the Government to rush the business through does not meet with my approbation. I desire to impress on the Committee that, although I represent a timber district, I am not here to advocate a higher duty than that now existing.

Mr KELLY:
Wentworth

.- In order to crystallize the opinion of the Committee, and to have a second vote at once, without discussion, I move -

That the amendment be amended by leaving out the word “ White.”

The object of this amendment is to place the Tariff, in regard to this item, precisely as it was previously, and, therefore, if the amendment be accepted, I shall ask this Minister to make all the necessary consequential amendments.

Mr HIGGS:
Capricornia

.-I should not have risen but for the fact that some Protectionists may be under a misapprehension, owing to some of the remarks that have been made. I should like honorable members to realize, before they cast a vote in favour of this proposal, that there are probably 30,000,000 or 40,000,00 feet of timber, apart from the white pine, which will come in at the lower rate of duty.

Mr KELLY:
Wentworth

.- The Minister, I understand, will make the consequential amendments, and I think he may be trusted to see that Protectionists are not deceived.

Question - That the word “ White,” proposed to be left out, stand part of the amendment - put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 38

NOES: 17

Majority … … 21

In division :

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Amendment of the amendment negatived.

Mr MASSY-GREENE:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP; NAT from 1917

.- The Minister’s amendment will now read - ;” New Zealand white pine undressed, in.e.i., per 100 super, feet, 6d.” The words “in all sizes” should be added to make paragraph b read exactly the same as it was in the old Tariff, but with the word “ white “ inserted.

Mr Tudor:

– I assure the honorable member that the amendment, as it stands, will effect what the Committee desire. If there is any doubt about it I shall have the matter attended to.

Mr KELLY:
Wentworth

– I regret that during the last division a number of honorable members made statements at variance with the facts regarding the position with which the Committee was then confronted. A certain statement was made to the honorable member for Denison by an honorable member for Queensland. A good deal of trickery was used in order to deceive the Committee.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The honorable member is not in. order.

Mr KELLY:

– I withdraw the statement. I understand that the interests affected are going to be protected by the Minister, but the point I wish to urge is that honorable members representing butter districts and timber districts where the mills are not able to supply existing requirements combined to ignore the requirements of the building trade of the great cities of Australia. The positions of tens of thousands of workmen in those cities will be jeopardized as the result of the callous selfishness displayed by those gentlemen during the last few minutes. Under the arrangement I made with the Minister the idea was to test the question as between the old Tariff and his present proposal ; but it was denied all over the Chamber that the division was being taken on that point. I protest against that way of transacting business. Some honorable members appear to be anxious to take a vote immediately on the Minister’s amendment, and one urgent reason why it should be assented to at once is that, if it is not accepted without delay, We, shall have some more whispers going round the Committee to mislead members, and, perhaps, jeopardize still further the interests of the workmen of Australia.

Mr THOMAS BROWN:
Calare

– I must express my great disappointment at the action of certain honorable members who have been fighting the Minister all the morning. Under paragraph b of. the old Tariff all New Zealand pine was allowed to come in at the 6d. rate. By the vote just taken, that is limited to New Zealand white pine, and all the other pines which have been coming in heretofore, and being used by fruit box-makers, and in the housebuilding trade,, and in a hundred and one other industries, have been shut out. The butter men, as soon as they secured the admission of the particular white pine in which they were interested, went over to the other side and knocked out all the other interests which I have enumerated. I am’ disappointed that men should be so selfish as to consider only their particular interests, and to refuse consideration to much bigger ones. If the last vote was taken under a misapprehension, honorable members have now an opportunity to correct it.

Mr Tudor:

– Should the sub-item be struck out, New Zealand white pine will be dutiable at the rates applying to other timber.

Mr THOMAS BROWN:

– In that case, I shall vote to strike it out. so that the users of butter boxes shall be on. the same terms as every one else.

Mr FULLER:
Illawarra

.- The honorable member for Wentworth has suggested that some trickery has been taking place ; that there has been, a combination of the representatives of dairying districts on behalf of the butter makers. Speaking for myself, I know nothing of it. I came into the chamber only just before the vote was taken, and asked you, Mr. Chairman, what the question was. You said that it was the acceptance of the proposition made by the Minister some time this morning in connexion with white pine. I therefore gave my vote without consulting any one.

Mr GROOM:
Darling Downs

.- The honorable member for Wentworth has suggested that I misled the honorable member for Denison, but I did not misrepresent the position to him in any way. The honorable member for Brisbane put a question to me, to which I replied, but the honorable member for Denison voted with a knowledge of what he was doing.

Mr LAIRD SMITH:
DENISON, TASMANIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– I went to the Minister, and got a full explanation from him. The honorable member for Darling Downs merely confirmed what he said.

Mr SAMPSON:
Wimmera

.- I believe that the Minister’s compromise between the old and the new duty is a very good one. I do not indorse what has been said about some who voted with the Government on the last division, although I voted on this side.

Mr J H CATTS:
Cook

.- I shall support the honorable member for Calare in the endeavour to make New Zealand pine dutiable at 2s. 6d., and I hope that those who, like the honorable member for Capricornia, are so desirous of protecting Australian timber will give a true Protectionist vote. The combination which carried the last vote was-

Mr Higgs:

– Unholy 1

Mr J H CATTS:

– Yes, and, in some respects most selfish. -Free Traders have voted with Protectionists to secure an advantage for the butter makers and the fruit-growers, but refuse to give a like advantage to the workers in the cities, who cannot get houses of their own because of the high price of building material. I am assured by the Minister that if this timber is made dutiable at 2s. 6d., he will propose a duty of 5s. on dressed timber, which will give the protection necessary to secure in their employment those now engaged in dressing it here. I hope that the honorable member for Maribyrnong will vote with us on this occasion. He is a good Protectionist until it comes to butter boxes, and then he is a Free Trader.

Mr Fenton:

– I use my own judgment.

Mr W ELLIOT JOHNSON:
LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– I hope that honorable members will not, in the heat caused by disappointment, vote to make white pine dutiable at 2s. 6d. There are four points which they should consider. The first is that we have not in Australia timber suitable for the purposes for which New Zealand white pine is used. Secondly, because pf the difference between the duty on undressed white pine and that on dressed white pine, employment is now given to thousands of Australian workmen, and machinery of great value is used. This pine is employed largely in the construction of working men’s homes, and it would be a severe blow to them to have the duty increased. Thirdly, Baltic pine is dressed by foreigners, in their own country, and undressed New Zealand white pine should, therefore, have a preference if we cannot get both in free. Fourthly, if the duty on New Zealand white pine were increased to 2s. 6d. per 100 feat superficial, thousands of Australian workmen would lose the employment given in the dressing of it here, and the working of it up into a condition enabling it to be used for building and other purposes.

Mr MASSY-GREENE:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP; NAT from 1917

– There is no substitute in Australia for New Zealand white pine.

Mr Thomas Brown:

– For the making of butter boxes !

Mr Higgs:

– What about Queensland hoop pine?

Mr MASSY-GREENE:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP; NAT from 1917

– About 40 per cent, of the New Zealand white pine which comes here is used for butter boxes, and 60 per cent, in the construction of artisans’ cottages. That pine comes in. at the lowest rate. Kauri and red deal are valuable timbers, which are used for joinery work, and are rightly charged at a higher rate. The Minister said at the opening of the discussion that he believed that the proposal before us would give effect to the intention of Parliament when originally imposing timber duties. We cannot get locally timber suitable for the purposes for which New Zealand white pine is used. That is the true Protectionist stand-point, and I gave a Protectionist vote.

Mr THOMAS BROWN:
Calare

– It is all very well for the apologists for the butter industry to put before the Committee the phase of the question just stated by the honorable member for Richmond; but it is not a correct. view of the matter. It is stated that of the importations of white pine about 43 per cent, is used in making butter boxes ; but there are large importations of other pines, which have been excluded by the vote just given ; and, to the extent to which they have been excluded, the building industry, as well as those who cater for the fruit and rabbit industries, have been penalized. I am surprised that those interested in dairying should be prepared, under the guise of fighting this Tariff - in order to assist other industries - to make terms with the Minister

The CHAIRMAN:

– The honorable member must not deal with that matter.

Mr THOMAS BROWN:

– I regret that I shall not be in order in doing so; but when it comes to a question of gaining an advantage for one industry, to the detriment of others, I do not intend to be caught. I shall, therefore, vote on this occasion to put all on an equal footing.

Mr HIGGS:
Capricornia

– Free Trade members constantly make the same speech in regard to Protectionist proposals, and speak of our robbing one industry for the benefit of another. Where was the building industry, to which the honorable member for Wentworth has referred, prior to the adoption of a Protectionist policy for Australia ? In those days we had practically no building industry in any of the States, whereas we now have all-round prosperity. It is true that people are building largely in the suburbs of Sydney, as well as in practically every large city in Australia, but the demand for more house accommodation, is due to the fact that, as the result of our Protectionist policy, ample employment is offering. A great deal of our increased prosperity is also attributable, as I am reminded, to Labour legislation, and that legislation would not have been possible without a Protectionist Tariff. I hope that honorable members will adhere to the item.

Mr KELLY:
Wentworth

.- The honorable member for Capricornia is quite right in attributing the great increase in the building trade in the capital cities of Australia to Protection and Labour legislation. The Almighty has been encouraged by Tariffs and Labour legislation to grant beneficent seasons to Australia, and, in that way, production and enterprise have been increased throughout the Commonwealth. But if we are to have Protection, why not have it all round ? Why should an industry employing 40,000 or 50,000 Australians meet with, not only scant consideration in this Chamber, but with something approaching chicanery? Why should there be “logrolling” between interests so divergent?

The CHAIRMAN:

– The honorable member must withdraw the word “ logrolling.”

Mr KELLY:

– I do so.; but we have just seen consummated a rather remarkable alliance between honorable members who wanted, first of all, to keep out all New Zealand pine, and others who only wanted to get in the particular variety of New Zealand pine which the farmers whom they represent require for butter-box making.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The honorable member must deal with the question before the Chair.

Mr KELLY:

– Then I am sorry that so much has got into Hansard to which I am unable to reply. I suggest to my honorable friends who share my indignation as to the method in which this business has been transacted- - those who feel that we owe some duty to artisans working in our great cities, as well as to prosperous farmers in rural districts - that we shall not necessarily improve our position materially, if, merely to score off the butter-making side of this unholy combination, we play the game of the timbergrowing side of it. We can test the question by moving to insert after the word “pine” in the. item as it now stands, “ New Zealand white pine undressed, n.e.i.,” the words “ including rimu and kauri.” We shall then revert to the position under the old Tariff. I wish particularly to have it on record that this Committee has ignored the claims of artisans engaged in building operations in the great Australian cities, and especially in the city from which I have the honour to come. I move -

That the amendment be amended by inserting after the word “ Pine “ the words “ including Rimu and Kauri.”

Mr TUDOR:
Minister of Trade and Customs · Yarra · ALP

– The Ministry intend to vote against this amendment, which is much on the lines of the proposition last negatived. I trust that, since we have discussed this item for some hours, honorable members will proceed to a vote as soon as possible, as I, for one, certainly do not desire that we shall have another all-night sitting.

Mr W ELLIOT JOHNSON:
LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– The honorable member for Richmond questioned the accuracy of a statement made by me to the Committee regarding the use of certain New Zealand timbers, but persons engaged in the business, whom I have since had an opportunity to consult, inform me that my statement was absolutely correct. They inform me that timbers which I said were used largely in the erection of artisans’ dwellings are so used, and that the timber which the honorable member for Richmond said was used for joinery purposes, is instead used principally for flooring and lining in the cheaper classes of artisans’ homes.

Mr J H CATTS:
Cook

.- I suggested that we should take such action as would place the whole of these. New Zealand pines on the dutiable list, but I am prepared to accept the amendment: moved by the honorable member for Wentworth, which would place other New

Zealand pines under the duty of 6d. per 100 super feet. I hope that those who were so ready to offer a concession to the dairy farmers will be prepared to enable other sections of the community to take advantage of the same arrangement.

Mr GORDON:
Boothby

.- I intend to accept the compromise offered by the Minister. When he made that offer earlier in the afternoon I thought it a very fair one, but I voted as I did on the last division because the Committee seemed to be so confused that I felt it would be better to go back and stand by the old Tariff until we were in a better position to discuss these timber duties as a whole and to arrive at a definite decision with respect to them.

Mr SAMPSON:
Wimmera

.- Having already voted on this question, it is really, in ray opinion, a waste of time to pursue it further.

Mr Kelly:

– I desire to know whether the honorable member is in order in saying that I am wasting the time of the Committee in moving an amendment which is to test the opinion of honorable members on a question which it is claimed has not been properly decided.

The CHAIRMAN:

– It is not parliamentary to say that an honorable member is wasting the time of the Committee.

Mr SAMPSON:

– I withdraw the words I used, and say that, in my opinion, no good purpose will be served by continuing to take divisions on a question that has already been definitely settled. I should have preferred a broader interpretation, but I think the compromise is a fair one.

Mr.PALMER (Echuca) [5.2]. - I desire to put my position before the Committee; and I remind honorable members that this is the first time I have spoken on the Tariff. I intend to support the compromise offered. I voted for the amendment moved by the honorable member for Wentworth, because I thought at the time that it would be better to revert to the original Tariff. That amendment having been rejected, I am prepared to accept the compromise.

Question - That the words proposed to be inserted be so inserted (Mr. Kelly’s amendment of Mr. Tudor’ s amendment) - put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 12

NOES: 46

Majority … … 34

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Amendment of the amendment negatived.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr SAMPSON:
Wimmera

.- I draw the attention of the Committee to the fact that a duty is imposed on elm hubs, felloes of hickory, and spokes ; and I should like to know whether any of these are produced in Australia; and, if so, whether they are satisfactory?

Mr Fisher:

– Yes.

Mr SAMPSON:

– We ought to have some further information. We met late in the afternoon, and, perhaps, there has not been an opportunity to discuss some of the items as fully as we should have liked. But we are now faced with the proposal to impose a 10 per cent. duty on the raw material used by every vehicle builder in Australia. There is no evidence to show that we produce the hickory required for the thousands of vehicles used throughout Australia. I have received letters from reliable coachbuilders in my constituency - and I suppose honorable members have received similar communications - to the effect that it is impossible to obtain any Australian hickory spokes or felloes. Under the circumstances, the proposed duty will be a purely revenue impost.

Mr Fisher:

– Let the honorable member ask honorable members on his own side !

Mr SAMPSON:

– No evidence has been given to us on this point during the debate ; and we ought to be very careful before we impose a duty of this kind. There are quite enough revenue duties at the present time. The Protectionist section of the Tariff Commission investigated this matter very exhaustively, and, only three years ago, they came to a unanimous conclusion that they could not recommend a duty on spokes and felloes. What has transpired since to warrant a 10 per cent, duty on such an important item of raw material?

Mr TUDOR:
Minister of Trade and Customs · Yarra · ALP

– - The rate has not been imposed by the Government as a revenue duty’. There is a carriage woodware factory at a place called Nundah, near Brisbane. 1 understanding that sixty or seventy men ate working there under good conditions, and turning out a first-class article. I’ admit that the company are not satisfied with the duty which has been imposed, but the Cabinet considered that as they had made a start without any protection, a duty of 10 per cent, would give them a chance of becoming established. The Government think it would not be fair to impose the duty of 25 or 30 per cent., which the company desired, as they would not be able to turn out all the material required in the near future.

Mr SINCLAIR:
Moreton

.- I. am surprised that, when we ask for a small duty to develop our industries, Victorian members should object to it as a revenue duty.

Mr Sampson:

– I only asked for information.

Mr SINCLAIR:

– The Minister has given it. If the honorable member is in want of any of the articles of which he spoke, the manager of the establishment, who will be passing through Victoria shortly, will take orders for any number of spokes, felloes, or other carriage ware. They are manufactured at the factory, under the very best conditions of labour. Principally Australian timber is used, or, at any rate, they are anxious to use it. While the duty is not as large as I wanted, it is something. The company would be quite satisfied with a duty of 15 per cent. Will the Minister make the rate 15 per cent. (General Tariff), and 10 per cent. (United Kingdom)?

Mr Tudor:

– I regret very much that 1 cannot do so.

Mr Fisher:

– Stick to the Tariff. One member says the duty ought not to be imposed, and another wants more protection. The industry is developing, and will grow, and, no doubt, it will come again.

Mr SINCLAIR:

– A duty of 15 per cent, cannot be considered high. The industry is growing very slowly. Will the Minister put on record his interpretation of the words “in the rough,” in paragraph dd?

Amendment (by Mr. Tudor) proposed -

That the following new paragraph be inserted after the seventh paragraph of the item : - “ By omitting from sub-item (dd) (i) the words ‘in the rough,’ and inserting in their stead the words ‘ rough turned but not shouldered or tenoned.’ “

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:
Hume

.- Some honorable members think wc have no hickory in Australia, but the most successful maker of vehicles and machinery in my electorate does not use imported timber, but what he calls Australian hickory, which he gets from the Bago mountain, near Tumbarumba. He never uses a stick of it until it has been reasoned for three years, and that is why his undertaking has been so successful. The forest covers 70,000 acres, and comprises as fine timber as exists, perhaps, 111 the world. Although it is a long way from, the market, there is a sawmill there, working, I believe. full time, making felloes, oars, and other articles for which timber which can stand a great strain is required. The undertaking has to compete against a great deal of opposition, and carts its supplies immense distances, but still it survives, and is the commencement of a great industry in Australia. I understand that a similar industry has been developed to a great extent in Queensland. The honorable member for Wimmera need not be at all alarmed about our not having timber to take the place of the imported. We only need railway communication and quick transit to make our timber as cheap as it can be obtained from any part of the world, and then, with a good duty placed on imported timbers, the industry would be a good thing for the country. Neither in America nor Canada did I see timbers to be compared with those of Australia. We have not commenced to realize the value of our timbers. We do not prize them, and do not stop their destruction as we should-. It was a crying shame that an immense quantity of beautiful timber on th?. Murray should have been destroyed, but we have plenty of timber in the mountain ranges.

