Senate
1 April 1908

3^rd Parliament · 2^nd Session

1. Senate
2. 3^rd Parliament
3. 1908

---

• QUESTION
  • POSTMASTER-GENERAL’S DEPARTMENT
• QUESTION
  • QUESTIONS: SUPERVISION OF
• PAPERS
• CUSTOMS TARIFF BILL
• PRIVILEGE:SELECT COMMITTEE UPON PROCEDURE
• AMERICAN FLEET

---

The President took the chair at 11 a.m. and read prayers.

page 9891

QUESTION

POSTMASTER-GENERAL’S DEPARTMENT

Queensland Telegraph Operators - Obsolete Automatic Transmitters - Telephone Connexion, Riverina

Senator STEWART:
QUEENSLAND

– I desire to ask the Minister representing the PostmasterGeneral whether he is yet able to furnish a reply to the questions which I put to him on 25th ultimo as to the position of telegraph operators in Queensland?

Senator KEATING:
Minister for Home Affairs · TASMANIA · Protectionist

– The honorable senator on the date named asked me the following questions : -

1. Is it true that owing to the scarcity of tele graph operators inQueensland, officers are working from nine to sixteen hours straight off without a break, even for a meal?
2. Is it the case that, notwithstanding this scarcity of operators, four telegraphists are now, or were recently, engaged in purely clerical branchesin the head office ? 3.Is it true that the present PostmasterGeneral recently stated in reply to a question as. follows : - “ Instructions have been given that will prevent working for. long periods without an interval for n meal ; also that telegraphists are not to be utilized for relieving in purely clerical branches, and temporary hands will be employed to meet requirements?
3. If so, why are those instructions not carried out?

I informed the honorable senator that information was being obtained, and would be furnished to him as soon as available. The following answers have now been furnished by the ActingDeputy PostmasterGeneral to questions1 and 2, namely -

1. So far as I can ascertain it is not true that owing to scarcity of operators telegraphists are working from nine to sixteen hours straight off without a break, even for meals. It is, however, a fact that in Brisbane, out of a staff of seventy-two telegraphists, two are, as a rule, kept on in their turn from nine to ten hours daily, except Saturday and Sunday, and in times of emergency - such as serious interruptions to lines - a larger number of officers have, to meet public requirements, been on duty from nine to sixteen hours without leaving the office for meals. However, as a rule telegraphists do not work continuously during their hours of attendance, and they have at all times the opportunity of partaking of. refreshments. Tea is handed round to telegraphists between 4 and 5 p.m. daily, and hot water is provided for those who choose to make their own tea; and if they wish they may send out for a meal.
2. Three telegraphists are at present temporarily employed in clerical branches here; One in the inspection branch, vice an officer acting as inspector during the latter’s absence on sick leave; one in the office of the manager of telegraphs for twenty-one days, during the absence of the permanent officer ; and one transferred from Townsville to the staff room for six months, pending permanent appointment. These temporary transfers in no way interfere with the hours of duty of other telegraphists in Brisbane. Ten telegraphists are employed for the purpose of providing relief, owing to the absence of telegraphists from any cause, and at country offices temporary assistance is afforded as far as practicable whenever required.

That concludes the report of the Acting Deputy Postmaster-General. The answers to the remaining questions are as follow : -

3. Yes, in reply to a question relating to conditions in Victoria. The concluding portion only applied to circumstances then existing in that State.
4. See answers to numbers 1 and 3.

Senator KEATING:

– On the 25th ultimo the following questions were also asked bySenator Stewart -

1. Is it the case, as stated in the Transmitter newspaper, of 18th inst., that the automatic transmitters in the Sydney, Melbourne, and Brisbane offices “ are of an obsolete type, and should have been thrown on to the scrap heap a dozen years ago “ ?
2. If so, will arrangements be made for the installation of up-to-date instruments as early as possible ?

I then stated that inquiries were being made, and that a reply would be furnished when available. I received this morning the following reply from the PostmasterGeneral : -

1. No. It is reported that two patterns of automatic transmitters are in use in the Sydney and Brisbane offices, one of which is modern. The other is old, but still useful, and certainly not such as should be thrown on the scrap heap. It is also reported that automatic duplex has been worked perfectly by the electrical en. gineer of Victoria with the Wheatstone transmitter used in the Melbourne office, both with. Sydney and Adelaide offices, up to ninety words per minute.
2. All necessary steps have been taken to procure the latest and most improved patterns of those instruments.

Senator GRAY:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– Is the Minister of Home Affairs yet in possession of information respecting the question that I put to him onthe 27th instant?

Senator KEATING:

– On the date named the honorable senator put to me the following question.: -

Mr. Thomas Henley, M.L.A., of New South Wales, having stated in the Sydney Morning Herald a few days ago - That a farmer in the Riverina had expended fifty pounds in placing a telephone in his home, and upon malting application for the connexion to be made at the nearest post-office, which would cost two pounds, the reply was given thatno funds were available. The gentleman offered to loan the two pounds on the ordinary terms - Will the Minister state whether any such offer was made, and if so, whether it was accepted by the Department?

I then promised that an inquiry would be made. The Deputy Postmaster-General, Sydney, has furnished the following information : -

There is absolutely no record of such an application having been received, and the postmaster, Urana, which office was named by Mr. Henley, knows nothing of the matter.

page 9892

QUESTION

QUESTIONS: SUPERVISION OF

The PRESIDENT:

– Since this matter has been raised, it may, perhaps, be well that I should read the letter addressed tome by Senator Neild, and the reply which was sent to him, so that Honorable senators may learn the position that I have taken up.

Senator Colonel NEILD:

– May I be permitted, Mr. President, to point out that I am not at all anxious to go into the matter at this stage? The point at issue is simply the elimination of certain questions; but, if you so will, the matter may remain over, or be passed by, a note simply being made that I respectfully take exception, but not in the way of challenge, to what has been done.

The PRESIDENT:

– I am in the hands of the Senate, but it appears to me that since reference has been made in the Senate,ontwo or three occasions, to my action in exercising what I believe to be the right of the President to sub-edit questions and to eliminate from them that which I do not consider properly comes within the right of honorable senators in asking questions, I should explain what has been done in this case. Senator Neild addressed a communication to me, and to that I have caused a reply to be sent him, but if honorable senators have no desire to have the matter discussed at present I am quite willing that it should stand over.

Honorable Senators. - Hear, hear.

The PRESIDENT:

– I should, however, add, that I will continue to deal with questions as hitherto; so as to keep them within such limitations as, in my judgment, are in accordance with parliamentary practice.

Senator MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– Am I right in assuming, Mr. President, that your intimation to the Senate is that you intend to continue the supervision of questions as you have hitherto done?

The PRESIDENT:

– Certainly.

Senator Colonel NEILD:

– Under the circumstances I shall decline to ask the questions standing in my name.

page 9893

PAPERS

Senator BEST laid upon the table the following papers -

Federal Capital Site : Copy of telegram from the Premier of New South Wales to the Prime Minister, dated 31st March, 1908.

Papua : Copies of correspondence relating to the dealing in land by officials.

Copies of correspondence relating to the appointment of Mr. O. C. Beale as a Royal Commission to inquire into the legislation and administration of laws relating to secret drugs.

Papua - Ordinances of 1907 -

page 9893

CUSTOMS TARIFF BILL

In Committee (Consideration resumed from 31st March, vide page 9841).

Schedule.

Division XV. - Musical Instruments -

Item 384. Pianos, viz. : - …. and on and after 12th December, 1907 -

Senator BEST:
VicePresident of the Executive Council · Victoria · Protectionist

– I move -

That the House of Representatives be requested to amend item 384, paragraphb, by leaving out the words “ (except outside packages in which pianos are ordinarily imported when containing such goods).”

Those words were inserted when outside packages under the Tariff would have been liable to pay duty. Item 450, however, now provides that outside packages, n.e.i., “ including the sole containing package in which goods are ordinarily imported “ shall be free, so that these words are unnecessary.

Request agreed to.

Senator GRAY:
New South Wales

– I move -

That the House of Representatives be requested to make the duty on item 384, paragraphB (imports under General Tariff) ad val., 25 per cent.

When this request has been disposed of I intend to move for a duty of 20 per cent. on importations from the United Kingdom. After the discussion of last night, it is not necessary to state at length the reasons for the proposed reduction. It must be borne in mind that the ordinary upright piano is to be found in the homes of persons of every class. Some honorable senators may have regarded grand pianos as within the reach only of the well-to-do, and therefore fairly taxable at 30 per cent. as luxuries. The upright piano, however, is in no sense a luxury, being found in the houses of miners, farmers, and persons of moderate and small means everywhere throughout Australia. Therefore, even protectionists should impose upon these instruments as low a duty as possible. A duty of 30 per cent. is almost prohibitive. The monopolistic local manufacturer, who is a resident of New South Wales, has done a healthy and progressive business under free-trade, and under a 20 per cent. protective duty, and he has not asked for a higher duty than 25 per cent., the rate asked for by the representative of the Wertheim Company, which may perhaps establish a factory here. Furthermore, we have heard from Mr. Beale that he intends to export his pianos to India, the Philippines, the Pacific Islands, and Europe - a proof that his cost of manufacture is very much the same as that of his rivals abroad, seeing that in the markets which I have named he must sell in competition with their manufactures. I read yesterday his statement that his pianos cost, on the average, £19 1 8s. each, while imported pianos cost, f.o.b., from £20 7s. 6d. to£20 10s. each, which, with the freight and other charges, together with the duty of 30 per cent., brings their landed cost up to£35 each. Therefore Mr. Beale makes a very good profit on the instrument which he sells for £45 each.

Senator Givens:

– So do the importers on the pianos which they sell for £60 each.

Senator GRAY:

– The imported pianos sell for a little under £50, and the figures which I have just given show the profits of Beale and Company to be much greater than those of the importers.

Senator Findley:

– Does the honorable senator wish us to believe that pianos can be made in Australia more cheaply than abroad?