Mr. HEDGES (Fremantle) [5.253.- Will the Minister explain what “.felloes of hickory “ mean? We get hickory rims, bnt, so far as I can learn, no felloes of hickory are importer). Will the Minister explain the effect of leaving out ths footnote defining superface? Will it open up the old question of double measurement?

Mr TUDOR:
Minister of Trade and Customs · Yarra · ALP

– In the 1907-8 Tariff the words “ spokes, rims, and felloes of hickory in the rough “ occur. If thev were right,then they are right now. although. I do not. know whether “felloes of hickory “ is a correct technical term, or known to the trade. In the last Tariff, Parliament altered the term “ superface “ to “super feet” everywhere, except in paragraph t of item 303. We propose to put the whole ofthe timber duties on a uniform basis, and, instead of having one kind of timber measured superface and all the others measured super feet, we have made paragraph t subject to super feet measurement, and increased the rate from 2s. 6d. to 5s., which brings out exactly the same effect, because we are going to measure now only one side, whereas previously in that case we measured on two sides.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr J H CATTS:
Cook

.- This is the time to remind the Minister of his undertaking to insert a duty on dressed timber, as paxagraphf of item 303.

Mr TUDOR:
Minister of Trade and Customs · Yarra · ALP

– I have not forgotten the promise I made to the honorable member to increase the rate on dressed timber in certain circumstances, but the Chairman tells me that I had better move it as a new item.

Mr HEDGES:
Fremantle

.- Will the striking out of the footnote regarding “superface” affect the price of timber for making boxes or doors?

Mr Tudor:

– I have no idea whether it will affect the price, but I have explained how we are putting all the items on one basis of measurement.

Mr HEDGES:

– Is it proposed to measure both faces of the board ?

Mr Tudor:

– Under paragraph t of the old Tariff, both faces were measured. We propose now to measure one.

Item, as amended, agreed to.

Item 306 (Wood, &c), and item 307 (Wicker, &c), agreed to.

Item . 309 -

By omitting the whole item and inserting in its stead the following item : - “ 309(a) Tool handles of wood, n.e.i., attached to exempt tools; also handles, not in excess of one for each unhandled exempt tool imported therewith, free.

  1. Tool handles of wood, unattached, n.e.i., ad valorem (General Tariff), 20 per cent. ; (United Kingdom), 15 per cent.”
Mr TUDOR:
Minister of Trade and Customs · Yarra · ALP

– - Previously, tool handles, n.e.i., unattached, were dutiable at 20 and 15 per cent. It is now proposed to exempt wooden tool handles attached to exempt tools, and one unattached handle in addition.

Item agreed to.

Item 310 (Adze handles, &c), item 311 (Wooden doors), and item 312 (Photograph frames, &c), agreed to.

Division XI.- Jewellery and Fancy Goods.

Item 326 -

By omitting from the item the words “ Purses n.e.i.; Wallets;” also the words “other than dolls undressed “ also the words “ including fancy, ground, and cut glass bottles of over 5 drams of fluid capacity, containing goods rot’ subject to ad valorem duty, and stoppers for such bottles.”

Mr FINLAYSON:
Brisbane

.- I think that dolls, dressed and undressed, should be admitted duty free, because there is no factory here for the making of dolls, and none for the making of dolls’ clothing. The departmental officers have had a great deal of trouble, and many disputes with importers, because of the difficulty of determining whether a. doll is dressed or undressed. A duty of 100 per cent, on dressed dolls would not prevent their importation.

Mr Tudor:

– Ninety per cent, of the dolls are imported undressed, because children like to make dresses for their dolls.

Mr FINLAYSON:

– In that case, nothing is gained by levying 25 per cent, on the remaining 10 per cent, of the dolls which are brought here. The children should have the best dolls available, and get them at the lowest prices. The consideration of revenue should not affect the Minister’s attitude in this matter.

Item agreed to.

Item 327 (Dolls, undressed), item 339 (Watches,&c), and item 340 (Watch springs, &c), agreed to.

Item 342 -

By omitting the whole item and inserting in its stead the following item : - “ 342. (a) Gramaphones, Phonographs, and other Talking Machines, including cases (but not horns), imported with Machines, not exceeding £5 in total value ; also Records, free.

Gramaphones, Phonographs, and other Talking Machines, including cases imported with Machines, when the value, without horn, exceeds £5 ; Horns for Talking Machines, whether accompanying the Machines or otherwise, ad valorem (General Tariff), 35 per cent.; (United Kingdom), 30 per cent.

Unassembled Metal parts of Talking Machines but not including Horns, Free.”

Mr W ELLIOT JOHNSON:
LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– Previously. talking machines, graphophones, gramaphones, phonographs, commercial or business, including all accessories except horns, were admitted free, but now it is proposed to impose duties of 35 and 30 per cent, on all exceeding in value £5 without horns. This is a very unwise proposal. These musical instruments have done much to educate our public, and give a great deal of pleasure in domestic and social circles. When honorable members are worked upto a white heat, as they were for a short time this afternoon, the playing of a Melba or Dani record would have such a soothing influence that an atmosphere surcharged with electricity would soon be peaceful and calm again. Music, by touching the sensitive chords of our nature, awakens its better feelings, and elevates our sentiments as nothing else can. Nothing but good can result from the use of the best records obtainable, and the best machines obtainable. The refining influence of music is of incalculable value. The duty, however, would place the best of these musical instruments out of the reach of the ordinary public.

Mr Tudor:

– If the Committee negatives the item, these instruments will continue to come in free.

Mr W ELLIOT JOHNSON:
LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– It would probably be safer to first propose a reduction in the rates. I therefore move: -

That the following words be added to subitemb - “ and on and after 14th December, 1911, 5 per cent, and free.”

Mr KELLY:
Wentworth

.-I wish only to suggest to the Minister one or two considerations that may have escaped him. First of all, the proposal to differentiate between gramaphones, so as to bring the better class under a duty equal to that applying to furniture generally, and, on the other hand, the cheaper articles, which are not brought out in cabinets, may lead him into an error. The importation of the higher priced talking machines is not very large, and it is questionable whether it would be worth while collecting what is undoubtedly a purely revenue duty. The better the gramaphone the better the investment, and wealthy people are not the only class who invest in the better class of instruments. About 25 per cent, of the total purchasers are buying high-priced machines on the deferred payment system. As Postmaster-General the present Minister of External Affairs was frequently met with, requests for a telephone to be placed on the back door of every settler. The mere fact that a man was a pioneer, or an out-back’ settler, in the opinion of many persons, entitled him to a telephone. But as a solace to a man in the bush, which is likely to be the better acquisition - a reasonably cheap gramaphone or an expensive telephone? This is an item that affects the working community, and I suggest that the Minister might well allow it to remain as in the existing Tariff. This will be a purely revenue duty, and, according to the honorable member for Hume, a revenue duty is an anomaly.

Mr PARKER MOLONEY:
INDI, VICTORIA · ALP

– Anything that does not protect is an anomaly.

Mr KELLY:

– If those who take that view will only support my request we shall have no further difficulty. I think that the Minister admits thatthis is a purely revenue duty.

Mr Tudor:

– I have said nothing of the kind. In some instances these machines are brought out in cabinets 5 feet high.

Mr KELLY:

– Then, the proper course for the Minister to pursue would be to place a duty, not on the machines, but on the cabinets, in order to protect the cabinetmaking industry. As the item stands, however, both the machines and the cabinets will be liable to the duty.

Mr TUDOR:
Minister of Trade and Customs · Yarra · ALP

– In the item, in the existing Tariff, we had the words “ include ing all accessories except horns.” It was found, however, that that term was too wide, and that, under it.people wereable to import free of duty machines in cabinets, in some cases about 5 feet high and 2 ft. 6 in. wide. One importer told me that he had no less than twenty-five such, cabinets, which are really articles of furniture. As to the minimum value of £,$ being too low, I think that is really too high, and that it might very well be reduced to £2 10s. or £3, without doing any injury to purchasers of gramaphones. We found that we were unable to tax these cabinets, as they ought to have been taxed, as articles of furniture, since they were held to be part and parcel of the gramaphones themselves.

Mr Groom:

– Could they be used for any other purpose?

Mr TUDOR:

– After the removal of the instruments themselves they could be made with very little alteration suitable for the reception of books or for other purposes. Gramaphone parts are now being brought out and they can be assembled here. The imposition of this duty would have the effect, I believe, of preventing what is really an infringement of the furniture duty.

Sir Robert Best:

– Would it not be better to assess the cabinets separately? It is really the cabinet which the honorable member desires, and rightly so,- to make dutiable.

Mr TUDOR:

– I grant that; but with composite duties there is always a tendency to value at a high rate that part of an article which is duty free and to value at an exceedingly low rate the part which is dutiable. I think that we shall best carry out our object by agreeing to the item as proposed. .

Dr MALONEY:
MELBOURNE, VICTORIA · ALP; FLP from 1931; ALP from 1936

– I desire to make a personal explanation in regard to a little disagreement that occurred early this morning between the honorable member for Hume, who has been my comrade and’ friend for years, and myself. The incident may well be illustrated by the story of two people who were arguing from two different buildings and who were told by a passing lawyer that they would never agree because they were arguing from different premises. In conversation with Mr. Sparks I found that the lighter class of material of which the honorable member for Hume was thinking was different from that which I had in mind, and Mr. Sparks told me that the grenadines had never been manufactured in his factory, nor so far as he was aware were they being produced by any factory in Australia. I hope I have made the amende honorable, for I should not like the friendship be tween the honorable member for Hume and myself to be disturbed even by a political argument.

Mr DEAKIN:
Ballarat

.- We are now proposing to impose a duty on the better class of gramaphones and other kinds of talking machines. The Minister has made out an unanswerable case for taxing the cabinets in which these machines are imported, but he did not even touch on the question of taxing the instrument itself. Since we do not manufacture gramaphones, is anything to be gained by imposing this duty- on the machines themselves instead of on the cabinets?

Mr Tudor:

– Ninety per cent of those imported come in under the £5 rate.

Mr DEAKIN:

– The position would be simplified if the Minister would move to impose a duty on the cabinets only.

Sir ROBERT BEST:
Kooyong

. -I would also urge the Minister to consider the suggestion that we should provide for assessing the cabinets separately. We ought not to discourage the importation of the more valuable instruments, but the cabinets themselves should certainly be taxed in the way now proposed. There is a great deal to be said for the Minister’s contention that parts unassembled can be brought in free of duty, and may be assembled here; but I would urge him to confine the duty to the cabinets themselves. I admit that if that were done an effort might be made to inflate the value of the instruments themselves as against the cabinets.

Mr J H Catts:

– Then let us have a minimum fixed duty on the cabinets.

Sir ROBERT BEST:

– Quite so. I would remind the Minister that the Department is not bound by the importers’ assessments of value. But he will be meeting the wishes of the Committee, and doing the correct thing by encouraging the free importation of the more valuable instruments and taxing the cabinet.

Mr J H CATTS:
Cook

.- I desire to make a similar appeal. I should be prepared to support effective Protection in the case of the cabinet; but a large trade is done in gramaphones and other instruments. The item in the schedule, while it may have the effect of affording protection to articles of furniture, will, at the same time, greatly harass those engaged in . the gramaphone and phonograph business. 1_ am afraid that the Minister will fine, if ce persists in his proposal, that he has created a greater anomaly, which will require to be dealt with later on. I suggest that he deal with the articles separately.

Mr Tudor:

– I do not see how that can be done.

Mr J H CATTS:

– Why not have a fixed duty - say, a prohibitive duty of £10 on the case, if the case can be made here?

Mr Tudor:

– The honorable member means the gramaphone cabinet?

Mr J H CATTS:

– Yes; that could be done without harassing the trade in the instruments themselves. In my own electorate, there is a large business done in these machines, which many of the workpeople buy on time payment. The Minister’s proposal means the maximum of disturbance with the minimum of benefit ; and more than he desires could be obtained by a fixed duty.

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– The Minister, in intimating thathe proposes to withdraw the duty on motor chassis, practically admits that the principle on which this class of duty is imposed is fallacious. Where there is a composite article, part of which is intended to be dutiable and part free, the difficulty arises that importers endeavour to value as low as possible the part that is dutiable, and as high as possible that which is not dutiable. It seems illogical, however, to attempt to get over the difficulty by placing a duty on the whole article.

Mr Tudor:

– I admit that there is difficulty.

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– I advise the Minister to take what power he thinks necessary for ascertaining the actual value of the cases, quite independently of the estimates of the importers ; let him preserve to himself by regulation, or otherwise, the fullest authority in this regard. This is a principle which applies to a good many other articles besides gramaphones and motor chassis.

Mr TUDOR:
Minister of Trade and Customs · Yarra · ALP

– This is a difficult item, but it is quite possible that we shall be able to arrive at a solution in the direction suggested by several honorable members. Some arrangement may be arrived at during the tea hour; and therefore I suggest that the item be postponed.

Item postponed.

Division XII. - Leather and Rubber.

Item 345-

By inserting in the item after the word “ Soles “ the letters “ n.e.i.”

Mr KELLY:
Wentworth

.- I am informed from Sydney that in the matter of clogs, there is as much duty on the “bottom” as on the made-up clog - as much duty on the raw material as on the manufactured article. I am further informed that there is nobody in Australia making “bottoms “ at the present time. The local timber, I understand, costs as much as a ready-made article does purchased in Germany or Holland. The fact that the raw material bears as high a duty as the finished article is one which, I think, will commend itself to the Minister as an anomaly.

Item agreed to.

Item 350-

By inserting in the item before the words “ Rubber Manufactures “ the letter “ (a) “

By omitting from the item the words “Tyres; Tubes, valved or unvalved;”

By adding . to the item a new sub-item as follows : - “ (b) Rubber Tyres ; Rubber Tubes, valved or unvalved, per lb. (General Tariff), 1s. 6d. ; (United Kingdom),1s. 2d. ; or, ad val. (General Tariff), 25 per cent. ; (United Kingdom), 20 per cent. ; whichever rate returns the higher duty.

Mr TUDOR:
Minister of Trade and Customs · Yarra · ALP

– I move -

That sub-itemb be left out, with a view to insert in lieu thereof the following : -

Pneumatic Rubber Tyres and Tubes therefor, valved or unvalved : -

Covers weighing each2½ lbs. or less; Tubes weighing each 1 lb. or less, per lb. (General Tariff),1s. ; (United Kingdom,10d. ; or, ad val. (General Tariff), 25 per cent. ; (United Kingdom), 20 per cent. ; whichever rate returns the higher duty.

Covers weighing each over2½ lbs. ; Tubes weighing each over1 lb. or less, per lb. (General Tariff),1s. 6d. ; (United Kingdom),1s. 2d. ; or, ad val. (General Tariff), 25 per cent. ; (United Kingdom), 20 per cent. ; whichever rate returns the higher duty.

Rubber Tyres other than pneumatic, ad val. (General Tariff), 25 per cent,; (United Kingdom), 20 per cent.