Senator GRAY:

– I am merely repeating the statements of Mr. Beale. The fact that his company is now in a position to export, and to sell in foreign markets in competition with makers abroad, shows that its cost is not much greater than theirs. Mr. Beale has acknowledged that he is more than satisfied with the business which his company has been doing. It has developed continuously since 1900, although it was making satisfactory progress under free-trade. The Minister, however, has given no reason for his proposal to increase the duty by 5 per cent. more than the representative of the Wertheim Company asked for, and the rate with which Mr. Beale would be satisfied. The manager of Beale and Company stated that the company did not need an increase of duty, but that a rate of about 33 per cent. would be necessary to get German and other foreign firms to establish factories im Australia. A duty of 30 per cent. will be a heavy tax upon the general community. It will have to be paid by every mother who wishes to give her daughters a musical education, and by every teacher of music. When we consider the conditions under which our population lives, how scattered our settlement is, we should do all we can to encourage musical education. Bishop Green replied in his old age, when asked what were the greatest pleasures of life, “The harmony of music and the singing of birds.” Those who know the pleasure which the gift of music gives, will realize the importance of encouraging its acquirement, and I hope that the Committee will, at least, do nothing to take this pleasure from the people.

Senator Colonel NEILD (New South Wales) [11.27]. - The courtesy shown by the Minister, last night, will cause me to curtail my remarks very considerably, which will be an evidence to him that he has lost nothing by his action. I strongly support the request. The fact that although, for five or six years, there has been a duty of 20 per cent. on pianos, no second factory has sprung into existence in Australia, makes it absurd to penalize the lovers of music throughout the Commonwealth on the off chance that some one may be induced to start a second factory somewhere between Port Darwinand southern Tasmania. The existing factory was started, and held its own, under freetrade, and it has made considerable progress under a protective duty of 20 per cent. The company has made it known that it was doing well under the old Tariff, and no one is better pleased than I am to hear of its success ; but that is no reason why thousands of music lovers should pay dearly for pianos to increase its profits, or to slightly increase the chance of another factory being started. For these reasons, and, without going into the question which was properly raised by Senator Gray last night as to the representations or misrepresentations, charges, countercharges, and accusations and explanations - there is no need for me to beat the drum a second time - I shall support the request. On the other hand, it is quite right that I should say a few words on a matter which affects an industry in my own State, and, in a much larger degree, affects the whole of the people of the Commonwealth.

Senator MULCAHY:
Tasmania

– There has been a somewhat lengthy discussion on this item, but there are one or two phases of it which will bear emphasis. We are now dealing with the upright piano, generally known as the cottage instrument; and this is not merely an article of furniture, but an instrument which is admitted to have an elevating effect in every home where it finds a place. It affords one of the most innocent of all the artistic pleasures which man enjoys ; and I know nothing that appeals to our sentiments so much as the idea of providing in every home music which, in many cases, tends to harmony, in more senses than one, and keeps the family together. We know that the manufacture of pianos has been started in Australia ; and I think it would be disloyal to institute any comparison between the Australian product and the imported article. The Australian instruments, so far, are in every way worthy of Australia; but it is no use disguising the fact that if a musician requires a really good instrument, he must turn to the foreign product. No doubt the Australian pianos will attain that excellence which appeals to musicians, as it has been attained in the course of generations in other countries.

Senator Givens:

– The Australian pianos keep in tune.

Senator MULCAHY:

– No doubt the keeping of a piano in tune is a great point, but that is no monopoly ofMr. Beale’s, although I understand that he has a very useful appliance directed to that end. There are many manufacturers who will guarantee their pianos to keep in tune in almost any kind of climate. We are now asked to increase a duty which, up to the present, has resulted in the creation of only one manufacturing firm, which, I may say, started operations under free-trade conditions. It was then apparently flourishing, and it certainly has flourished under a duty of 20 per cent. What is the outside competition that this firm has to meet ? It is not the competition of Great Britain, because the figures show us that out of a total of £241,000 worth of pianos imported, Great Britain furnished only 10 per cent., or £24,500 worth. What we are asked to do is really to increase the duty against German pianos by about 50 per cent; and that seems to me most unreasonable. Whatever our sentiments may be in regard to Germany, it is the home of music, and the place where the best instruments in the world are manufactured. I am glad that Senator Gray, as a consistent free-trader, is coming to reason ; because it is a practical matter we have now to decide . Most of us know that pianos are mostly bought on the credit system. I suppose that out of every ten pianos nine are so purchased, and if we impose a very high rate of duty we shall tax a numberof households that I am sure we have neither the desire nor the intention to tax. We shall not stop the importation of German pianos by a 30 per cent. duty ; and, therefore, I regard the proposed increase as quite unnecessary. This is a tax which will bear most hardly on a large number of artisans, small farmers, and others who cannot afford any additional burden of the kind. I am quite willing to fall in with Senator Gray’s proposal, merely pointing out that the preferential duty will make very little difference, in view of the fact that only one piano in ten comes from Great Britain.

Senator CLEMONS:
Tasmania

– I wish I could become enthusiastic over the request submitted by Senator Gray, but I am afraid I. cannot.

Senator Gray:

– Neither can I.

Senator CLEMONS:

– We are asked to reduce the duty in the general Tariff from 30 per cent. to 25 per cent. ; and, I suppose, that approximately will mean a reduction of about £1 on the cost of a piano, taking the price f.o.b. to be somewhere about £20.

Senator Givens:

– And importers have the cheek to sell such pianos at £60.

Senator CLEMONS:

– I do not desire to go into that question. I am assuming that if we carry the request of Senator Gray, the purchasers will get the full benefit of it; and, if they do, I estimate it will mean a reduction of about £1 on each instrument. This item appeals to me personally; and, under such circumstances, I suppose any. honorable senator is inclined to say, perhaps, more than he ought. I do not purpose, however, to give way to that tendency, but merely to draw attention to another aspect of the question. Most of us, I think, know something about pianos and music generally, and we are forced to recognise that, unfortunately - and I use the word advisedly - the best pianos do not come from England. What is proposed is a reduction of 5 per cent. on the pianos made in Germany, the country which is best fitted to produce such instruments. The preferential duty, from my point of view, does not affect the question very much. Pianos from England are, and always have been, inferior inthose; qualities which appeal to the musician and the artist - that is inferior to German, and, occasionally, French pianos. While, of course, I shall vote for the request, and the consequent reduction in the second column, I express my regret that it means so little - that we are largely beating the air. I am afraid we are merely satisfying the desire we all have, as human beings, to have a reduction in the duties, however small that reduction may be, when we think it desirable in the interests of the community. I regret that it is impossible to fix a lower duty than that suggested in the request, in view of the fact that so many honorable senators have spoken, I shall not say pathetically, but, at any rate, eloquently, as to the desire to make as free as possible the opportunities in Australia for developing musical and other artistic tastes.

Senator FRASER:
Victoria

.- I am sorry we are obliged to struggle so hard for the reduction of a duty which affects so much the dweller in the cottage. This industry was started under free-trade, and apparently did well. Under the Tariff of 1902 a duty of 20 per cent. was imposed ; and I am happy to believe that the industry did even better. But we are now told that this manufactory will be closed unless there is an increase in the duty - that, without an increase, no other factories will be started.That, however, is utterly inconsistent with the past history of the industry. The increase really means a handicap on every little home throughout the Commonwealth.

Senator Givens:

– The increased duty means that manufacturers will come to Australia, instead of making pianos at the other end of the world.

Senator Best:

– What a calamity that wouldbe !

Senator FRASER:

– The duty simply means that every music teacher and player will be taxed.

Senator Givens:

– Nothing of the kind !

Senator FRASER:

– Atany rate, that is my opinion; and I sincerely hope that the Government will accept the request proposed by Senator Gray. It is not right ‘to tax the whole of the users for the sake of one manufacturer, who is doing well under present conditions. If Mr. Beale were a struggling man, there might be something in the proposal to increase the duty, but I have no belief in “greasing the fat pig.”

Senator BEST:
VicePresident of the Executive Council · Victoria · Protectionist

.- I desire to draw the attention of Senator Fraser and others to what has actually taken place in regard to this duty.

Senator Fraser:

– Does the VicePresident of the Executive Council contradict what I say?

Senator BEST:

– Undoubtedly . I donearly every word. After investigation, the Tariff Commission recommended that grand and semi-grand pianos should bear a duty of £15 or 30 per cent.

Senator Clemons:

– I remind the Minister that the Tariff Commission had no evidence whatever from Mr. Beale.

Senator BEST:

– I can only refer Senator Clemons to page 486 of the evidence, where he will find that Mr. Vader, manager for Messrs. Beale and Company, gave evidence on the point.

Senator Clemons:

– I said that we had no evidence from Mr. Beale.

SenatorBEST. - The evidence of Mr. Vader was -

I wish to state further that it would be to the interest of the Commonwealth that a duty of 33 per cent. should be imposed upon pianos, in order to induce foreign manufacturers to start factories here.

Senator Gray:

– The honorable senator surely does not believe that the manufacturer would state anything to the contrary ?

Senator BEST:

– My honorable friend, of course, prefers to believe the importer.

Senator Clemons:

– Remember that I referred to Mr. Beale. Though he came before the Tariff Commission he gave us no evidence.

Senator BEST:

- Mr. Vader’s evidence goes on -

That pianos turned but should be quite equal to those at present made by these manufacturers in their own country, for they can have the same materials,if desired, or they can use materials which we have found to be more suited to Australian climatic conditions. The cost to the consumer should not be more than at present. The number of pianos imported into the Commonwealth in 1904 was 9,102. If all these instruments were made here employment would be afforded to from 2,100 to 2,200 people directly in the piano factories themselves, as well as to a large number of others connected with kindred industries - such, for instance, as saw-milling, glue-making, &c.

That calculation was made upon the basis of the figures of 1904, when only 9,000 pianos were imported. The importations since 1903 have consistently gone up, showing that the duty of 20 per cent. was insufficient to protect effectively the Australian manufacturers.

Senator Gray:

– Mr. Beale does not say 30.

Senator Fraser:

– Was the Australian manufacturer crushed then?