Rubber values fluctuate so much, particularly in the case of the heavy-weight goods used more particularly for motor tyres, that this amendment is necessary. The tyres for the ordinary push bicycle, ridden by working men, are subject to a duty of only 1s.10d. {: .speaker-KJE} ##### Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 -- What is the Condition of the tyre industry here now? {: .speaker-KWL} ##### Mr TUDOR: -- This duty is not imposed in the interests of the tyre industry ; and on that point I desire to disabuse honorable members' minds. This item is to enable the Department to arrive at the average price of the rubber, so that importers - if I may say so without seeming offensive - may not be able to practically juggle with values, in order to reduce the duty payable. This has been repeatedly the case, so far as motor tyres are concerned. The honorable member for Wentworth, and the honorable member for Melbourne, intimated earlier in the day that they desired to make some reference to bicycle tyres and tubes, and I am quite prepared to listen to what they, and others, may have to say. {: #subdebate-16-0-s52 .speaker-KEA} ##### Mr KELLY:
Wentworth .- This proposal of the Minister will not really help the users of what he calls the " push " bicycle. The average bicycle tyre weighs between 1 lb. 10 or 12 ozs., and 2 lbs., and the tube, I understand, about 10 ozs. These tyres are sold in different grades in Europe, just as in Australia. If we take the medium grade of cycle tyre, the wholesale price, free on board, in Europe is about 5s. The cheapest tyre that can be bought in Europe, corresponding, more or less, to the no-guarantee tyre produced by the Dunlop Company in Melbourne, is valued at 3s. The average weight is somewhere under a lbs., and, at rod., each tyre will pay a duty of is. 8d., if from Great Britain, and 2s. if from a foreign country. On the other hand, the *ad valorem* duty of 25 and 20 per cent., which obtained before the introduction of this schedule, would mean is. on the 5s. tyre, and 7d. on die 3s. tyre in the case of British goods, and is. 3d. and od. in the case of foreign goods. The poundage rate thus increases the duty by well over 100 per cent. A rate war has been going on for the last year in die motor tyre trade between the Michelin and Continental Companies, but the bicycle tyre trade is practically carried on at fixed prices and grades, due to the fact that over 100 firms in Europe are competing with one another in that line. The Dunlop Rubber Company of Australia, which, I am happy to say, is flourishing, its cumulative preference £1 shares being sold in the Melbourne market, before these duties were introduced, at 35s. or 36s., and which, therefore, does not want additional Protection, competes with the 5s. f .o.b. in Europe tyre with a tyre called the Oceanic, sold here at 6s. iod. The price of the best bicycle tyre is about 9s. 9d. or ,10s. The no-guarantee tyre, at 4s.,, competes with the cheapest European tyre, which is sold at 3s., and on which the duty suddenly rises from 7d. to 2s., or an increase of over 300 per cent. The Minister, in endeavouring to regulate the uneven invoices of motor tyres, ought to be careful that he does not hit the bike rider. {: .speaker-KWL} ##### Mr Tudor: -- I do not desire to' hit any one; but we wish to have something like a fair alternative, so that there will not be any " juggling," if that term is not offensive. {: .speaker-KEA} ##### Mr KELLY: -- The fixed rates on motor tyres might, I think, be allowed to remain with safety, in view of the condition of prices. The Minister would be perfectly safe to make the duties on ordinary bicycle tyres what they were previously, at the *ad valorem* rates. I come now to motor bicycle tyres, which are also at fixed rates. A tyre' like the Triumph, 26 inches by *2%* inches, weighing from 6 to 7 lbs., has a wholesale value in London of 15s. The duty on that cover, at is. 6d. per lb., would come to at least 9s. under the general Tariff. Those tyres are now sold to the trade in Australia at 23s., or less than cost and duty amount to. The *ad valorem* rates previously worked out at 3s. 3d. (United Kingdom), and 4s. (General Tariff), on a 15s. tyre. It would be desirable to have sufficient competition with motor bicycle tyres from abroad to regulate the price more or less. It would be advisable either to reduce the poundage rate on them, so as to arrive at a reasonable fixed duty, for it will be agreed that 9s. is not a fair duty on a 15s. article, or impose *ad valorem* rates. {: .speaker-KWL} ##### Mr Tudor: -- Is that an average case, or an exception? {: .speaker-KEA} ##### Mr KELLY: -- I am told it is an average case. An important consideration is that fixed rates may tend to discourage new inventions in the way of substitutes for rubber. A great deal of experimenting is now going on in Europe in the search for a substitute for rubber for tyres. If it can be found, the motor industry will immediately become industrially possible throughout Australia, although the rubber industry will suffer in a minor degree. If a fixed rate is imposed the Department will have to be constantly watching to see what composition the cheaper tyres are being made of. About a year ago a man I know in England produced a cheap motor tyre which he was selling at about half the price of the ordinary motor tyre. He broke the ring in London, and there was a great uproar about it. These tyres were probably made of some composition, but were wearing just as well as rubber. The fixed duty will shut thissort of tyre out. The public interest requires that we should endeavour to make some industrial use of the motor trade, which, in Australia, is at present almost entirely a luxury. In every old established country in the world the motor trade is of great industrial value. A census recently taken in London showed that 97 per cent. of the traffic in the biggest thoroughfare was motor traffic. With a due regard to Australian industries, such as the Dunlop Rubber Company, we ought to keep our eyes constantly Open for means of making extensive use of motor traction, but I am afraid the tendency of the poundage rate will be to keep out the pioneers of the cheap resilient tyres. {: #subdebate-16-0-s53 .speaker-KLM} ##### Dr MALONEY:
MELBOURNE, VICTORIA · ALP; FLP from 1931; ALP from 1936 .- I am pleased to be able to indorse almost every remark of the honorable member for Wentworth regarding pneumatic rubber tyres for the push bicycle. It would be far better for the Government to revert to the old rates of 25 per cent. (General Tariff) and 20 per cent. (United Kingdom). The average weight of covers is from about 1¼ lbs, to 2 lbs. The item, as it affects motor tyres, can be left as it is. My information regarding the weight of motor bicycle tyres is somewhat at variance with the case quoted by the honorable member. He spoke of a certain standard tyre that weighs a little heavier than the others, but some motor bicycle tyres run about 4 lbs. in weight, which would lessen the amount of the fixed duty. The honorable member and I were evidently making similar inquiries in London regarding compositions for tyres. I was able to render a slight service to the representative of a big American firm, who are exploiting a deposit of what is known as mineral rubber, and he told me that a compound of three-quarters mineralrubber and one-quarter pure Para rubber -gave better results than Para rubber alone, although, in certain cases, it could not be used. He estimated that ultimately the compound would be sold to the world at2½d. per lb. At present, its price is 6d. per lb. *Sitting suspended from 6.30 to 7.45p.m.* {: #subdebate-16-0-s54 .speaker-JSM} ##### Mr THOMAS BROWN:
Calare -- It seems to me that we are on the eve of bigdevelopments in connexion with motor traction not only for the conveyance of goods on streets and roads, but for station and farm work. In this matter we are far behind the Old World, where motor traction has largely replaced horse traction, and, being a country of magnificent distances, anything that will enable us to get from point to point more quickly and cheaply will be of great advantage to the community. I am afraid that the Minister, in providing against administrative difficulties, may be penalizing the users of pushbicycles and motor bicycles, these vehicles having been largely substituted for horses by shearers and many other workers. According to the honorable member for Wentworth, the riders of push bicycles will be penalized to the extent of1s. 8d. or 2s. a tyre, and of motor cycles to the extent of about9s. on the cheaper tyres. The position might be met by imposing a duty of so much a pound on motor car tyres, and an *ad valorem* duty, as at present, on bicycle and motor cycle tyres. {: #subdebate-16-0-s55 .speaker-KWL} ##### Mr TUDOR:
Minister of Trade and Customs · Yarra · ALP -- The suggestion of the honorable member for Wentworth is, I understand, that bicycle tyres shall be charged *ad valorem,* and other tyres over 2½ lbs, in weight, and tubes over1 lb. in weight, at a fixed rate of so much a pound, or *ad valorem.* {: .speaker-KEA} ##### Mr Kelly: -- The poundage rate will have to be much reduced if it is to apply to bicycle tyres, unless they are. to be taxed out of the market. {: .speaker-KWL} ##### Mr TUDOR: -- My information is that they will not be seriously affected. Amendment amended by leaving out the fixed rates in paragraph 1, and agreed to. {: #subdebate-16-0-s56 .speaker-KEA} ##### Mr KELLY:
Wentworth -- The Minister has met my objections very largely, but I think he will find, in regard tomotorbicycle tyres, that on the normal range of wholesale import values the present fixed rates are excessive. I ask him to look into the matter, and if he finds my contention to be correct, to have an alteration made in the Senate. Amendment (by **Mr. Tudor)** agreed to - >That the following sub-item be inserted : - {: type="a" start="d"} 0. Floor and carriage mats of rubber, *ad valorem* (General Tariff), 15 per cent. (United Kingdom), 10 per cent. Item, as amended, agreed to. Item 351 - >By inserting in the item before the words "Indiarubber, crude" the letter "(a)" > >By omitting from the item the words " or powdered and reclaimed " also the words "Masticated Rubber;" > >By inserting in the item before theword "Surgical" the word "cut-sheet " > >By adding to the item a new sub-item as follows : - " (b) Indiarubber, powdered or reclaimed ; > >Masticated Rubber, *ad valorem* (General Tariff), 15 per cent. ; (United Kingdom), 10 per cent." Amendment (by **Mr. Tudor)** proposed - >That the words " also the words ' Masticated Rubber,' " lines 4 and 5, and the words " Masticated Rubber," line 11, be left out. {: #subdebate-16-0-s57 .speaker-JPC} ##### Sir ROBERT BEST:
Kooyong -- Do I understand that masticated and reclaimed rubber are to be admitted free ? {: .speaker-KWL} ##### Mr Tudor: -- Masticated rubber is to be admitted free. {: .speaker-JPC} ##### Sir ROBERT BEST: -- I am informed that reclaimed rubber is a raw material of our manufacturers, and used in considerable quantities by them, and that to successfully compete against the importations from Europe and America it should be free. The Protection now afforded by the Tariff on rubber goods is not great, having regard to the wages paid, and the duties on chemicals an'd other ingredients used in the process of manufacture. A duty on reclaimed rubber would seriously affect our manufacturers, and, as reclaimed rubber is practically on the same footing as masticated rubber, it should, like it, be admitted free. {: .speaker-KWL} ##### Mr Tudor: -- I understand that the Dunlop Company is turning out tons of reclaimed rubber every week. {: .speaker-JPC} ##### Sir ROBERT BEST: -- Both masticated and reclaimed rubber are imported from the plantations, and I ask the Minister to give serious consideration to the advisability of placing them both on the free list, as the statements which I have made are based on good authority. {: #subdebate-16-0-s58 .speaker-JSM} ##### Mr THOMAS BROWN:
Calare -- This seems to be a revenue duty rather than a proposal to give any encouragement to the production of rubber in Australia. I shall not, however, discuss that phase of the question. I understand that in Papua efforts are being made, with considerable promise of success, to develop the rubber industry, but that imports from that territory are treated as if they came from a foreign country, no preference being allowed in respect of them. There should be a closer commercial relationship between the Commonwealth and Papua, and, since it is proposed under this item to allow a preference of 5 per cent. in the case of imports from the United Kingdom, I suggest that a similar preference should be allowed in respect of imports from Papua. {: .speaker-K8L} ##### Mr Thomas: -- Why not make such imports from Papua free? {: .speaker-JSM} ##### Mr THOMAS BROWN: -By all means. I thought that the Government were in need of revenue from this source, and therefore did not ask for morethan a preference of 5 per cent. {: #subdebate-16-0-s59 .speaker-KHE} ##### Mr HIGGS:
Capricornia -- I om amazed at the remarks of the honorable member for Calare. It would seem to me that we need a political schoolmaster, whose task it would be to inform honorable members of their duty to the Commonwealth, the Labour party, and the wage earners' interests. I do not understand how those who believe in keeping Australia for the white races could possibly favour the free admission of the black-labour products of Papua. Those who go to Papua to exploit the native labour should be called upon to pay the highest duty on their products when they are brought into the Commonwealth. The minimum rate of wages paid to the natives is 10s. per month, and rations. They are paid, however, only once in two years, and the natives sometimes are so badly treated that they leave their employment at the end of twelve months, with the result that no wages are received by them. The adoption of the suggestion just made would mean the thin edge of the wedge for preferential rates in respect of the produce of those who were recently described as our fellow British-Indian subjects. Hoards of Indians are employed at 3d. per day in producing certain commodities, and some gentlemen who have extraordinary ideas concerning Imperialism would ask us to allow those commodities to come in under the preferential rate. {: .speaker-JSM} ##### Mr Thomas Brown: -- There is no analogy between Papua and India. {: .speaker-KHE} ##### Mr HIGGS: -- I think there is. I am' not prepared to grant any preference to the product of an. industry in which the rates of pay and conditions of labour are not the same as those which' Australian employers are called upon to observe. Whilst our Tariff has been responsible for a good deal of our prosperity, it will have to be increased to the verge of 100 per cent, before we shall be able to keep out black-labour commodities produced by capitalists who go to India, China, Java, and Japan to secure cheap labour. {: #subdebate-16-0-s60 .speaker-L1P} ##### Mr WISE:
Gippsland .- I wish to indorse the views expressed by the honorable member for Kooyong in reference to reclaimed rubber. I understand that this duty, if retained, will materially interfere with rubber works at present in Australia. {: #subdebate-16-0-s61 .speaker-KIN} ##### Sir WILLIAM LYNE:
Hume .- My information is that reclaimed rubber should be placed inthe same position as is masticated 'rubber, since there is practically no difference between the two. I do not profess to know much about the matter, but I ask the Minister to take the suggestion into consideration. {: .speaker-KWL} ##### Mr Tudor: -I promise to have inquiries made, and, if necessary, to cause a request for an amendment to be made by another place. Amendment agreed to. Item, as amended, agreed to. Item 352 - >By omitting the whole of the item and inserting in its stead the following item : - " 352. (a.) Leather Manufactures n.e.i. ; Leather cut into shape; Harness n.e.i.; Razor Strops; Whips, including Keepers, Thongs, and Lashes, *ad valorem* (General Tariff), 30 per cent. ; (United Kingdom), 25 per cent. > >Harness . Saddles, each (General Tariff), 6s. ; (United Kingdom), 5s. ; or, *ad valorem* (General Tariff), 30 per cent. ; (United Kingdom), 25 per cent. ; whichever rate returns the higher duty." {: #subdebate-16-0-s62 .speaker-KXO} ##### Mr PAGE:
Maranoa .- I should be glad if the Minister would move to insert a new sub-item, making buggy saddles dutiable at 5s. and 4s., or 25 per cent. and 20 per cent., according to the country of origin, whichever rate returns the higher duty. {: .speaker-KWL} ##### Mr Tudor: -- That would mean a reduction of the duty that has already Been operating. Would the honorable member agree to the. *ad. valorem* rate remaining at 30 per cent, and 25 per cent., as in the case of harness saddles? {: .speaker-KXO} ##### Mr PAGE: -- Yes; I should be satisfied with such an amendment. Amendment (by **Mr. Tudor)** proposed - >That the following new sub-item be inserted : - (c) Buggy saddles (General Tariff), each 5s., or *ad valorem,* 30 per cent. ; (United Kingdom), each 4s., or *ad valorem,* 25 per cent., whichever rate returns the higher duty. {: #subdebate-16-0-s63 .speaker-KEX} ##### Mr FINLAYSON:
Brisbane .- Will the Minister explain why these duties are proposed in respect of harness saddles and buggy saddles? They will certainly have the effect of driving the trade, such as it is, from individual tradesmen in a small way of business into the factories, and I do not know that our factories are sufficiently well equipped to justify such an interference with ordinary business. {: #subdebate-16-0-s64 .speaker-JSM} ##### Mr THOMAS BROWN:
Calare -- I should be glad if the Minister would also explain why fixed duties are imposed in respect of harness and buggy saddles. {: .speaker-KWL} ##### Mr Tudor: -- There is also an *ad valorem* duty, and we take whichever returns the higher amount. {: .speaker-JSM} ##### Mr THOMAS BROWN: -- If there are saddles which fall below the value indicated, where is the justification for treating the item in this particular way? {: .speaker-KNH} ##### Mr Mathews: -- It is hard to prove the value. {: .speaker-JSM} ##### Mr THOMAS BROWN: -- It is hard to prove the value of any article ; but the honorable member would not, on that account, confine the Tariff exclusively to fixed duties ? {: .speaker-KNH} ##### Mr Mathews: -- We shall never have a scientific Tariff until that is done. {: #subdebate-16-0-s65 .speaker-KWL} ##### Mr TUDOR:
Minister of Trade and Customs · Yarra · ALP -- There has been no request from manufacturers in regard to this item, but I was approached by the representatives of the workmen who form the Saddlers Federation of Australia, and shown the rates of wages paid under the Wages Board award in Victoria. The workman receives 8s. in wages for making the cheapest saddle of the third quality, 9s. for saddles of the second quality, and 18s. for saddles of the first quality; these amounts represent wages alone. The men asked for a higher fixed duty than the one that is proposed, and I asked whether any of the manufacturers would join with them in their request. The reply was in the negative, the reason given being that most of the manufacturers are also importers, and always balanced one against the other. The men said that they were always unable to get higher wages, and they desired a duty that would be effective in preventing the cheapest saddles from coming in. They assured me that this would not have the effect of increasing the price of the cheap saddles. {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr Groom: -- What does the Minister mean by saying that the employers "always balanced one against the other "? {: .speaker-KWL} ##### Mr TUDOR: -- I was told that the employers always informed their workmen that wages could not be raised - that,sooner than raise the wages, they would import the saddles. That was the reason that induced me to submit this proposal tothe Committee. With *ad valorem* duties there is always a tendency to import the cheapest articles ; and the fixed duty represents more than the *ad valorem* rate on such goods. {: #subdebate-16-0-s66 .speaker-KEX} ##### Mr FINLAYSON:
Brisbane .- The explanation of the Minister is satisfactory to a certain extent; but I should like to know whether he took steps to verify the information given him by the saddlers of Victoria? {: .speaker-KWL} ##### Mr Tudor: -- Those who saw me also represented the saddlers of Queensland. Amendment agreed to. Item, as amended, agreed to. Item 353- >By adding to the item a new sub-item as follows 1 - " (d) Hides, Limed or Fleshed or Split, per hide, 5s. {: .speaker-KWL} ##### Mr Tudor: -- I intend to amend this item by moving - >That the following words be added : - " and on and after 14th December, 1911, 3s." {: #subdebate-16-0-s67 .speaker-KIN} ##### Sir WILLIAM LYNE:
Hume -- I trust that the Minister will further reduce the duty, because even a duty of 3s. will have the effect of wiping out the industry already carried on in Victoria. {: .speaker-JM8} ##### Mr Archibald: -- Does that apply to the whole of Australia? {: .speaker-KIN} ##### Sir WILLIAM LYNE: -- Yes; so far as this industry is concerned. I have here samples showing the state of the hide when it is imported, and the hide in its finished state, so that honorable members may see the work that is bestowed upon it. I urge the Minister to reduce the duty to, atany rate,1s. or 2s., in consideration for those who are endeavouring to establish an industry and make a living. {: #subdebate-16-0-s68 .speaker-K99} ##### Mr W ELLIOT JOHNSON:
LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 -- The fact that the Minister has, of his own volition, proposed to reduce this duty, is an indication that the schedule was hurriedly prepared without due consideration. In his greed and anxiety to extract more and more money out of the pockets of a long-suffering but not sufficiently complaining people, the Minister has swallowed any proposal suggested, without taking care to ascertain how it might affect the country at large. {: .speaker-KEA} ##### Mr Kelly: -- Does the honorable member not welcome the suggestion of the honorable member for Hume? {: .speaker-K99} ##### Mr W ELLIOT JOHNSON:
LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 -- I am very glad to see that even so voracious a Protectionist as the honorable member for Hume is suffering from satiety, and is beginning to rebel against this excessive taxation. I only hope his attitude to-day is a forerunner of his attitude in regard to Protectionist Tariffs generally, and that he will propose reductions in item after item, until he reaches the Free Trade point of view. Under such duties, the consumer is robbed without knowing that he is robbed; and there is no doubt that this impost, made, apparently, without any warrant, will seriously interfere with an established industry, and certainly not justified by even a pretence that there is an anomaly to be rectified. I propose to read a letter in this connexion from Messrs. J. P. Howe and Company Proprietary Limited, of the Excelsior Patent Leather Works, who conduct a well-established industry at Preston, and who will be very adversely affected by this duty. The letter containsthe following: - >Tariff Amendment. - Division XII., Leatherand Rubber. > >Under the above heading amongst the amendments you will note item 353, and to this it isproposed should be added a new sub-item (d) " Hides limed, fleshed or split, per hide, 5s." > >We think it important thatwe should explain what this new sub-item would mean.For some considerable time hides limed, fleshed, split and haired have been regularly imported from New Zealand, but the imposition of a duty such as is proposed will prevent the further importation of any hides in the condition above referred to, regardless of the consequences. > >The amount of work expended on hides to bring them into the condition specified under the proposition of the Government is very small and usually considered unimportant, but to our industry and the public the imposition of such a duty is very serious. To our industry, because we have put in an expensive plant, erected extensive buildings, and laid in full stocks of materials for the treatment of such hides, which embraces the tanning, currying, and enamelling : - Why the Minister should aim a destructive blow at an established industry in his own State is more than I can comprehend : - >To the public, because they will be forced to pay higher prices for an inferior grade of leather to that which we have been able to put on the market, whilst such hides have been imported free of duty. The benefit to be conferred upon the worker by the imposition of such a duty is hardly worth consideration, for we can assure you that the cost of un-hairing,. fleshing, and splitting hides does not exceed the sum of1s.9d. per hide, and this work could be carried out by our present staff. Our reason for not doing this class of work is that the selection of hides in Australia (where no regard is paid to the branding or the flaying of the hides) is such that it practically makes it impossible for an industry like ours to be carried on successfully. This forced us to investigate the matter and ascertain what could be done in New Zealand, where more care is exercised: in the branding and flaying, and the hides are also more uniform and freer from other defects, such as scars, cuts, &c, and after incurring; great expense and arranging with large suppliers (who export to the English and Continental markets many thousands of hides pel year in exactly the same condition as those referred to above) to select specially from the best of the hides that come through their hands our requirements, we have in the past been able to secure for the Australian users a very high grade of material, which has enabled us to produce enamelled leathers that have been commented upon by English and Continental manufacturers as being equal to anything that is produced in any other part of the world. The fact of these hides being duty free has also enabled us to supply very large quantities of the finished article in competition with the outside world to the various States and also New Zealand. > >The imposition of a duty as proposed by the Ministry means the annihilation of our industry, for it will be impossible for us to carry on as the average Australian hides offering at the present time will not suit our purpose, having far too many blemishes owing to being badly and excessively branded, carelessly flayed, and full of cuts, scratches, and scars, and until legislation is brought into existence compelling greater care iri connexion with this - one of our natural products - an alteration cannot be hoped for. Therefore, to impose this duty can hardly be considered in the interests of the public, as it will confer an advantage on no one, but will force out of existence a growing industry and compel the users of high class leather to import their requirements. > >The labour expended on these hides after we receive them from New Zealand costs considerably over 15s. per hide in wages paid, which are based upon rates much higher than those determined upon by the Wages Boards in connexion with the Tanners and Curriers! industry, and the proposed duty means sacrificing the whole of this, besides preventing the public from obtaining the high-grade leather we are enabled to manufacture by virtue of being able to secure a special selection of skins, for practically no gain to the worker, seeing that, as previously stated, the amount of wages paid for the preparing of the hides in the manner referred to in the proposed Tariff does not exceed is. gd. per hide. > >These facts we can substantiate, and should you wish to verify them, we will be pleased to give you an opportunity. Coming from a well-established and reputable firm, these statements deserve serious consideration, and unless the Minister can controvert them, he has no justification for introducing the sub-item. {: .speaker-KXN} ##### Mr Ozanne: -- Did you not get another letter diametrically opposed to that? {: .speaker-K99} ##### Mr W ELLIOT JOHNSON:
LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 -- I did not; but if I did it would only prove how foolish we are to legislate to give people special privileges to rob the public, when even the privileged persons themselves cannot agree as *to* what they want from the Parliament. All this shows how utterly foolish and wrong it is to table a revision of the Tariff in the expiring days of the session. These matters require care ful investigation and inquiry. It would take months to read and digest all the communications that reach us, and sift the right from the wrong in the 'conflicting, and often grossly inaccurate, mass of information supplied to us on both sides. I read the letter because it appeared to come from a reputable firm, and its statements were' couched in moderate language, and did not seem to be exaggerated. I have not seen the writer, nor do I know any member of the firm personally. Without taking any personal responsibility for the accuracy of its statements, the letter bears the impress of a fair and correct presentation of the case, and if we are to believe it, that industry will suffer very materially. I therefore move - >That the sub-item be left out. {: .speaker-KIN} ##### Sir William Lyne: -- Why not be reasonable; the honorable member cannot carry that. {: .speaker-K99} ##### Mr W ELLIOT JOHNSON:
LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 -- Perhaps I cannot; but are we never to move a thing unless we can carry it? A man should fight for his principles all the time, no matter how often he is defeated. I do not suppose when I look at the solid phalanx of Protectionists, by whom I am surrounded, that I shall get much consideration in the matter of reductions or abolitions of duty, but when I believe it right to move for them I shall do so. {: #subdebate-16-0-s69 .speaker-L4X} ##### Mr PARKER MOLONEY:
INDI, VICTORIA · ALP -- I much regret that the Minister has reduced the duty from 5s. ; but what surprises me is the attitude of the honorable member for Hume. I have seen the honorable member for Lang in some peculiar political company lately, but I did not expect to see him in the company of the honorable member for Hume in this matter. The honorable member for Lang displayed so much heat in advocating his Free Trade principles that he dispelled any inclination we might have had to believe the assurance of the honorable member for Parramatta that the Free Traders accepted Protection as the settled policy of the country, and that honorable members on the other side were a happy family. The honorable member for Lang quoted from a lengthy letter which he received from, a firm that has been in existence only four months, and from others who are engaged in the tanning, not of hides, but of sides. The honorable member totally ignored another memorandum that he must have received from a firm which has been engaged for twenty-five years in the tanning of hides. The honorable member said a good deal about the poor consumer. Of late, we have heard him pleading for the poor tenant, the poor tenant farmer, and the poor widow, but we are getting used to it. The people the honorable member really has in his mind are the poor importers. These hides are at present being brought largely from New Zealand, fleshed, haired, and limed. I should like the honorable member for Hume to hear the other side of this question, because I am surprised at such a staunch Protectionist saying that this duty would mean the crushing out of our industries. We have more people engaged in hairing, fleshing, and splitting hides in Australia, and therefore likely to benefit by the item, than there are people who will be injured by it. We should have greater care and regard for those engaged in the work of this country. The importations of hides from New Zealand, limed, unhaired, split, and ready for tanning, does away with the lime-jobbers and beamsmen, and throws out of employment pit and tan-yard hands. There are tanneries in Victoria which have spent thousands of pounds on machinery for the splitting of hides. According to the memorandum read by the honorable member for Lang, the. hides needed for special work cannot be obtained in Victoria and New South Wales; but I know several tanneries which for many years have used such hides exclusively. {: .speaker-KNF} ##### Mr MASSY-GREENE:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP; NAT from 1917 -- Hear, hear 1 {: .speaker-L4X} ##### Mr PARKER MOLONEY:
INDI, VICTORIA · ALP -- Out of about every 150 local hides, some fifty are described as culls. The importation of pickled hides from New Zealand will throw out of work the men who are employed to prepare these culls. According to the honorable member for Lang, the work done on the imported hides costs only about is.. (3d. a hide. {: .speaker-JPC} ##### Sir Robert Best: -- One shilling and ninepence. {: .speaker-L4X} ##### Mr PARKER MOLONEY:
INDI, VICTORIA · ALP -- A superficial view shows that it costs more like 4s. The tanneries I have in mind pay their beamsmen 57 s. a week, and a beamsman can do about sixty whole hides a week, which is a cost of about is. a hide. Making the allowance for culls to which I have referred, the cost is increased to is. 4d., to which must be added is. 6d. for splitting the green 'whole hides, bringing it up to 2s. lod. To allow only 2d. for the labour on limes and other treatment would be absurd, but this would bring the total to over 3s. In my opinion, the lowest rate of duty should be 4s. I know that the proprietor of a tannery offered to let a contract to another tannery to do certain hides for 3s., so that obviously they cannot be done for less. It is the hide-tanners principally whom the proposal affects, and whom we, as Protectionists, should consider, seeing that they employ twice as much labour as the side-tanners. More harm will be done by injuring those engaged in the' tanning of hides than by injuring the handful engaged in the tanning of sides. My opinion is that any duty that does not protect is an anomaly, and I hope that the Minister will reconsider his proposal. {: #subdebate-16-0-s70 .speaker-JPC} ##### Sir ROBERT BEST:
Kooyong -- In my introductory remarks, I selected this industry to show how difficult it is for the Committee to deal with conflicting statements. The remarks of the honorable member for Lang were based on good authority, and similar information was supplied to me, but they were flatly contradicted by the honorable member for Indi. According to the representations made to me, the duty would strike a blow at a wellestablished industry, employing a large number of men. It would seem strange that our tanners should have to import hides from New Zealand, but the fact is that the legislation of the Dominion regarding the branding and flaying of hides prevents scars and blemishes. {: .speaker-L4X} ##### Mr PARKER MOLONEY:
INDI, VICTORIA · ALP -- The Victorian Government is now taking the matter in hand. {: .speaker-JPC} ##### Sir ROBERT BEST: -- If the State Governments can be induced to deal with this matter, I shall side with the honorable member; but, until the local hides are so treated that they are free from blemish, the importation of New Zealand hides ought not to be prevented, so that an important industry may not seriously suffer. I understand that in one place ,£750 is spent in paying duties on hides alone. My appeal is in the interest of an established industry. I am informed that the expenditure on the imported hides is, at the most, is. od. or 2S., but that the work done here to produce a sample such as was exhibited by the honorable member for Hume costs something like 16s. I think the imposition of a duty of 5s. would strike a serious blow at an established industry, and I ask the Minister to reduce it to 2s. or 3s. {: #subdebate-16-0-s71 .speaker-JWY} ##### Mr CHANTER:
Riverina .- No one will accuse me of inconsistency in regard to Protection. I believe in Protection which protects, and in dealing fairly with all concerned in an industry. *1* would not play into the hands of a combination which was taking all the benefits of an industry and crushing out others. I have known the head of the firm to which reference has been made for twenty-five years, and can thoroughly rely on the information that he gives me. There is no better Protectionist in the country than he is. There are in existence two other firms which I am credibly informed are in combination. **Mr. J.** P. Howe, the gentleman to whom I refer, was originally employed by one of them, and was subsequently induced to accept employment with the other firm, and helped to build up its business. Later on, he entered into business on his own account, and in competition with the two firms with which he was formerly associated, and which carry on business at Beechworth and Preston. Having command of capital, they have introduced into their tanneries what are known as splitting machines ; but the struggling firm has not sufficient capital to be able 1fo do so. It will, consequently, have to pay this duty of 5s. per hide, whereas its competitors, having their own splitting machines, can bring in the hides whole, and split them here. A duty of 5s. per hide would absolutely destroy the struggling firm. I am credibly informed that it would mean, with respect to that firm, an impost of about £750 per annum. I am also credibly informed that the Beechworth tannery was established because the proprietors knew that by going into the country, they would not have to observe the award of a Wages Board. They thought also that since rents would be cheaper in a country town, it would not be necessary to pay their employe's such high wages as must be paid in the metropolis. {: .speaker-KNH} ##### Mr Mathews: -- They went to Beechworth before the Wages Board was appointed. {: .speaker-JWY} ##### Mr CHANTER: -- But they were opposed to a Wages Board being appointed. The process of splitting is a very simple one. A hide having been limed, fleshed, and haired is put through the splitting machine, and the cost of the labour involved is very trifling. Under this item, a hide introduced into the Commonwealth in two portions is dutiable, but if it is brought in whole, it is free. The struggling firm to which I have alluded deals with only one particular class of manufacture, and any portion of a hide not required for that special line is absolutely wasted. The combined firms, however, can utilize whatever proportion of a hide they require for that special purpose, and can use the balance in the production of other qualities of high class leather. They are therefore in a better position than is the other firm. The honorable member for Indi and the honorable member for Kooyong said that the cost of the labour involved in splitting these hides varied. **Mr. Howe** states that it costs is. 9d. to lime, flesh, hair, and split a hide, but the honorable member for Indi has produced figures showing that the cost amounts to 3s. or 4s. per hide. {: .speaker-KWL} ##### Mr Tudor: -- The two men interviewed me, and practically agreed, as a compromise, to a duty of 2s. or 3s. {: .speaker-JWY} ##### Mr CHANTER: -- If the honorable member will agree to a reduction of the duty to 2s., 1 shall have nothing more to say. {: .speaker-KWL} ##### Mr Tudor: -- One advocated a duty of 2s. per hide, and the other a duty of 3s. I brought them within a shilling, so to speak, of each other, and they talked for an hour over it. {: .speaker-JWY} ##### Mr CHANTER: -- I was not present at the interview, but **Mr. Thomas** Broadhurst, a tanner in a large way of business at Murray-road, Preston, writes - >I have seen the pickled hides under discussion, and I reckon the cost of labour on the same to be amply covered by is. 9d. or is. iod. per hide. **Mr. W.** Braithwaite, another tanner, carrying on business at Preston, writes - > *Re* cost of lining, splitting and pickling hides. - I have had experience only with sides, and the cost incurred for labour is about one shilling per hide - certainly no more. Whole hides I should estimate' at from 50 per cent, to 75 per cent, extra. > >If I had a splitting machine of suitable size I would certainly like to undertake the work at that price. Those letters are an answer to the honorable member for Indi. So far as I know, the two firms to which I previously referred are the only tanners in this State who have splitting machines, and they will not sell split hides to the third firm, save at such a price as renders it impossible to buy from them. The net result of the passing of this duty will be that Messrs. Howe and Company, who are employing twenty-three hands, will have to close down, and the public will not be advantaged, since the other two firms will have a monopoly of the business. I do not agree with the honorable member for Lang that we should make the item free, but if the Minister would agree to reduce the duty from 5s. to 2s. per hide, I should be satisfied. It would be an act of justice to this firm, enabling *A.* to expand its business, and to increase the number of its employes. {: .speaker-L4X} ##### Mr PARKER MOLONEY:
INDI, VICTORIA · ALP -- A lot of labour is involved in the work of preparing these hides. {: .speaker-JWY} ##### Mr CHANTER: -- I have just explained during the temporary absence of the honorable member that- {: .speaker-F4N} ##### Mr Fisher: -- The honorable member, having explained the matter to the Committee, surely does not intend to go over it again. {: .speaker-KWL} ##### Mr Tudor: -- I have been in this chair for nearly thirty-six hours. {: .speaker-JWY} ##### Mr CHANTER: -- I have not spoken before during this debate, and I do not think the Prime Minister ought to chide me. I have given the Government every assistance, and this, perhaps, is the only item in which I take a special interest, because of my own personal knowledge of the facts. Will the honorable member for Indi guarantee that these two firms will not only split these hides at is., but will supply J. P. Howe and Company? Is it not part of the game of these two firms to prevent Messrs. Howe and Company continuing in competition? This duty is not protective, though it may bring in a certain amount of revenue, and with that I do not quarrel ; but, in fairness to myself and Protectionists in general, the Minister ought to reduce this duty to 2s. {: #subdebate-16-0-s72 .speaker-KRN} ##### Mr SINCLAIR:
Moreton .- There is a good deal more in this question than the splitting of hides. The remarks of the honorable member for Indi only go to show that we should be very careful in accepting statements made by parties interested. I am as anxious as any one to assist industries by means of protective duties ; but I can remember a deputation of the tanners and curriers of Queensland waiting on the then Prime Minister, the honorable member for Ballarat, with a request for an export duty on Australian hides, and a subsequent deputation to the present Minister of Trade and Customs with a similar request. {: .speaker-KWL} ##### Mr Tudor: -- That was nearly three years ago, during my previous term of office. {: .speaker-KRN} ##### Mr SINCLAIR: -- Tanners have been complaining of the price of hides ; and cer tainly not long ago I saw paid for one. Of course, I rejoice at this state of affairs so far as rural industries are concerned ; but we are told that the tanning industry is languishing, and that the Japanese come here and buy our best hides. The Minister of Trade and Customs now proposes an import duty on the tanners' raw material. {: .speaker-KWL} ##### Mr Tudor: -- If the hides come in green with no work done on them they are admitted free, but they pay a duty if any work has been done. {: .speaker-KRN} ##### Mr SINCLAIR: -- That settles the question ! {: #subdebate-16-0-s73 .speaker-JSM} ##### Mr THOMAS BROWN:
Calare . - I believe that both the honorable member for Indi and other honorable members who have spoken are perfectly honest in their representations; and they are only getting a little of the experience we had over the first Tariff. This is a most unsatisfactory method of dealing with Tariff questions ; and I contend that there ought to be some sort of tribunal for sifting statements of the kind. {: #subdebate-16-0-s74 .speaker-JLY} ##### Mr ANSTEY:
Bourke .- The particular trouble to myself is that the conflicting elements to the dispute are in my constituency. A little matter of that kind, however, does not affect my judgment, because, with all other honorable members, the only considerations that weigh with me are national and patriotic. The honorable member for Calare thinks there ought to be a Tariff board to consider the facts and give a judgment, by which this Chamber would loyally abide. But would it? Not in the least. We should dispute the judgment of the board just as we are disputing the judgment of the Minister. I have been surprised at the attitude of the honorable member for Kooyong right through the debate, for he appears to be a very different person from the Robert Best who at one time dealt with Tariff questions in Fitzroy. The disputing parties are both manufacturers, and solid Protectionists, but one desires a duty, while the other does not. Their statements having been duly weighed by the Minister, he originally proposed a duty of 5s. ; but, having heard other arguments, he comes to the conclusion that he had better split the difference, and make it 3s. Men who are most intimate with all the details of the situation, and whose interests are bound up with the industry, cannot agree : and how can we be expected to agree? Under the circumstances, the Minister, like a Solomon, splits the difference as best he can, only I think he might have split it at half-a-crown. A number of Solomons in the chamber are prepared to argue the point; but, for my part, I accept the decision of the Minister. Amendment regatived. {: #subdebate-16-0-s75 .speaker-JWY} ##### Mr CHANTER:
Riverina -- I must make one final appeal to the Minister to reduce this duty a little more. We are imposing, a charge of £750 per annum on one firm, while competing companies will pay no duty at all. {: #subdebate-16-0-s76 .speaker-KWL} ##### Mr TUDOR:
Minister of Trade and Customs · Yarra · ALP -- I met the two manufacturers, and also consulted some of the men engaged in the industry, and decided that 3s. was a fair thing,. I move - >That the following words be added : - " and on. and after 14th December,. 191 1, 3s." Amendment agreed to. Item, as amended, agreed, to. DivisionXIII. - Paper and Stationery. Item 356 - >By inserting in sub-item (e) after the word "Printing" the words ", other than news" > >By inserting a new sub-item as follows : - " (f) News Printing, subject to Departmental By-laws, free." > >By adding to sub-item (1) the following words : - " (2) Apple Wrapping as prescribed by Departmental By-laws, free." > >By omitting the whole of sub-item (k) and inserting in its stead the following sub-item : - " (k) Strawboard. per cwt. (General Tariff), 2s. ; (United Kingdom),1s. 6d." {: #subdebate-16-0-s77 .speaker-KWL} ##### Mr TUDOR:
Minister of Trade and Customs · Yarra · ALP -- It was considered that, as a great amount of paper was coming in ostensibly for newspaper printing, only to be afterwards used for wrapping, it should be subject to departmental bylaws ; but, on going into the matter further, it has been found impossible to carry this out, and we have decided to leave news printing paper as it was in the last Tariff. {: #subdebate-16-0-s78 .speaker-L0K} ##### Dr CARTY SALMON:
Laanecoorie -- Are the by-laws likely to prescribe that apple wrapping paper shall be used only for wrapping apples? If so, a very great injury will be done to those people exporting pears, plums, or citrus fruits. {: #subdebate-16-0-s79 .speaker-KWL} ##### Mr TUDOR:
Minister of Trade and Customs · Yarra · ALP -- The by-law will provide that any fruits can be wrapped in the apple wrapping paper, but that it shall not be used for any other purpose than that for which it is legitimately intended.I move - >That the words " By inserting in sub-item (e) after the word ' Printing ' the words ' other than news ' ; by inserting a new sub-item as follows : - (f) News Printing, subject to Departmental By-laws, free,' " be left out. Amendment agreed to. {: #subdebate-16-0-s80 .speaker-KWL} ##### Mr TUDOR:
Minister of Trade and Customs · Yarra · ALP -- I come now to the question of straw board. When the last Tariff was introduced, the item was made dutiable at 2s. 6d. (General Tariff), and 2s. (United Kingdom). Parliament subsequently reduced this to1s. 6d. (General Tariff). {: .speaker-KEA} ##### Mr Kelly: -- No pretence was made regarding a preference to the United Kingdom, where no strawboard is produced. {: .speaker-KWL} ##### Mr TUDOR: -- Very little is produced there, at any rate. In 1909 we imported 3,730 tons, and in 1910, 4,532 tons;, while the local manufacture increased from 2,590 tons to 2,675tons. The imports, therefore, increased in a much greater proportion than the local manufacture. The box-makers have written numerous letters to honorable members protesting against the increased duty, to which, however, I ask the Committee to agree, because the imports are growing. {: .speaker-KEA} ##### Mr Kelly: -- How many persons are engaged milling strawboard in Australia ? {: .speaker-KWL} ##### Mr TUDOR: -- I cannot say how many are engaged now ; but since the Government decided upon the Tariff, which was three or four weeks before it was laid on the table of the House, another factory began to put down its machinery for the manufacture of strawboard. {: .speaker-KEA} ##### Mr Kelly: -- Before it knew about this change in the Tariff? {: .speaker-KWL} ##### Mr TUDOR: -- As far as I am aware, its promoters could not have known anything about it. {: .speaker-KEA} ##### Mr Kelly: -- Then they were prepared to start without additional Protection. {: .speaker-KWL} ##### Mr TUDOR: -- Like many other persons willing to invest their money in Australian manufactures, they believed that if they were prepared to grant their employes fair conditions they would receive fair treatment at the hands of this Parliament. {: .speaker-KEA} ##### Mr Kelly: -- Had they any particular reason to suppose that? {: .speaker-KWL} ##### Mr TUDOR: -- No more than any other manufacturer would have. These gentlemen did not come to me until their machinery was about to arrive in the Bay, and then they came to ascertain how much of it was dutiable and how much free. They did not ask me, and had not any knowledge, so far as I know, whether there was a likelihood of any increase in the Tariff. {: .speaker-L0K} ##### Dr Carty Salmon: -- Except the general knowledge that Protection was the declared policy of Australia. {: .speaker-KWL} ##### Mr TUDOR: -- Yes. The factory happens to be in my own electorate, and I believe that some of those connected with the firm pre also engaged in box manufacture themselves, so that they will be able to use a certain amount of their own material. {: .speaker-KCP} ##### Mr Gordon: -- What is the existing company paying in dividends? {: .speaker-KWL} ##### Mr TUDOR: -- I do not know. {: .speaker-KCP} ##### Mr Gordon: -- They have no Wages Board. {: .speaker-KWL} ##### Mr TUDOR: -- There is none in the trade. Prior to this there has only been one factory in Australia. The honorable member for Maribyrnong, who lived in the same town for a number of years, can say better than I can the conditions existing there, but I can say that the employes at that factory in the North-Eastern District are receiving better conditions than when the last Tariff was passed. {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr Groom: -- -What is the duty on the finished article, such as boxes, for which strawboard is used ? Will noi the duty, be higher on the raw material than on the manufactured article? {: .speaker-KWL} ##### Mr TUDOR: -- I believe it wil). {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr Groom: -- Is not that an anomaly? {: .speaker-KWL} ##### Mr TUDOR: -- While strawboard can come out in the bulk, and be cut up here, boxes, except a few folding boxes, cannot be imported, as a general rule, and the bulk of the boxes used in Australia are made in Australia. They have a natural Protection, which the strawboard industry does not possess. {: #subdebate-16-0-s81 .speaker-JWO} ##### Mr J H CATTS:
Cook .- Strawboard is in a somewhat similar position to several other items that have caused a good deal of trouble. We were faced with a similar state of things in regard to hides, which were the raw material for a local industry, and which are also produced in Australia. There was a desire to impose a duty on the imports from New Zealand for protective purposes, and a consequent conflict between the two interests. A similar position arose in the case of New Zealand timber, which was the raw material used in the fruit case and butter boxmaking industries. Although the timber resources of Australia are almost unlimited, New Zealand white pine was specially dealt with in the interest of those two industries. Strawboard is the raw material of the cardboard box-making industry, which employs about 5,000 persons in Australia, whereas the making of strawboard employs only about fifty. The duty of 2s. is equal to 40 per cent, on lined strawboard, and to 50 per cent, on unlined strawboard, while the duty on cardboard boxes is only 30 per cent., so that the finished article has from 10 to 20 per cent, less protection than the raw material. **Mr. McDougall,** the managing proprietor of the Broadford Strawboard Mills, when examined before the Tariff Commission on the 16th March, 1906, admitted that the cost off importing a ton of strawboard was 32s. It has been said by the Minister that the duty on cardboard boxes is almost nominal, because it is practically impossible to import -them by reason of their bulkiness, and" their liability to be damaged by handling. If the price of cardboard boxes was increased to any extent, the confectionery shops, pastry cooks, and other businesses, would cease to use them, and would take to paper bags instead. I had samples, which I have mislaid, of imported and local strawboard, and there is no comparison between them. {: .speaker-KNH} ##### Mr Mathews: -- The sample of the local strawboard was shown to the honorable member by an interested person. {: .speaker-JWO} ##### Mr J H CATTS: -- The honorable member will, no doubt, have something to say on behalf of other interested persons, and he may be able to show a better sample. The makers of cardboard boxes are put to so much expense and inconvenience in importing strawboard, that they would use the local article if it would in any measure serve their purpose. They have suffered great annoyance and incurred considerable expense by reason of the fact that, at times, importations which they thought would be dutiable at certain rates have been declared by the Customs authorities to be dutiable at other rates. A little while ago I saw the Minister, in regard to a, decision about the classification of a certain importation, and found that the Australian representative of the foreign firm, who had sold it, had afterwards secretly given the Customs Department another classification. In reality the cardboard box-maker concerned was being taken down by the importer from whom he bought, and a good deal of fraud takes place in connexion with the importation of paper generally. {: .speaker-KWL} ##### Mr Tudor: -- They have all to be watched. {: .speaker-JWO} ##### Mr J H CATTS: -- -Yes, very carefully. Before the introduction of the Tariff, shares in the Broadford Mills were selling at 27s. and they immediately went up 3d. The business is paying a 10 per cent, dividend, which shows that it is thriving, and, I am told by the honorable member for Darling, has a reserve of about ^11,000. Unfortunately their output is suitable for only a cheap line of goods. {: .speaker-KCP} ##### Mr Gordon: -- And they are three months behind in their orders. {: .speaker-JWO} ##### Mr J H CATTS: -- I understand that they do not keep up with their orders. The ex-Leader of the Labour Party, the Honorable J. C. Watson, is a high Protectionist, but, speaking on this subject on the 19th September, 1906, he said - >I think that the Minister might consider whether there is not room for an amendment of this item in regard to strawboard. Only a few minutes ago he stated that a very large proportion of the strawboard which is listed as coming from Great Britain is of Continental manufacture. I am informed upon very good authority that absolutely the whole of it comes from the Continent, chiefly from Holland. In the mother country, I understand, there is not a single factory which produces strawboard. These are reasons why we should defer the consideration of this question until the recommendations of the Tariff Commission are before us. If strawboard were manufactured in Great Britain, I should be quite willing to support the imposition of a preferential duty. {: .speaker-K7U} ##### Mr CROUCH:
CORIO, VICTORIA · PROT -- Why not accept the Government proposal as an instalment of justice to the combine? **Mr. WATSON.** I think that they are receiving justice now. I think the Minister ought to reconsider the matter and if he is not inclined to do so I shall most decidedly vote against the item. In August, 1907, again dealing with the matter he said - >The Government proposal is to increase the duty on strawboard from is. per cwt. to 2s. against the United Kingdom, and 2s. 6d. against the world. There is no strawboard manufactured in the United Kingdom, and we can therefore consider the item merely as a proposal that there should be a duty of 2s. 6d. per cwt. against the world. I should not object to the increased duty on strawboard if the local manufacturer, and there is only one in the Commonwealth, was content to supply his goods at the same price as he previously supplied them. He opposed the increase of the duty on strawboard. When **Mr. McDougall,** the representative of the Broadford factory, was before the Tariff Commission, he gave a solemn assurance that if he received the duty for which he asked,, he would be able to supply strawboard at the then prices. {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr Groom: -- Did he get the duty for which he asked ? {: .speaker-JWO} ##### Mr J H CATTS: -- Yes. {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr Groom: -- What was it? {: .speaker-JWO} ##### Mr J H CATTS: -- Two shillings and sixpence. The moment the Tariff was introduced, he put up the price of his strawboard to the extent of the higher duty. When the item was knocked out, he had to bring down his price once more. {: .speaker-KNH} ##### Mr Mathews: -- I shall prove that the man who gave the honorable member that information told a lie. {: .speaker-JWO} ##### Mr J H CATTS: -- My information is such that I am prepared to accept it. .1 have no desire to detain the Committee. Thirty-six- hours have elapsed since I entered this chamber, and I have been going pretty, constantly ever since. Indeed, I may say that I was afraid to go to sleep, because 1 thought that this item might be reached at any moment. I represent an electorate in which there are many factories ; but the proprietor of a cardboardbox factory was the only one to approach me in regard to this Tariff, and he begged me to ask Parliament to leave. them alone. I have been challenged regarding the statement that **Mr. McDougall** increased the price of his strawboard to the level of the increased duty. {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr Groom: -- Will that really affect the merits of the duty? {: .speaker-JWO} ##### Mr J H CATTS: -- Yes. If we give an increase of duty to a manufacturer who already has sufficient Protection, and the moment he receives that increase he makes a corresponding rise in the price of his goods, the result is that we simply increase the price of those goods to the users. In this case the action of the strawboard manufacturer in increasing his prices in many cases sent his goods out of use altogether. In reply to the honorable member for Melbourne Ports, let me say that my authority for the statement I made regarding **Mr. McDougall's** action is **Mr. Watson,** who, when Leader of the Labour party, made a statement in this House, as reported in *Hansard,* that the moment the Tariff was introduced, up went the price of this strawboard by 30s. a ton. {: .speaker-KNH} ##### Mr Mathews: -- He only got that information from some one else. {: .speaker-JWO} ##### Mr J H CATTS: -- I presume that he is as well able to verify his information as is the honorable member. {: .speaker-KNH} ##### Mr Mathews: -- I can prove that Messrs. Sands and McDougall did not raise the price. {: .speaker-JWO} ##### Mr J H CATTS: -- No doubt the honorable member could prove to his own satisfaction that black was white. I have given him my authority for the statement, and a further authority for it i& **Mr. P.** J. Firth, the owner of a cardboard-box factory in my electorate. That authority is quite good enough for me. **Mr. Firth** is opposed to the party to which I belong. No doubt, because of his own political convictions, he would use his influence against me if he could do so, and I should take no exception to his doing so. But if **Mr. Firth** tells me that he has to pay a certain price for his strawboard, I know that I can accept his statement as correct. {: .speaker-K99} ##### Mr W ELLIOT JOHNSON:
LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 -- He is straightforward. {: .speaker-JWO} ##### Mr J H CATTS: -- Absolutely. When this matter was under consideration in the Senate in 19 10, **Senator Barker,** of Victoria, who is a sound Protectionist, opposed an increase of duty on strawboard, upon the ground that the employes in the Broadford factory were not being treated fairly, and he stated that the owners of that factory had opposed the constitution of a Wages Board to regulate the conditions of the employes in the industry. According to **Senator Barker,** the employes in that factory are not being paid a fair and living wage at the present time. {: .speaker-KEV} ##### Mr Fenton: -- When was that statement made? {: .speaker-JWO} ##### Mr J H CATTS: -- On 23rd November, 1910. {: .speaker-KEV} ##### Mr Fenton: -- Ask **Senator Barker** what the position is now. {: .speaker-JWO} ##### Mr J H CATTS: **- Senator Barker** will be able to make a statement on the subject when this schedule is before the Senate. {: .speaker-KNH} ##### Mr Mathews: -- If the firm improved the wages of the employes the honorable member would give it a measure of Protection. Is not the honorable member a believer in new Protection? {: .speaker-JWO} ##### Mr J H CATTS: -- I am, and when we have power to provide for new Protection I shall be prepared to vote for Protection to the point of prohibition, in respect of anything that can be made in Australia. But the idea of new Protection is not to give the manufacturers statutory Protection, and to allow their employes to submit their claims to Wages Boards, where the factory owners will fight them to the last ditch, in their effort to obtain a bare living w/ige. Speaking in the Senate on 23rd November, 1910, **Senator Barker** said - >I cannot support the Government proposal. I believe in the new Protection pure and simple. The less that is said about the condition of those who work in these mills the better. They are not getting fair wages, nor do they labourunder reasonable conditions. I shall vote against extending increased protection to our paper millsuntil they give their employes better treatment. To my own knowledge, they have refused topay them a fair remuneration. They also opposed the establishment of a Wages Board in connexion with the industry, and when the Wages Board Bill was before the Legislative Council of Victoria they petitioned it not to grant their employes a fair measure of justice. > > **Senator Stewart.** Perhaps they cannot afford to pay fair wages. > > **Senator BARKER.** But they can afford to pay good dividends So that the firm refused to pay good wages, although it was in a position to do so - >As a party the Labour party desire to give effect to? the new Protection, which seeks to extend protection alike to the employe and the consumer as well as to the manufacturer. But here we are asked to grant an increased measure of protection to manufacturers without any regard to their treatment of their employes. I will not vote for increased protection to any industry in which sweating occurs. I have pointed out that this industry enjoys a considerable amount of natural protection, and that we are imposing duties up to 40 and 50 per cent, on the raw material of cardboard-box manufacturers, whereas the finished article is dutiable only at 30 per cent. I have pointed out, further, that, for the sake of fifty employes in one manufactory, the interests of 5,000 in the cardboardbox making industry are to be prejudiced ; and my own knowledge of that industry leads me to believe that, if we agree to this duty, we shall probably be putting 500 persons out of employment merely to grant increased Protection to a factory in which only fifty are employed. As there is a general desire to proceed toa division on this question, I shall resume my seat, knowing that, if necessary, I shall be able, at a later stage, to speak, again; but I appeal to honorable membersto leave the Tariff as it is with regard tothe item under consideration. {: #subdebate-16-0-s82 .speaker-JM8} ##### Mr ARCHIBALD:
Hindmarsh -- I believe that this item relates tothe raw material of so many industries that it would be just as well not to interfere with the duty for which the existing Tariff provides. I should like, further, to say that I do not thank the Government for sopersistently forcing upon the Committee its own intentions and desires. The proposal was kicked out last year, and is going to be kicked out again to-night, and again next year ; and there ought to be some limit to the forcing of this question by the Government. I rose to let the House know the position of this company, and I shall do so from a well-known book which supplies information of the kind. The Australian Paper Mills has an authorized capital of .£150,000; subscribed capital, £107,000; the number of shares issued is 107,000, paid up to the limit of 20s. ; the reserve fund is ,£15,769; the last dividend paid was ro per cent, per annum ; and the share value, when this book was published some months ago, was 31s. A company like that must be regarded as being in an eminently flourishing position; and I think it highly desirable that these facts. should appear in *Hansard.* {: #subdebate-16-0-s83 .speaker-KCO} ##### Mr GLYNN:
Angas .- In 1901-2, we had a close division on a motion by myself to make this duty 9d., as against a proposal for 2s. The votes were thirtythree on each side; and if this Chamber was so equally poised, with all the facts before it, I hope honorable members will hesitate before they add 33 per cent, to the present rate. There are fifty factories, employing 1,500 persons at excellent wages, dependent on this vote ; and I hope honorable members will not, at the end of ten years' importunity, increase the duty, practically at the instance of one factory, and give what must prove a staggering blow to many industries. {: #subdebate-16-0-s84 .speaker-KXN} ##### Mr OZANNE:
Corio .- The honorable member for Hindmarsh said that a similar proposal had already been rejected by another Parliament, but the reason for that rejection was the conditions in the trade, which were not satisfactory from a Labour stand-point. To-day, however, the conditions are totally different, as is shown by the fact that the wages paid for a week of 48 hours are as follows : Machine men, 60s. ; beater men, 60s. ; breaker men, 48s. ; boiler men, 42s. ; bleach men, 42s. ; paper overhaulers, who are women, 20s. to 30s. ; rag sorters, who are women, 17s. to 24s. ; rag cutters, who are men, 48s. ; and rag cutters' assistants, 42s. The wages paid in Great Britain are fully 33 per cent, under those paid here. {: .speaker-KCP} ##### Mr Gordon: -- How many men are employed ? {: .speaker-KXN} ##### Mr OZANNE: -- The total number is 220. The honorable member for Hindmarsh told us that there is only one factory in Melbourne; but there are two in Geelong and one in Sydney, the latter employing ir 6 hands. {: #subdebate-16-0-s85 .speaker-KZA} ##### Mr WEST:
East Sydney .- One reason for my opposing this duty is that it is impossible to produce locally the quantity of strawboard required by manufacturers in Australia. If one buys a suit of clothes, it is sent home in a strawboard box, and this commodity is used by pastrycooks, bookbinders, picture-frame makers, and a host of others, including dairy farmers, who require it for the safe transit of their eggs. I am assured that it is even difficult to get from Holland all the strawboard required, so great is *the* demand in all parts of the world. I should be pleased to give some support to this industry if I thought it possible within the next five years to procure the necessary hands and machinery to overtake the demand. If this duty is imposed, the employment of 4,000 men will be jeopardized. {: #subdebate-16-0-s86 .speaker-KEV} ##### Mr FENTON:
Maribyrnong .- We are often told that Protection raises prices; but, as a matter of fact, prior to the establishment of the Australian Paper Mills, the price of strawboard was ,£15 a ton ; but as soon as the first strawboard mill was established in the Commonwealth the price came down to .£12 10s. {: .speaker-JWO} ##### Mr J H Catts: -- The manager's evidence given before the Tariff Commission is quite to the contrary. {: .speaker-KEV} ##### Mr FENTON: -- Almost immediately after the establishment of the mill the price was reduced by .£2 10s., and to-day the price is .£8 to .£10. {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr Groom: -- What is the price of the imported strawboard ? {: .speaker-KZA} ##### Mr West: -- It is *£6* 10s. {: .speaker-KEV} ##### Mr FENTON: -- I have no doubt that the imported strawboard is very cheap. It comes from England, Belgium, Germany, and some of it from Japan; but the bulk of it comes from the Netherlands. I am sorry to see honorable members supporting the industries of Japan, where the pay is about is. 2d. a day. From the United Kingdom we receive only 929 . tons per annum. We have it from the Minister that another factory is to be established in Melbourne; and surely it should be the duty of *this* Parliament to assist industries of the kind. If there is any industry that ought to be protected it is one that may be described as a native industry, such as this, the raw material of which is straw. If we had sufficient strawboard mills to meet Australian demands hundreds of men would be employed, and the mills- would be large customers of our farmers, who sometimes find straw a drug on the market. The honorable member for Corio says that there are 220 men employed ; but we know that there are many indirectly connected with this industry. Like many others, I was not satisfied with the conditions at one time; but I would not be taking the stand I am to-night were I not satisfied that the employes now work under better conditions than previously in the paper mills of Victoria. Amongst the industries of this class, those employed in strawboard making occupy a very good position. While we are advocating the interests of one particlar industry, we should be careful not to cast aspersions on other industries which it is our duty to also foster. I hope that in the next two or three years there will be sufficient mills to supply .other manufacturers with all the strawboard they require. The duty may induce other persons to invest in this industry. {: #subdebate-16-0-s87 .speaker-KNH} ##### Mr MATHEWS:
Melbourne Ports -- The honorable member for Cook seems to think that the best way to defeat this duty is to abuse the industry it is intended to assist. I might just as well retort that the cardboard industry he is trying to bolster up is one of the worst paid. {: .speaker-JWO} ##### Mr J H Catts: -- It would not be true if the honorable member did say so. {: .speaker-KNH} ##### Mr MATHEWS: -- The honorable member objects to assertions of that kind; but he is not so particular about making them. The honorable member told us that there are thousands engaged in the cardboardbox industry, while very few are employed making strawboard. Is there any reason why the few should not be assisted if they are not interfering with the thousands ? The honorable member contended that the strawboard made at the Australian Paper Mills is not as good as that imported. I doubt whether he is a, judge. If he stays here during this week end, we shall give him an opportunity of seeing the stuff produced here. Why should the box manufacturers and others object to encourage the local manufacture of strawboard, when they admit that it takes them- all their time to import it? We have already one factory, and the Minister has assured us that machinery has arrived to start another. The honorable member for . Cook tried to make out that, after the duty was increased, the prices were raised. It is quite possible that at the start the imposition of a duty may raise the price, but it afterwards brings it down. I have here the price lists issued by the Australian Paper Mills Proprietary Limited, which have evidently not been prepared for the occasion. The first was issued on the 12th August, 1907, prior to the imposition of the duty in the last Tariff, and the figures prove conclusively that, from then until 1911, the prices, as a matter of fact, have come down. The honorable member for Cook has accepted the statements of individuals who, out of sheer pique, are trying to bolster up their own industries at the expense of another. The most inveterate Free Trader would not refuse to assist an industry when it did not raise the prices. If we are only to protect industries in our own constituency, or our own State, we shall get into a very peculiar position. The honorable member attacked this industry, because it did not happen to be in New South Wales. It is nothing but a case of Sydney prejudice. The Victorian box-makers are not doing the growling, but we have had a gentleman from Sydney in the lobby all the week. The Sydney box manufacturers do not want to encourage the local product, and the honorable member for Cook believes anything they tell him. I hope the Committee will always give assistance- to an industry when it can be proved, as I can prove in this case, that prices have not been raised. {: #subdebate-16-0-s88 .speaker-KCP} ##### Mr GORDON:
Boothby .- I should not have spoken, but for the extraordinary statement of the last speaker that an attempt is being made to ruin the strawboard industry. This is not a question of imposing a new duty in order to establish an industry. There is already a duty of 30s. per ton, and the shares of the company, which are of a nominal value of 20s., were selling yesterday at 27s. 3d., while the last dividend was 10 per cent. The Minister told us that, before a new company had any idea that an extra duty might be imposed, it was prepared to establish another mill. I am credibly informed that there are only fifty men employed in the existing mill in making strawboard. The others are engaged in paper making. We are, therefore, asked to give an increased duty to an industry for employing fifty men on a raw material that is used by cardboard makers who employ thousands. The proposition is most absurd, and I confidently leave it to the Committee to reject the increase. Question - That paragraph k, Strawboard," stand part of the item - put. The Committee divided. AYES: 23 NOES: 27 Majority ... ... 4 AYES NOES Question so resolved in the negative. Paragraph negatived. {: #subdebate-16-0-s89 .speaker-KWL} ##### Mr TUDOR:
Minister of Trade and Customs · Yarra · ALP -- The decision of the Committee means that the old duty of 1s, 6d. per cwt. on strawboard will stand. Item, as amended, agreed to. Item 357 (Stationery), item 364 (Ink stands, &c), and item 370 (Lichtpausrohpapier), agreed to. Division XIV. - Vehicles. Item 380 - >By omitting the whole of the item and inserting in its steadthe following item : - " 380. (a) Vehicles n.e.i., *ad valorem* (General Tariff), 35 per cent. ; (United Kingdom), 30 per cent. > >Vehicles Parts, n.e.i., including Wheels n.e.i., Undergear (inclusive of Axles, Springs and Arms), Axles n.e.i., Springs, Hoods, and Bodies n.e.i., *ad valorem* (General Tariff), 35 per cent. ; (United Kingdom), 30 per cent. > >Roller bearing and Ball bearing Axles, n.e.i., *ad valorem* (General Tariff); 5 per cent. ; (United Kingdom), free. > >Motor Cars Lorries and Waggons - > >Bodies, including Dashboards, Footboards and Mudguards, *ad valorem* (General Tariff), 35 per cent. ; (United Kingdom), 30 per cent. > >Chassis, not including rubber tyres or tubes, *ad valorem* (General Tariff), 15 per cent. ; (United Kingdom), 10 per cent. > >Parts of Chassis or Wheels when unassembled (but not including rubber tyres or tubes) as prescribed by Departmental By-laws, *ad valorem* (General Tariff), 5 per cent. ; (United Kingdom), free. > >Aeroplanes, free." Amendment (by **Mr. Tudor)** proposed - >That paragraph (d) be left out, with a view to insert in lieu thereof the words : - " (d) Motor Cars, Lorries, and Waggons : - > >Bodies, including Dashboards, Footboards and Mudguards, *ad valorem* (General Tariff), 35 per cent. ; (United Kingdom), 30 per cent. ; and on and after the 15th day of December, 191 1, each (General Tariff),£24 10s. ; (United Kingdom), £21; or *ad vol.* (General Tariff), 35 per cent. ; (United Kingdom), 30 per cent., whichever rate returns the higher duty. > >Chassis, but not including Rubber Tyres, *ad valorem* (General Tariff), 5 per cent. ; (United Kingdom), free." {: #subdebate-16-0-s90 .speaker-KEA} ##### Mr KELLY:
Wentworth .- I understand that the fixed duties have been adopted to protect the local body-making industry from the competition of the cheap bodies turned out in tens of thousands by some firms, but I would point out that some differentiation ought to be made, because all sorts of bodies are used for motor cars. There are, for instance, the fourseated bodies and the two-seated bodies. I hope that the Minister will look into the matter. {: #subdebate-16-0-s91 .speaker-L6Z} ##### Mr HALL:
Werriwa .- The tendencynow is to produce cheap lines of motor cars. {: .speaker-F4N} ##### Mr Fisher: -- The motor car bodies can be made in Australia easily. {: .speaker-L6Z} ##### Mr HALL: -- As a matter of fact, the local industry could not supply all the bodies needed for the Ford cars alone. {: .speaker-KZA} ##### Mr West: -- The man who can afford a motor can afford to pay the duty on it. {: .speaker-L6Z} ##### Mr HALL: -- But some of the bodies are valued at about £10, and others cost £50 or £60, and even more. Under this proposal, a man buying a £150 motor car imported with the body will have to pay a duty of £2410s. on the body alone, if it comes from any foreign country, and £21 if it comes from the United Kingdom, while the same rates would apply to the body of a car worth £500. {: .speaker-F4N} ##### Mr Fisher: -- Or the *ad valorem* rates, whichever returned the higher duty. {: .speaker-L6Z} ##### Mr HALL: -- I doubt whether the *ad valorem* rates would return a duty of more than £24 on any body. {: .speaker-KEA} ##### Mr Kelly: -- A body may cost anything up to £250. {: .speaker-L6Z} ##### Mr HALL: -- In my opinion, it is not fair to put such a heavy tax on cheap cars. {: #subdebate-16-0-s92 .speaker-KWL} ##### Mr TUDOR:
Minister of Trade and Customs · Yarra · ALP -- I shall look into the matter, and if I think it desirable, shall have an alteration made in another place. {: #subdebate-16-0-s93 .speaker-JW6} ##### Mr CANN:
Nepean -- I am sorry that the Minister has reduced the duty on the chassis. In my electorate, there is a motor car company which is making chassis, importing only two parts, which are covered by patent rights, and cost about £34. It seems ridiculous to protect the motor car industry at every point with duties of 35 and 30 per cent., and allow chassis to be imported from foreign countries on the payment of 5 per cent., and free of duty from the United Kingdom. {: #subdebate-16-0-s94 .speaker-KLB} ##### Mr MAHON:
Coolgardie .- The honorable member for East Sydney entertains a fallacious notion in assuming that motor cars are used only for pleasure. In nearly every large city in Australia they are in extensive use by medical men, and for the delivery of parcels and goods, while in the back country they are employed for the carriage of mails. Some places which used to get a mail only once in three weeks have now, thanks to the motor car, a weekly delivery. This may not seem much to the honorable member, who is accustomed to three deliveries a day, but I hail with pleasure the introduction of inventions for expediting communication and making it more frequent in the remoter parts of Australia. {: .speaker-L6Z} ##### Mr Hall: -- The honorable member represents a big province. {: .speaker-KLB} ##### Mr MAHON: -- An empire, rather. If the cost of carriage of mail matter is artificially increased, the public will have to pay. I therefore think that a moderate duty ought to be imposed upon these bodies. Amendment agreed to. Item, as amended, agreed to. Item 381 (Musical instruments) agreed to. Item 384 - >By omitting the whole of the item and inserting in its stead the following item : - " 384. Pianos and Pianola-Pianos - {: type="a" start="a"} 0. Grand, each (General Tariff),£14; (United Kingdom),£12 or *ad valorem* (General Tariff), 35 per cent. ; (United Kingdom), 30 per cent. ; whichever rate returns the higher duty. 1. Upright, each (General Tariff),£7; (United Kingdom) , £6; or, *ad valorem* (General Tariff), 35 per cent. ; (United Kingdom), 30 per cent. ; whichever rate returns the higherduty. 2. Parts thereof, n.e.i., under Depart mental By-laws, *ad valorem* (General Tariff), 20 per cent. ; (United Kingdom), 15 per cent." {: #subdebate-16-0-s95 .speaker-JWO} ##### Mr J H CATTS:
Cook .- This is another familiar feature of Tariff discussions, and a great contest has ranged round the proposals to increase duties on these instruments. My attitude on this question is a studied one. I desire to see ample Protection given to the manufacture of Australian pianos, but I do not think we ought to be asked to go on increasing duties without rhyme or reason. I hope that the Minister will be able to justify this item. It is not sufficient that we should keep on piling up duties unless they are serving some useful purpose, and I should like to know what is the necessity for the increase proposed in this case. I stated during the general debate that I objected to a general re-opening of the Tariff for protective purposes at this particular juncture, but that I was prepared to join with the Government in rectifying anomalies. I stated, further, that if it could be shown that an industry was suffering, and that it would be injured if it did not receive more Protection until such time as we could enter upon the discussion of the whole Tariff question again, in circumstances that I have enumerated, I should be prepared to support the Government in such a rearrangement' of the Tariff schedule as would give that necessary Protection. {: .speaker-KZA} ##### Mr West: -- We have all made up our minds. If the honorable member were to talk for a week he would not alter a vote. {: .speaker-JWO} ##### Mr J H CATTS: -- I do not suppose that any honorable member could induce the honorable member to change his mind. He must not be restless, and cast upon me the responsibility for the fact that he has been kept here a long time. We have been required by the Government to deal with a week's work in one sitting; but I have a duty to do to those who sent me here. {: .speaker-KXO} ##### Mr Page: -- And the honorable member has done it well. {: .speaker-JWO} ##### Mr J H CATTS: -- I might quote the honorable member on pianos. On a previous occasion he gave us some illuminating remarks upon the subject ; and if his speech on that occasion were measured, it would be found that he occupied more time than I have taken up in dealing with this question. We should place on pianos and pianolas a sufficient Protection to enable the local industry to be thoroughly established and to carry on; but an absolutely prohibitive Tariff ought not to be imposed. Some musicians get more pleasure from certain makes of pianos than they do from others, and we should be taking a rather extreme course if we said to them, " You shall be compelled either to buy a. make of piano that does not please you or to pay a heavy penalty for making your own choice." There are in Australia to-day two piano factories. That which is conducted in New South Wales by Messrs. Beale and Company was established under Free Trade, and without any Tariff protection at all it has built up a very considerable business. There is good evidence that this industry, at the time when it first received Tariff assistance from this Parliament, could have carried on without any Tariff. The Government of the day, however, proffered assistance with a duty, and handicapped its competitors very considerably. Messrs. Beale and Company conducted their business for a few years under the operation of the first Federal Tariff, and expanded it to an almost unprecedented extent. Their balance-sheets, which have been quoted, show them to be in an exceedingly flourishing financial position, the result of the trade done by them in Australia. On the occasion of the last Tariff revision, the industry received the benefit of a 5 per cent, increase of duty ; but it was granted on a very narrow voting margin. There seems to be some power behind the throne, and if it keeps on barracking and barracking for this factory, it will be absolutely impossible presently for some people to buy any other make of instrument. I have here a report of a Royal Commission of Inquiry into the question of shortage of labour in New South Wales, before which **Mr. Beale,** the New South Wales manufacturer, gave evidence that there was a shortage of labour. My impressions from a hurried glance at his evidence are that he could not cope with any more business in his factory with the labour that he then employed, and that he could not get any more labour in Australia. {: .speaker-L6Z} ##### Mr Hall: -- He does not say that now. {: .speaker-JWO} ##### Mr J H CATTS: -- I do not know what he says now. We must remember a Tariff schedule is before Parliament. {: .speaker-L6Z} ##### Mr Hall: -- I know, as a fact, that his factory is capable of coping with a lot more work. {: .speaker-JWO} ##### Mr J H CATTS: -- The statement to which I have referred was made by him as recently as 27th June last. Why are we asked to increase the duty on pianos ? Is it because the industry is languishing? If this firm is working at top speed - if it cannot cope with more business, and cannot secure more labour - a strong case should be made out to induce us to vote for these increases. If it could be shown that increased duties were required to keep the industry going, I should be prepared to support it. {: .speaker-KTU} ##### Mr LAIRD SMITH:
DENISON, TASMANIA · ALP; NAT from 1917 -- Beale and Company are not the only manufacturers of pianos in Australia. There is another firm, and they do not say what, according to the honorable member. **Mr. Beale** has said. {: .speaker-JWO} ##### Mr J H CATTS: -- I have no evidence as to what they say ; but at page 20 of the report to which I have referred, and which was presented to the New South Wales Parliament in October last, will be found a report of the evidence given by **Mr. Beale** - > *The Commissioner.* - As I have said to other witnesses, this Commission has just to deal with things as they find them, and, as regards the Tariff, must assume that it remains as it is. > > *Witness.* - On that basis, that the industrial system of the Commonwealth is likely to remain on its present basis, it is likely that there will be a continued shortage of labour. {: .speaker-KR8} ##### Mr SHARPE:
OXLEY, QUEENSLAND · ALP *- Q.* Do you recognise that there has been a great increase in the development of our manufacturing life since the introduction of the Tariff? - *A.* Certainly. It has been in a much higher ratio than the increase of population. {: type="A" start="Q"} 0. Do you know, of your own knowledge, whether industries - your own and others - have by the state of the labour market to-day been, forced into the importation of goods which they manufacture or could manufacture? - *A.* I only know it as having been reported to our Association. Later on **Mr. Beale** was examined by **Mr. Buchanan** as follows : - {: .speaker-JTC} ##### Mr BURCHELL:
FREMANTLE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917 *- Q.* You said that the manufacturers were up to their limit, as far as manufacturing purposes are concerned? - *A.* I think, in general terms, they are working up to their limit. {: type="A" start="Q"} 0. You are speaking with regard to the labour available? - *A.* Yes. It means that I think the labour available is pretty well employed at present. 1. But, at the same time, your business is capable of expansion? - *A.* Well, it depends in what direction the business may go. We can occupy ourselves with other manufacturing business, but at present we would not undertake it for the reason that we cannot see where the employes would come from. Further on the witness was examined by **Mr. Kavanagh,** a representative of the Sydney Labour Council - {: type="A" start="Q"} 0. As a matter of fact, there is no shortage in your industry at the present time - that is, at your factory? - *A.* There might be one or two of the departments short. Practically there is not; but the questions may have two very different answers. If you asked me whether we could fill our new factory, we could not; we could not get the labour for it. *The Commissioner. - Q.* Have you a new factory? - *A.* We have made very great alterations there. We have other things in contemplation, in addition. He was extending the factory without any Protection, although he was afraid he could not get the necessary labour - > **Mr. Kavanagh.** *Q.* You have not made a demand for labour for that yet?- *A.* We certainly will not get it. > >But you certainly have not asked for it? - *A.* No. But if we prepare the materials, which we shall have to do, and put down machinery, we want to be very sure that we shall have the last and essential part - the labour - and I am sure we cannot get it. > >Have you made any inquiries about getting it?- *A.* Yes' > >From the Union? - *A.* We know that if we sent to Cutler for two or three first-class cabinetmakers, for instance, we could not get them. > >How many different trades would there" be in your factory? - *A.* You might say eight or ten- quite that. > >So that a good deal of the contention with regard to the shortage of labour depends really on the Tariff?- *A.* Yes. > >You say that at present we are manufacturing up to our limit. Do you mean the limit of our present requirements, or the limits of the labour? - *A.* The limits of the labour. I have much other evidence that I should like to lay before the Committee, but, after the long sitting, I am sure that honorable members .are not anxious to hear it. Before a further duty is imposed on these musical instruments we ought to have some evidence of the necessity for it; and if justification can 'be shown, I shall vote for the increase. {: #subdebate-16-0-s96 .speaker-KEA} ##### Mr KELLY:
Wentworth .- The Minister had some proposal to suggest in connexion with the gramaphone duty, and I should like to know what it is. {: #subdebate-16-0-s97 .speaker-10000} ##### The CHAIRMAN: -- The honorable member will be able to deal with that when the postponed item comes up for consideration. {: .speaker-KEA} ##### Mr KELLY: -- I realize that ; but I should like to know whether gramaphones are going to be treated in the same way as all other musical instruments. {: .speaker-KWL} ##### Mr Tudor: -- It is proposed to make one part of the gramaphones dutiable, and another part free ; whereas pianos have always been dutiable as a whole, in every State, with one exception. {: .speaker-KEA} ##### Mr KELLY: -- Are these pianos wholly made in Australia? {: .speaker-KWL} ##### Mr Tudor: -- I do not know of any article is more completely made in Australia than the piano. {: .speaker-KEA} ##### Mr KELLY: -- What I am trying to arrive at is a just method of dealing with Australian producers. It is obvious that if there is a duty on the finished piano, and one of the two manufacturers makes the instrument wholly in Australia, while the other imports the parts, and assembles them here, the former is doing more for Australian industry than the latter ; and the reward is not equitably divided. If I am assured that the pianos are made in Australia as completely as the other commodities of which we have heard, and that all the manufacturers are on the same basis, I shall be satisfied. {: #subdebate-16-0-s98 .speaker-KWL} ##### Mr TUDOR:
Minister of Trade and Customs · Yarra · ALP -- I have visited both the factories, and I have never seen similar places where there was a greater proportion of adult labour, and practically the whole of it male. This is a highlyskilled trade, and, as a duty of 35 to 30 per cent, is placed on furniture, there is no reason why pianos should be admitted at a lower rate. {: .speaker-KEA} ##### Mr Kelly: -- Is there a fixed duty on furniture ? {: .speaker-KWL} ##### Mr TUDOR: -- No, because of the variety of the articles, which range in value from *?1* up to ^50 ; whereas, in the case of pianos, there are practically standard prices for grands and the ordinary uprights. {: #subdebate-16-0-s99 .speaker-KLB} ##### Mr MAHON:
Coolgardie .- Earlier in this sitting the Minister was understood to favour a different duty on the case in which gramaphones are imported ; and I do not see why the same rule should not apply to pianos. A piano has a certain value as a piece of furniture; and I agree with the Minister that the duty on what might be called the cabinet part of the piano should not be less than that of ordinary furniture.. The position, however, will be that, whereas the talking machine itself will come in at a lower rate of duty than the case in which it is contained, the whole of the piano will be charged at the higher rate. I .do not think that that is quite equitable ; and there should be 'some power in the Minister to get over the anomaly. {: .speaker-KWL} ##### Mr Tudor: -- Gramaphones are practically nearly all machine made, -whereas pianos are not. **Mr. MAHON.** T am speaking of the furniture parts of the instruments. The Minister is allowing gramaphones in at a lower rate, because they cannot be made here, but is charging a higher rate on the furniture cases. It ought to be possible to value a piano both as a piece of furniture and as a musical instrument, and to tax the value of the furniture at the higher rate. {: .speaker-KWL} ##### Mr Tudor: -- I cannot now make a statement on postponed items without being called to order by the Chairman. {: .speaker-KLB} ##### Mr MAHON: -- Then the Minister should have been prepared to make the necessary statement at the time. If he thinks it would now be out of order to do so, he ought to recommit the schedule, and put himself right. {: .speaker-KWL} ##### Mr Tudor: -- I do not think that the point raised affects this duty. {: .speaker-KLB} ##### Mr MAHON: -- Obviously it does. A piano has separate parts, each of which has a distinct value that can be accurately assessed. I agree with the honorable member for Cook that there must be some curious secret influence at work enabling these two manufacturers of pianos to obtain special concessions, and win considerable advantages at the expense of the community. Why is it that **Mr. Wertheim** and **Mr. Beale** have their tools of trade admitted free, while the tool of trade of the music teacher is taxed 35 per cent. ? Right through the schedule the tools of trade of individuals are admitted free, or at a very nominal rate. There are thousands of music teachers who earn less and work longer hours than the poorest paid labourer in the community. Why should those teachers be taxed extortionately in order to add to the enormous profits of those two monopolists? They come to this Chamber with absolute lies, as can be proved. One of them says in his circular that he is paying in wages on a piano more than the total cost of the article elsewhere. As a matter of fact, there is no very startling difference between the wages here and in Great Britain. I have it on information that cannot be attacked that piano stringers here are paid 2s. 9d. an instrument, and that not more than three instruments can be dealt with by an operative in one day. In Great Britain a similar workman is paid 40s. to 50s. a week; polishers, 35s. to 40s. ; markers off, 40s. to 50s. ; finishers, 50s. to 60s. ; regulators, 50s. to 60s. ; and fitters, 50s. to 60s. One of those piano manufacturers started under a Free Trade Tariff, and was able to make enormous profits ; and we ought to have some information as to why both he and the other can come to this Parliament and secure, without inquiry, increases on the. substantial Protection they have already received. Why should we tax the tools of trade of thousands of music teachers in order that those men may become millionaires ? We require more information, and the Government, if they have not got it, should; postpone the item until it is obtained I regret to notice the impatience of members. This is about the second time I have spoken during the Tariff debate, so I cannot bf charged with delaying business. The Minister said just now that male labour is chiefly employed in these factories. Possibly it is in the one with which he is best acquainted, but I am informed that in the other a considerable proportion of very poorly-paid female labour is engaged. {: .speaker-KYV} ##### Mr Riley: -- Where is that? {: .speaker-KLB} ##### Mr MAHON: -- In the Sydney factory. {: .speaker-KYV} ##### Mr Riley: -- That is not true; it is one of the best factories in the country. {: .speaker-KLB} ##### Mr MAHON: -- I am very glad to hear it. But if my information is inexact, that is a reason why official data should be laid before us. We ought not to be asked to advance the duties to this penal extent merely on the *if se dixit* of any manufacturer. It is not fair to honorable members nor to the people of this country to raise them to the enormous extent now proposed. I know the punishment that has beeninflicted upon honorable members, and the officers of the House, by these protracted sittings, and I have no wish to intensify it, but it is not my fault that it has been done. In conclusion, I ask the Committee to remember that these rich men who are making enormous profits out of their business get every tool of trade free of duty, while we are taxing the tools of trade of thousands of music teachers, who must have the imported pianos. Honorable members may say what they like about the local instruments, but people engaged in music want the best, and will have it, because otherwise they will drift into a position of inferiority as compared with musicians in other parts of the world. {: #subdebate-16-0-s100 .speaker-KRN} ##### Mr SINCLAIR:
Moreton .- Paragraph c, " parts thereof, n.e.i. . . *ad valorem* 20 per cent. (General Tariff), 15 per cent. (United Kingdom)," meets the contention of the honorable member for Coolgardie. that certain parts of the machines should be allowed in at a cheaper rate, but I do not think that cabinet work should be allowed in at 20 and 15 per cent. Under this item a piano might be brought in almost completed at those rates of duty, and assembled here without much labour. I object to the specific duties. I am prepared to support the Government in increasing the duties, but fixed rates such as are proposed will be an unjust impost on people who desire to buy cheap pianos. I move - >That the figures *"£14* (General Tariff), *£12* (United Kingdom)," paragraph a, be left out. Question - That the figures proposed to be left out stand partof the item - put. The Committee divided. AYES: 28 NOES: 14 Majority ... ... 14 Qestion so resolved in the affirmative. Amendment negatived. AYES NOES {: #subdebate-16-0-s101 .speaker-KRN} ##### Mr SINCLAIR:
Moreton .- If we intend to keep out the cabinet work for gramaphones, we ought not to allow cabinet work for pianos to come in at rates of 20 and 15 per cent. {: .speaker-KWL} ##### Mr Tudor: -- I do not think the honorable member need fear it. {: #subdebate-16-0-s102 .speaker-KGZ} ##### Mr HEDGES:
Fremantle -- These are the pianos used by teachers and poor people. In Victoria alone there are 3,000 registered teachers, and nearly another' 3,000 are unregistered. That fact ought to make some impression on honorable members who are voting for heavy duties. Item agreed to. Division XVI. - Miscellaneous. Item 387 (Bags, &c.) and item 389 (Articles bearing advertisements) agreed to. Item 392 - >By omitting the whole of the item and inserting in its stead the following item : - " 392. Vessels, Yachts, Launches and Boats, not exceeding 400 tons gross register, Marine Mining and similar Dredges, including all fittings imported therewith, *ad valorem* (General Tariff), 30 per cent. ; (United Kingdom), 25 per cent." {: .speaker-KXO} ##### Mr Page: -- I ask the Minister to give consideration to persons who have already ordered boats and dredges, but have not yet brought them into this country. Amendment (by **Mr. Tudor)** agreed to- >That all the words after the word "item," line 2, be left out, with a view to insert the following words : - " 392. On and after 1st July, 1912, Vessels, including all fittings imported therewith - > >Marine, Mining, and similar dredges, *ad valorem* (General Tariff), 30 per cent.; (United Kingdom), 25 per cent. > >Vessels, n.e.i., not exceeding 400 tons gross register, arriving on and after 1st July, 1912, trading intra-State or inter-State, or otherwise employed in Australian waters for any continuous period of three months, *ad valorem* (General Tariff), 30 per cent. ; (United Kingdom), 25 per cent. > >Yachts, the property of tourists visiting > >Australia, under such conditions as may be prescribed by Departmental By-laws (General Tariff), free. {: type="a" start="d"} 0. Yachts n.e.i., Launches and Boats, *ad valorem* (General Tariff), 30 per cent. ; (United Kingdom), 25 per cent. 1. Vessels built in Australia; vessels upon which duty has been collected under this item ; vessels owned and registered in Australia on 30th June, 1912 (General Tariff), free." {: .speaker-KNH} ##### Mr Mathews: -- It seems to me that there is nothing to prevent persons from ordering boats or dredges now, and bringing them in free before the1st July. Will the Minister see that he has proof that the orders were given before the schedule was introduced ? {: #subdebate-16-0-s103 .speaker-KWL} ##### Mr TUDOR:
Minister of Trade and Customs · Yarra · ALP .- There should be such proof. But even if one or two vessels are brought in free which ought not to be so brought in, we shall have made a start in the right direction. {: .speaker-009MD} ##### Mr Deakin: -- Apparently the amendment does not clearly convey the intention of the Government, which is that duty shall not be imposed on vessels now trading in Australian waters. {: .speaker-KWL} ##### Mr TUDOR: -- I shall have the amendment examined by the Attorney-General. {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr Groom: -- Will vessels acquired by companies engaged in opening up New Guinea arid. trading between the territory and the mainland, be subject to duty ? {: .speaker-KWL} ##### Mr TUDOR: -- I am not sure. I shall make a note of it. Amendment agreed to. Item, as amended, agreed to. Item 411 (Cameras, &c.) and 416 (Clay pipes) agreed to. Item 419 - >By omitting the whole of the item and inserting in its stead the following item : - " 419. (a) Pictures n.e.i., including Scripture Cards of all kinds, free. > >Oil or Water Colour Paintings n.e.i. other than those by Australian students, *ad valorem,* 25 per cent. > >Oil or Water Colour Paintings imported by or presented to Public Art Galleries and other similar Public Institutions, free." {: .speaker-JSM} ##### Mr Thomas Brown: -- Is not the Government going to give preference to British artists? {: #subdebate-16-0-s104 .speaker-KJE} ##### Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 -- I hope that Ministers do not seriously propose to press this duty. To do so will be to make this Parliament the laughingstock of every country in the world. We might as well put a duty on books and all sources of information and ideas as put a duty on paintings. {: .speaker-009MD} ##### Mr Deakin: -- The Victorian artists have declared against the proposal. {: .speaker-KEA} ##### Mr Kelly: -- All in artistic circles have done so. {: .speaker-K8L} ##### Mr Thomas: -- Is there not a similar duty in America? {: .speaker-KJE} ##### Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 -- That would not justify the proposal. I move - >That paragraph (b) be left out. {: #subdebate-16-0-s105 .speaker-KEA} ##### Mr KELLY:
Wentworth .- A number of Sydney artists are endeavouring, for educational purposes, to hold an exhibition of the works of Australian artists resident in 'the art centres of Europe, whose pictures are now on board a vessel, but cannot be landed if the duty is agreed to, because £250 will have to be paid on them. It should be pointed out that, although a man who was not born here may have lived here from his childhood, and gone to England or Europe to study art, calling himself and thinking himself an Australian, he would not be an Australian artist resident abroad. This proposal makes a blow at Australian art, because only by the comparison of the works of art of other countries can people develop the artistic sense. {: #subdebate-16-0-s106 .speaker-F4N} ##### Mr FISHER:
Prime Minister and Treasurer · Wide Bay · ALP . -It seems to me that the carrying of this proposal would no more make us a laughing-stock than an attempt to protect lawyers. I have yet to learn that art can prosper in a country which, although it produces more artists in proportion to its population than any other, is constantly losing them because the public here will not buy their pictures. {: .speaker-KEA} ##### Mr Kelly: -- Our artists, in nine cases out of ten, go abroad to study. {: .speaker-F4N} ##### Mr FISHER: -- Pictures painted abroad are bought here, and better paintings by local artists are rejected. I am not an Australian, and I, therefore, speak without prejudice on this subject. I hold that an artist living in Australia has the same right to receive protection as has any lawyer or other professional man, or man following any handicraft or calling. From that point of view, I see nothing ridiculous in this proposition; but it is obvious, judging by the attitude of the Committee, that it is of no use attempting to defend it. * {: #subdebate-16-0-s107 .speaker-L6Z} ##### Mr HALL:
Werriwa -- I have received a communication from* a number of the best recognised artists in New South Wales - a communication signed by Lister Lister, Lionel Lindsay, Norman Lindsay, Julian Ashton, D. H. Soutar, and others - in which they desire to record their opinions that it is to die interests of Australia that recognised examples of fine art should be admitted free. Under the item before us they will not be free. If it be carried, a very heavy duty will be collected in respect of an expensive picture brought into the Commonwealth. The writers of this communication go on to say - >While we are in general agreement with the desire of the Government to impose a Tariff so as to check the influx of indifferent work, we suggest that the work of Australian artists abroad should be added to the free list. Under the item as it stands, I do not think that the work of Australian artists abroad would be free, but the Minister of Trade and Customs has expressed his willingness to accept an amendment making it clear that they will be. I have prepared such an amendment, and shall submit it to the Committee after we have decided the general question as to whether or not any duty shall be imposed. If we are to interfere at all in this direction, it should be with the object of preventing the introduction of cheap pictures ; but the item, as it stands, whilst blocking the importation of expensive pictures, will prove no barrier to the admission of inferior ones. {: #subdebate-16-0-s108 .speaker-JZF} ##### Mr FULLER:
Illawarra . The Prime Minister has spoken very strongly on the necessity of protecting Australian artists. I fail to see why he should not go further, and propose a duty to protect native-born politicians. If such a duty were in force, the Prime Minister and some of his colleagues, as well as a good many other honorable members who are recent importations, would not be in this Chamber at the present time, without having paid duty before landing here. Such a proposition would be just as sensible as is that now before us. {: #subdebate-16-0-s109 .speaker-KJE} ##### Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 -- The Prime Minister has chosen to make a speech in which, referring to my statement that this is a ridiculous proposal, he declared that it was no more absurd than is the protection of lawyers. That, of course, was a hit at the profession to which he knows I belong. {: .speaker-F4N} ##### Mr Fisher: -- It was only a handy illustration. {: .speaker-KJE} ##### Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 -- It is no illustration whatever, because there is not, and cannot be, any protection given to lawyers. If a man with brains comes out here to engage in any profession, it is our pride that we give him the freest admission, provided that no objection can be taken to him. {: .speaker-JX9} ##### Mr Frazer: -- A charge of fifty guineas is made for admission to the Victorian Bar. {: .speaker-KJE} ##### Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 -- The honorable member is repeating an oft-told and absolutely incorrect statement. A chemist has to pay for a licence, and so has an auctioneer and a cabman before he can prosecute his calling. {: .speaker-JX9} ##### Mr Frazer: -- Does the honorable member say that a lawyer has not to subscribe fifty guineas to the Victorian Law Library before he can secure admission to the Bai in this State? {: .speaker-KJE} ##### Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 -- Every one has to do that. The honorable member is indulging in a very cheap kind of criticism. The Government cannot accuse me of having taken up much of the time of the Committee during this debate, and I should not have said a word more on the subject if the Prime Minister had not thought fit to use what I may describe as a catch-penny illustration about lawyers. Every profession and calling imposes its own obligations, its own duties, and in almost all cases the community charges certain fees for the admission of persons to the practice of their professions. {: .speaker-JX9} ##### Mr Frazer: -- Not the community in the case of the lawyers. {: .speaker-KJE} ##### Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 -- Yes, the community ; or, in other words, the charge is made under the law of the land. The honorable member knows nothing whatever of what he is talking. Since the Prime Minister has chosen to refer to this matter, I repeat that it has been the pride of this, as well as of every other British community, that we throw open our doors to people from other places to whom no exception can be taken. If we are to exclude productions of art because they happen to have been produced by persons other than Australians, we might as well exclude books that are not written by Australians. I shall not hesitate to give my reasons to the Committee for objecting to the item, since the Prime Minister has chosen to adopt this attitude, and a little illustration of the absurdity of this proposal comes to my mind. During a Tariff debate in the Victorian Parliament, a gentleman who was connected with a comic newspaper in this State seriously submitted a proposition that all comic serials containing material similar to that published in his newspaper should be subjected to a duty. He pointed out that we had ample raw material for the making of good jokes ; that the making of jokes was a struggling industry, and that persons who were engaged here at very poor pay in working out jokes for the entertainment of the community should be protected just as well as any other class. This proposal stands on no higher plane. It stands, indeed, on a lower plane, because the Government are trying to exclude works of art that are for the benefit of all, and especially for the benefit of Australian art students themselves. I sincerely hope that the good sense of the Committe will lead to the rejection of this proposal. Question - That paragraph (b), proposed to be left out, stand part of the item - put. The Committee divided. AYES: 23 NOES: 18 Majority ... ... 5 AYES NOES Question so resolved in the affirmative. Amendment negatived. {: #subdebate-16-0-s110 .speaker-KLB} ##### Mr MAHON:
Coolgardie -- The Committee having decided that the item shall be retained, there are one or two questions that the Minister might well consider. In the first place, what is to be the definition of "an Australian student " ? Is he to be a native of Australia, or a man who had the misfortune to be bom somewhere else, but lived in Australia for a time, and then went to another country? Furthermore, since these works of art are to be subjected to an *ad valorem* duty, will the Minister state whether there is in the Department an expert competent to judge the value of an oil or water-colour painting ? {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr Groom: -- An expert will be required in each State. {: .speaker-KLB} ##### Mr MAHON: -- There are not many of. these experts in the Commonwealth, and those who are here are more remuneratively occupied in following some private occupation than they would be in the service of the Department. The Minister will have to consider whether he has an officer in each of the States capable of appreciating the value of a painting. Further, some provision should be made for uniformity in valuation, so that a painting worth £100 may not be admitted in one State as dutiable only on £25, and in another State on its full value. What practical provision is the Minister going to make to carry the item into effect? And what is his definition of an "Australian student" ? {: #subdebate-16-0-s111 .speaker-KWL} ##### Mr TUDOR:
Minister of Trade and Customs · Yarra · ALP -- I have no doubt that the Government will try to do its best. It is quite possible that we may not have a sufficient number of art experts ; but, as a rule, people who import the class of pictures referred to are not likely to try to swindle the Customs by representing £100 paintings as worth only £23. The honorable member for Werriwa, earlier in the evening, suggested to me the addition of some words, providing that in addition to Australian students, Australian artists abroad should have an opportunity to send in their pictures free. I do not think that the Department will say that because a person does not happen to have been born in Australia- {: .speaker-JSM} ##### Mr Thomas Brown: -- There must be a definition. {: .speaker-KWL} ##### Mr TUDOR: -- I have no doubt that a suitable definition will be made. It is not to be expected that we should lay down all definitions and rules in connexion with an item of this kind until it has been passed, considering the controversial nature of the proposal. I move - >That the following words be added to the item: - "on and after 15th December, 1911, each £1 or *ad valorem* 25 per cent., whichever rate returns the higher duty." {: .speaker-L6Z} ##### Mr Hall: -- Supposing I bought " The Light of the World " for £10,000, and desired to introduce it into Australia, should I be charged 25 per cent. ? {: .speaker-KWL} ##### Mr TUDOR: -- Yes, if this item be carried as it is. {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr Groom: -- Will paintings for a church or cathedral be subject to a duty? {: .speaker-KWL} ##### Mr TUDOR: -- I think that is provided for in another item, but I shall look into the matter. {: .speaker-L6Z} ##### Mr Hall: -- I should like to submit the amendment of which I spoke to the Minister of Customs earlier in the evening. {: .speaker-KWL} ##### Mr TUDOR: -- I ask leave to withdraw my amendment temporarily. Amendment withdrawn accordingly. Amendment (by **Mr. Hall)** agreed to - >That after the word " students " the words " or Australian artists abroad " be inserted. Amendment (by **Mr. Tudor)** agreed to - >That the following words be added to subitem (b) : - " and on and after 15th December, 191 1, each, *£1,* or *ad valorem,* 25 per cent., whichever rate returns the higher duty." {: #subdebate-16-0-s112 .speaker-KLB} ##### Mr MAHON:
Coolgardie -- The item, as it stands at present, will subject to a heavy duty pictures for churches, cathedrals, and other religious institutions. Presumably, this is not intended by the Government. {: .speaker-KWL} ##### Mr Tudor: -- I shall look into the item, and if necessary, see that some provision is made in another place. {: .speaker-KLB} ##### Mr MAHON: -- That probably means if it is convenient. {: .speaker-F4N} ##### Mr Fisher: -- As to churches, I shall certainly agree as to the suggestion. I consider a cathedral a church. {: .speaker-KLB} ##### Mr MAHON: -- There are pictures in other religious institutions, and these ought to be placed on the same footing as churches. {: .speaker-F4N} ##### Mr Fisher: -- I pledge myself to churches, at any rate. Item, as amended, agreed to. Item 425 (Thermit), *items 440* and 448 (Scientific Instruments) agreed to. Postponed item 342 - >By omitting the whole item and insertingin its stead the following item : - " 342. (a) Gramophones, Phonographs, and other Talking Machines, including cases (but not horns), imported with Machines, not exceeding £5 in total value; also Records, free. > >Gramaphones, Phonographs, and other Talking Machines, including cases imported -with Machines, when the value, without horn, exceeds *£s;* Horns for Talking Machines, whether accompanying the Machines ot otherwise, *ad valorem* (General Tariff), 35 per cent. ; (United Kingdom), 30 per cent. > >Unassembled Metal parts of Talking Machines but not including Homs, free." {: #subdebate-16-0-s113 .speaker-KWL} ##### Mr TUDOR:
Minister of Trade and Customs · Yarra · ALP -- I move - >That all thewords after the word " item," line 2, be left out, with a view to insert in lieu thereof the following words: - "342. Gramaphones, phonographs, and other talking machines, including cases (but not horns) imported with machines, *ad valorem* (General Tariff),10 per cent. ; (United Kingdom), 5 per cent." The cases are from one-third to one-fifth the value of the whole machine; and the idea has been, while assessing the value of the whole gramaphone, to assess the case at about the same rate as furniture. Amendment agreed to. Item, as amended, agreed to. {: #subdebate-16-0-s114 .speaker-KWL} ##### Mr TUDOR:
Minister of Trade and Customs · Yarra · ALP -- I said last night that it had been decided to increase the duty from1s. per cental to1s. 6d., involving, on an average, about¼d. per dozen. I now move - >That the following item be inserted : - " 59.. By adding at the end of the item the following words, 'and on and after 15th December, 1911, bananas, per cental,1s. 6d.' " Deputations have waited, upon me in regard to an increase of this duty, not only here, but on my visits to Queensland, on more than one occasion. It has been represented that, if fair play js to be given to the Queensland industry against the" black labour of Fiji, a higher duty is necessary. It was urged that bananas should be classed as green fruit, at 2s. per cental, but this was decidedagainst in favour of the proposal now made. {: #subdebate-16-0-s115 .speaker-JWO} ##### Mr J H CATTS:
Cook -- I think that this proposed increase in the duty is absolutely unjustifiable. Since the present duty was proposed, it has been almost impossible to buy a decent banana, except at an exorbitant price. If we were encouraging the growth of a fruit anything like equal to that of Fiji, it would be a different matter. {: .speaker-JSM} ##### Mr Thomas Brown: -- Fiji bananas are imported now. {: .speaker-JWO} ##### Mr J H CATTS: -- My impression is that the present duty has almost crowded Fiji bananas out of the market. Certainly the Queensland bananas which are served us in the refreshment room of this House, are not worth putting one's teeth into. This duty will increase the price of bananas, and it is ridiculous to say that¼d. per dozen is any protection for the industry. I hope honorable members will not vote to increase the present duty by 50 per cent., and prevent the people of Australia from getting a really good wholesome fruit at a price within their means. {: #subdebate-16-0-s116 .speaker-KEX} ##### Mr FINLAYSON:
Brisbane -- Many honorable members object to giving additional Protection to Queensland banana-growers on the ground that the trade is largely in the hands of Chinese. That is altogether wrong. Some years ago, there might have been some foundation for the idea, but every successive year shows a marked diminution in the number of Chinese growers. There are now about 130 of them to over 300 European growers. Since 1906, when a cyclone devastated the northern banana plantations, the Chinese have been gradually going out of the business. Last week, a Bill passed the Queensland Parliament limiting to 5 acres the amount of land that may be leased to an alien. This will practically eliminate the Chinese banana-grower. An increasing acreage is being planted in bananas in the southern part of the State, and the centre of the industry is now in southern Queensland. It is going to be a white man's industry, and honorable members must choose whether or not they will protect the white man against the black. {: #subdebate-16-0-s117 .speaker-KCP} ##### Mr GORDON:
Boothby -- Surely the Queensland banana industry does not depend upon a duty of¼d. per dozen. {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Mr groom: -This is an additional farthing. {: .speaker-KCP} ##### Mr GORDON: -- That alters the matter. I shall be very pleased to do anything I can to encourage the banana-growing, or any other rural industry, but my objection to this duty is that it is imposed on a food supply, as bananas are becoming an article of almost daily diet. Question - That the item be insertedput. The Committee divided. AYES: 24 NOES: 9 Majority ... ... 15 AYES NOES Question so resolved in the affirmative. Item agreed to. Item 303. (Timber.) **Mr. TUDOR** (Yarra- Minister of Trade and Customs [12.40 a.m.]. - When dealing with the timber duties yesterday morning, I promised the honorable member for Cook and others that if the re-adjustment of the duties on New Zealand pine made the duty on undressed timber approximate too closely, to the duty on dressed timber, thereby depriving the timber merchants in Sydney of their margin of Protection, I would consider the advisability of increasing the duty on dressed timber. I have since gone into the matter, and ascertained that instead of New South Wales getting anything like its proportionate share, it gets only about one-eighth or one-tenth of the amount, but it is possible that if the margin of Protection is increased the amount will go up. I have not had time to go fully into the matter, but will do so later, and, if necessary, have a suggestion made in another place. If that does not satisfy the honorable member for Cook, I shall move the alteration now. {: #subdebate-16-0-s118 .speaker-KWL} ##### Mr TUDOR:
ALP -- Then I move- >That the following words be inserted in item 303 : - " By adding after the present sub-item f the following words:. - ' And on and after 15th December,1911, per 100 super feet, 3s. 6d.' " That would be in place of the present duty of 3s. {: .speaker-JWO} ##### Mr J H Catts: -- You told me you would make the duty 5s. {: .speaker-KWL} ##### Mr TUDOR: -- I told the honorable member nothing of the sort. The merchants are getting the New Zealand white pine, which comprises two-thirds of the timber, at the old rate. Only a certain portion of the undressed New Zealand timber has been made dutiable at the higher rate. Amendment agreed to. Item 408. (Corks.) {: #subdebate-16-0-s119 .speaker-KWL} ##### Mr TUDOR:
Minister of Trade and Customs · Yarra · ALP -- It is proposed to insert an alternative *ad valorem* rate of 30 per cent. in this item. It will not mean an increase of duty. I move - >That the following words be inserted : - " 408. By adding at the end of the item the following words - 'And on and after 15th December, 1911, Corks - > >small corks up to 8-oz. bottles, bungs, and rings, per lb.1s., or *ad valorem* 30 per cent., whichever rate returns the higher duty. > >n.e.i. per lb. 6d., or *ad valorem* 30 per cent., whichever rate returns the higher duty.' " Amendment agreed to. {: #subdebate-16-0-s120 .speaker-KWL} ##### Mr TUDOR:
Minister of Trade and Customs · Yarra · ALP -- In reply to a question asked by the honorable member for Richmond, I desire to say that magnesia, magnesium carbonate, and magnesium chloride, in packages over 14 lbs. in weight, will be dutiable at 1s. and9d. per cwt., but packages under that weight , will be treated as drugs, and admitted duty free. I was also asked about the duty on cheese caps. The ordinary binding for cheeses is dutiable at 5 per cent. under the general Tariff, but free if from the United Kingdom, and the same rate applies to cloth tops cut here. {: #subdebate-16-0-s121 .speaker-KYV} ##### Mr RILEY:
South Sydney -- The Minister promised to make a statement regarding felt for damp courses and roofing. I pointed out when the paper duties were under discussion that the manufacture of felt paper would be heavily hit, and asked the Minister to propose a duty on felt to equalize matters. Perhaps he will do so in another place? {: .speaker-KWL} ##### Mr TUDOR: -- The honorable member for South Sydney and the honorable member for Calare brought the matter under my notice. I shall inquire if relief can be given, and, if so, shall do my best to see that it is given. Amendment (by **Mr. W.** Elliot Johnson) negatived - >That the following paragraph be inserted : - " Provided that increased rates of duty shall cease to operate after a period of six months from the date of their imposition, unless satisfactory evidence shall be forthcoming that wages have been increased in industries in respect of which increased Tariff protection has been enacted." Resolution agreed to. Standing Orders suspended, and resolution adopted. {: .page-start } page 4414 {:#debate-17} ### CUSTOMS TARIFF BILL *Ordered -* >That **Mr. Tudor** and **Mr. Hughes** do prepare and bring in a Bill to carry out the foregoing resolution. Bill presented by **Mr. Tudor,** and passed through its remaining stages. {: .page-start } page 4414 {:#debate-18} ### LOAN BILL **Mr. SPEAKER** reported the receipt of a message from the Governor-General recommending an appropriation for the purposes of this Bill. {: .page-start } page 4414 {:#debate-19} ### ADJOURNMENT {:#subdebate-19-0} #### Services of Officers {: #subdebate-19-0-s0 .speaker-F4N} ##### Mr FISHER:
Prime Min ister and Treasurer · Wide Bay · ALP .- In moving - >That the House do now adjourn, I thank honorable members for their attendance, and for the manner in which they have applied themselves to business during the arduous hours of this long sitting. I am sorry that they have had such a strain put upon them. I also express my appreciation of the services of the officers of the House, who have done their work under very difficult circumstances. When we meet again at half-past 10 -o'clock, it will probably be most convenient to consider the Estimates. {: .speaker-K99} ##### Mr W ELLIOT JOHNSON:
LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 -- I suggest that in consideration of the long hours that have been worked by the officers and attendants, some pecuniary recompense should be given to them. Question resolved in the affirmative. House adjourned at 12.58 a.m. (Friday).

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 13 December 1911, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1911/19111213_reps_4_63/>.