Senator BEST:

– The 20 per cent, duty was not sufficient . ‘to induce other manufacturers to start. But no sooner do we impose or suggest the higher duty recommended by the A section of the Tariff Commission, than we have Mr. Wertheim coming forward and undertaking to lay down £30,000 in ‘the establishment of another factory in Australia.

Senator Gray:

– And he says that he does not want more than 25 per cent’.

Senator BEST:

– I do not admit thai. Where there is a good margin of duty “the greater is the inducement to foreign manufacturers to start factories in Australia, and that is what the Government want. They do not want merely to protect Mr. Beale. Mr. Beale, whose acquaintance I have not the pleasure of having, is a wellrecognised Australian manufacturer who, no doubt, can look after himself. The Government are not concerned with his interests. What the Government are concerned about is the employment of our own people, and the further establishment of factories in Australia. There is, at present, an enormous margin for internal competition. We are importing nearly 13,000 pianos per annum, representing a value of something like £250,000. I take it that only about £25,000 of that represents pianos which come from the United Kingdom. Consequently, the duty of 30 per cent, in the general- column, would operate against about £220,000 worth of pianos imported from Germany.

Senator Gray:

– The greatest of musical countries as the Minister well knows.

Senator . BEST. No doubt, and for those who desire the luxury of a first-class German piano, the additional 5 per cent, will not make any difference whatever. The point that I seek to emphasize is that it is not Mr. Beale that we are looking after, but the establishment of factories in Australia. I impress upon honorable senators that the 20 per cent, duty has not during the last six years been effective in creating an additional factory. It is an ominous fact that at this moment we have no second piano factory in the country ; but no sooner do we increase the duty than we have another manufacturer coming forward to establish a factory here. The 1904 importations, which were considerably less than those of to-day, were 7,102, whilst to-day . they are 12,263; the value of the imports in 1904 being £201,706, whereas to-day they are £241 ,000. If I remember rightly the im portations for 1907 were in value upwards °f £300>0°o. What is conclusively shown is that these importations have increased year by year by something like 25 per cent. Even on the basis of the 1904 importations, it was estimated that the manufacture of these instruments would afford employment to upwards of 2,000 persons. That employment .would be correspondingly increased were there a greater number oi locally-manufactured pianos. I do not intend to say that the effect of the increased duty will be to shut out all German importations. That, of course, will not be so., but the effect of the duty will be in th< direction not only of increasing employment throughout the Commonwealth in pursuance of our declared policy, but of also utilizing our own timber and of increasing employment indirectly in the manner that I hav( indicated. Under these circumstances, 1 do say “that a reasonable case has beer, made out for the further protection of thi: industry. I further ask honorable senators to accept last night’s division as a fair test.

Senator Gray:

– We are now dealing with different pianos. One was a piano for the wealthy; we are now dealing with the piano of the poor.

Senator BEST:

– The original proposal of the Government was for a duty oi’ £16 ros., or 40 per cent., in the general column, and £15, and 30 per cent. - as recommended by the A section of the Tariff Commission - against the Unite Kingdom. But another place saw fit te* strike that out and to impose duties of 3c and 25 per cent. . They also thought h desirable . that these duties should be applied to uprights. I contend that last night’s division -ought to be regarded as a fair test division. Therefore, in dealing with the upright piano we should assent to the same duties of 30 and 25 per cent. I would, in conclusion, point out that even in the. one factory which we have established in Australia employment is found for something like 450 hands, and that something like £60,000 per annum is paid in wages. There is ample room for two or three like factories, and, therefore, for an enormous increase of employment. When we realize that the extra 5 or 10 per cent, will have that encouraging effect, why should we not give our own people the benefit of the increased protection ?

Senator Gray:

– Because it is going to be a tax upon the people.

Senator BEST:

– It is going to be no tax on the people whatever. The cottager is not going to pay1s. extra duty by virtue of this duty. This particular class of piano can be most readily made in Australia. It is the higher class of instrument, such as is purchased by those who can afford to pay more, which will be increased in price by this increase of duty. In view of the facts which I have mentioned, and of the desire for uniformity in the duties, I urge that the schedule rates should be adhered to.

Senator GIVENS:
Queensland

– I am one of those who believe that the imposition of extra duties will have no effect whatever in increasing the price of these pianos to those who use them, whilst it will have a material benefit in enabling the manufacturers of Australian pianos to give increased employment. Nor do I believe that Mr. Beale is very anxious to have the duty increased or kept very high. A high duty will be sufficient to induce other manufacturers to come here, and Mr. Beale will not then be able to enjoy a monopoly, whereas if the duty is made low he will have to face the competition of other manufacturers as well as that of the importers. The same thing occurred with regard to another duty. When it was proposed to increase the duty on condensed milk by 5 per cent. nearly every milk factory in Australia was opposed to it. Why? Because they enjoyed a monopoly of local manufacture under existing duties, whereas they knew that if the duties were increased so as to keep out foreign importations, they would have to face the competition of other local manufacturers. An increase of the duty on pianos will probably have the effect of inducing other manufacturers to come here, and we may have one or two factories established in Sydney or Brisbane. It is a laudable desire on our part that the pianos used in Australia should be manufactured here. Senator Gray has referred to the natural protection which the manufacturer gets as being sufficient. He pointed out the enormous expense to which importers of pianos were liable on importing pianos f .o.b. from Germany or England. But as a matter of fact, except in regard to those portions of New South Wales within easy reach of the port of Sydney, the piano manufacturers of Australia will enjoy no natural protection whatever, because it costs just as much to send a piano from Sydney to Adelaide, or Perth, as to bring it from England or

Germany. Therefore, I contend that Mr. Beale or any other manufacturer of Australian pianos is entitled to the fair protection that any ordinary protectionist is inclined to give to an Australian industry.

Senator Lynch:

– What about the poor cottager?

Senator GIVENS:

– The increased duty will not increase the price to the “poor cottager” one iota. The only effect, if the duty is sufficiently effective, will be to induce the manufacture of pianos in Australia instead of at the other end of the world, and work will thus be provided for Australian artisans. A further result will be that the enormous amount of money now spent on pianos in Australia, instead of going into the pockets of foreign manufacturers will be retained in this country. The percentage dutiesleave the door open for all kinds of invoice faking, and bogus valuations. I prefer the recommendation of the A section of the Tariff Commission to make the duty in the general column £5, or 30 per cent., whichever rate returns the higher duty, and after the present request has been defeated I intend to move accordingly.

Question - That the Houseof Representatives be requested to make the duty on item384, paragraph b,” Pianos, Upright,” ad val. (imports under General Tariff), 25 per cent. (Senator Gray’s request) - put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 15

NOES: 12

Majority … … 3

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Request agreed to.

Request (by Senator Gray) put -

Thatthe House of Representatives be requested to make the duty on item 384, paragraph b, “ Pianos, Upright,” ad val. (imports from the United Kingdom), 20 per cent.

The Committee divided.

AYES: 14

NOES: 12

Majority … … 2

AYES

NOES

Question so resolvedin the affirmative.

Request agreed to.

Request (by Senator Gray) agreed to -

That the House of Representatives be requested to make the duty on item 384, paragraph c, ad val. (General Tariff), 25 per cent. ; (United Kingdom), 20 per cent.

Item 385 (Musical Instruments, parts of and accessories, &c.) agreed to.

Item 386. Military Band and Orchestral Musical Instruments . . Tenor Trombones, . free.

Senator BEST:
VicePresident of the Executive Council · Victoria · Protectionist

.- I desire to remove the limitation which is imposed in the phrase “ Tenor Trombones,” and therefore I move -

That the House of Representatives be requested to amend item 386 by leaving out the word “Tenor” before the word “Trombones.”

Request agreed to.

Division XVI. - Miscellaneous.

Item 387 (Bags, Baskets, Boxes, Cases, or Trunks, with or without fittings, &c.), agreed to.

Item 388. Baskets, viz., Workmen’s, of rush and straw, free.

Senator BEST:
VicePresident of the Executive Council · Victoria · Protectionist

– I move -

That the House of Representatives be requested to amend item 388 by leaving out the word “ and “ and inserting in lieu thereof the word “or.”

Senator Pulsford:

– Why not strike out the word “Workmen’s,” as there must be a difficulty in distinguishing between the baskets ?

Senator BEST:

– No, the word has a recognised meaning in the Department.

Senator Trenwith:

– These are the baskets used for holding carpenters’ tools.

Request agreed to.

Item 389 (Articles which bear advertisements, &c.), agreed to.

Item 390. Curled Hair and Curled Fibre, ad val., 25 per cent.

Senator BEST:
VicePresident of the Executive Council · Victoria · Protectionist

– This item is not intended to apply to human hair, or imitations thereof, and therefore I move -

That the House of Representatives be requested to amend item 390 by inserting the words “ suitable for upholstering purposes.”

Request agreed to.

Item 391. Filters, n.e.i., ad val., 15 per cent.

Senator CLEMONS:
Tasmania

. -I move -

That the House of Representatives be requested to make item 391 free.

I think that honorable senators are aware that a very large variety of locally -made filters - and, if necessary, I shall add imported filters- are put on the market which, from a medical point of view, are most inefficient. Of late, this subject has interested me a little, and I desire to bring certain facts before the Committee. It is not very long since a scientific test was made by the best authorities in the United Kingdom to ascertain which kinds of filters were adequately satisfactory. The result of the test was that only two out of, I think, nearly 100 filters were declared by high medical authorities to be really adequate for the purpose for which a filter is used. There was one variety of Berkfeldt filter, and one variety of the Pasteur filter. The first of these is made in England, and the other in France. They are patented filters, and it is certain that they are not being made in Australia. I suppose that for the most part the makers of filters in Australia rely chiefly upon the sponge to do the work of filtration.

Senator Best:

– Oh, no.

Senator CLEMONS:

– I should say that is so in the case of the majorityof filters made here.

Senator Best:

– I do not wish to advertise the name of a particular filter, but it is not so.

Senator CLEMONS:

– I do not wish the honorable senator to advertise a particular alter, but I repeat what I have said as to the result of a very extensive test recently made by the highest scientific authorities inthe United Kingdom, which, of course, was undertaken with the desire to prevent danger to human life from the drinking of impure water.

Senator McGregor:

– Does the honorable senator desire that defective filters should be admitted free?

Senator CLEMONS:

- Senator McGregor knows that what I desire is that we should admit free the filters which have been proved to be effective for the purpose for which a filter is intended, and thehonorable senator should joinw ith me in that desire. We know how important the proper filtration of water is, not only in the country districts, but in the large towns of Australia. The non-filtration of water is largely responsible for the frequent outbreaks of typhoid.

Senator Findley:

– Filters that are most highly recommended are madein Australia.

Senator CLEMONS:

- Senator Findley is aware that I am not decrying anything made in Australia. I never do that. I state that the result of probably the most important investiigation of filters that was ever made, showed that of nearly one hundred various forms of filters only two were pronounced to be really effective by theeminent authorities who conducted the test. Their report was strongly condemnatory ofa vast variety of filters commonly used. They stated, as some of us are aware, that many so-called filters, instead of being effective for the purpose for which they are intended, positively increase to those using them, the danger of imbibing noxious germs. I hope that honorable senators will recognise that we ought to put within the reach of the public of Australia the best filters that the world can produce, irrespective of where they are made, and for that reason we should allow filters to some in free. It cannot be pretended that his duty of 15 per cent. is a protective duty, and it should not be necessary to argue the matter at length to induce Senator Best to accept the request I have moved. The honorable senator cannot attach very much importance to the revenue aspect of the question, as according to the statement supplied to honorablesenators, only £814was paid in duty on filters in 1906. This is an item in the Tariff which should certainly be free, as I am sure the Vice-President of the Executive Council will agree with me that the proper filtration of water is one of the best means that could be adopted to prevent the spread of disease.

Senator BEST:
VicePresident of the Executive Council · Victoria · Protectionist

– SenatorClemons has really furnished the Committee with a very substantial reason for insisting upon the duties proposed. He has very properly said that the result of a test of some 100 varieties of filters in the Old Country, showed that on ly two of them adequately and effectively answered the purpose of providing absolutely pure water. That is a very strong reason why the enormouspercentage of those which may be regarded as defective filters should not be placed on the Australian market free of duty under high sounding titles. If there were some guarantee that only the three or four filters that have been proved to be effective would be imported there would be some force in the honorable senator’s argument; but it is probable that those filters, because of their command of more important markets, would be less known here than the defective filters. We are really being asked to open the door to the bogus filters which formed the large proportion of those examined in the test to which the honorable senator has referred.

Senator Clemons:

– The honorable senator will not pretend that 15 per cent. is a protective duty ?

Senator BEST:

– It is not a high duty, but it would have a discouraging influence upon importations. It is intended to be a protective duty. It is the duty that was imposed under the old Tariff, and the duty recommended by both sections of the Tariff Commission after investigation.

Senator Clemons:

– There was no evidence.

Senator BEST:

– I do not know what the evidence was, but both sections of the Commission recommended a duty of 15 per cent. on filters.

Senator McGregor:

– An Adelaide firm manufactures filters that are sent all over Australia.

Senator BEST:

– We need not travel one hundred yards from this building to find one of the best and most popular filters made in the Commonwealth. It is used by nearly all, if not all, the cordial manufacturers in this city, and commands, to some extent, an export trade. The duty proposed is a mildly protective one, and it is desirable that it should be retained.

Question put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 6

NOES: 20

Majority…… 14

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Request negatived.

Item agreed to.

Item 392. Boats, Launches, and Yachts, imported in any vessel, or which have been put out of any vessel off the coast of Australia, and are subsequently brought into Australia, including all fittings, ad val., 20 per cent.

Senator PULSFORD:
New South Wales

– I suppose that there is no duty imposed on a large ship.

Senator Best:

– Large ships are not imported.

Senator PULSFORD:

– Yes, they are.

Senator Best:

– There is no duty on them.

Senator PULSFORD:

– If there is no duty on a big ship, why should a duty be imposed on a little ship? Why should there be a duty on a yacht if there is none on a ship?

Senator Findley:

– Let us impose a duty on ships if the honorable senator thinks there should be a duty on yachts.

Senator PULSFORD:

– I have no doubt that Senator Findley is sufficiently intelligent to know that , I am not in favour of imposing a duty on yachts. I suggest that it should be logical, even from the protectionist point of view, that, having no duty on big ships, we should not impose a duty on small ships.

Senator Sayers:

– We build yachts in Australia as well as they are built in any part of the world.

Senator PULSFORD:

– I suppose there are some people who would say that we can also build big ships. I move -

That the House of Representatives be requested to make item 392 free.

Senator BEST:
VicePresident of the Executive Council · Victoria · Protectionist

– This item is intended to cover boats which do not come here on their own bottoms. As honorable senators are no doubt aware, the protectionist section of the Tariff Commission recommended this duty of 20 per cent., and the free-trade section recommended a duty of 15 per cent. A duty of 20 per cent does not provide any unreasonable protection, when it is borne in mind that boats, launches, and yachts are freely made in Australia.

Senator Findley:

– No protectionist duty is unreasonable.

Senator BEST:

– Certainly a 20 per cent. duty on this item is not unreasonable, and I hope that honorable senators will see their way to agree to it.

Senator MILLEN:
New South Wales

– There is a difficulty in this matter which prevents me from supporting the request submitted by Senator Pulsford. Honorable senators will remember that when we were dealing with marine machinery, I brought under the notice of the Committee the very peculiar and, I think, unsatisfactory position which arises from the fact that while a fully equipped vessel can be brought here free, if a ship-builder in Australia wishes to avoid the payment of duty on the engines and other machinery with which it must be fitted, he is compelled to resort to the expedient of bringing them in in bond and then sailing with them out of Australian waters in bond on a voyage, which may, or may not, be spurious, when he can bring them in free. When I directed attention to the matter, the Committee was not prepared to assist me in removing the anomaly. I point out that if we were to agree to Senator Pulsford’s request, we should create just such another anomaly, because whilst the maker of a yacht in Australia would have to pay duty on the different materials and fittings, he used, under Senator Pulsford’s proposal, it would be possible to import a completed vessel free of duty. One effect of that would probably be that the industry of yacht building, which is at present carried on to some extent, at any rate in Sydney, would be transferred to New Zealand. The boats would be built there, sailed here, and brought in free under this proposal. Much as I dislike all the duties connected with the shipbuilding trade, Senator Pulsford will see that by his proposition he will be doing a distinct injustice to our local builders.

Senator PULSFORD:
New South Wales

– I was not present when this subject came up before, and the point of view put by Senator Millen had not attracted my attention. In the circumstances, I ask leave to withdraw my request.

Request, by leave, withdrawn.

Item agreed to.

Item 393. Oars and Sculls, ad val. 20 per cent.

Senator CLEMONS:
Tasmania

– Will the Vice-President of the Executive Council agree to modify this item by making oars and sculls for racing boats free? I do not know that it will largely affect the item from the Minister’s point of view, but it will help on the most healthy sport in the Commonwealth. In nearly every four or eight-oar racing boat in Australia, oars or sculls made in England are used. Nearly every sculler uses them also. One of the reasons is the kind of wood out of which they are made. The English oars used are made either by Norris or Ayling. I know of many cases where they have been imported, not because those who use them want only an article made in England, but because it is recognised that they are better made in England at present, and that there are better opportunities there for getting the timber which is most suitable for racing purposes. Of all the sports indulged in by English-speaking people, there is none so healthy or free from gambling or other contamination as rowing.

Senator Henderson:

– Are not the racing boats mainly builtof cedar ?

Senator CLEMONS:

-I am glad to say, because I have had something to do with racing in my time, that most excellent racing boats are made in Melbourne, but the best oars and sculls are at present made in England, although they may be used here in Australian made boats. The two firms I have named have world-wide reputations. Most rowing clubs in Australia are rathershort in their finances, because, although healthy, the sport is very expensive, and the payment of the duty will bea serious matter. We could encourage the sport to some extent by relieving the members of rowing clubs of. this impost. If oars and sculls are made here to satisfy rowers and scullers, they will buy them, whether the item is free or not, because the cost of importing is considerable. The duty represents a tax that operates largely against every healthy rowing club in the. Commonwealth. I suppose that so far as the Customs Department is concerned, no confusion or anomaly will be created by what I propose, because oars and sculls for racing boats areentirely different from those used in ordinary rowing boats. I move -

That the House of Representatives be requested to amend item 393 by adding the following new paragraph : - “ B. Oars and Sculls for RacingBoats, free.”

Senator BEST:
VicePresident of the Executive Council · Victoria · Protectionist

– We may all forgive Senator Clemons for making this proposition,having in view his past reputation and connexion with this fine sport. But Australian scullers and oarsmen have established themselves on more than one occasion as the champions of the world, and have been, as a rule, accustomed to use their own Australianmade sculls.

Senator Clemons:

– With great respect I tell the honorable senator that it is not so.

Senator BEST:

– Some may prefer one class of sculls, and others another ; but I have reason to know that certain champion scullers prefer Australian-made sculls, even taking them abroad with them and bringing them back with their laurels.

Senator Givens:

– Are they made out of Australian wood ?

Senator BEST:

– I do not know that, but there is no reason why racing sculls should not be made here. They have, already stood the test, and have in every way answered their purposes. I admit that the exception asked for is a small one, but there is no reason why it should be made.

Question put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 12

NOES: 16

Majority … … 4

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved inthe negative.

Request negatived.

Item agreed to.

Item 394 (Carpet sweepers, &c.), agreed to.

Item 395. Brushes, viz. -

Quill,½-inch or under, including Aerographs, ad val. (General Tariff), 5 per cent. ; (United Kingdom), free.

Senator BEST:
VicePresident of the Executive Council · Victoria · Protectionist

– I move -

That the House of Representatives be requested to amend item 395, paragraphb, by leaving out the words “ Hog-hair, Sable-hair, Camel-hair, Badger-hair,” and inserting in lieu thereof the words “Artists’ Brushes.”

The object of the paragraph is to admit artists’ brushes at 5 per cent. and free. The words which I desire to leave out are a limitation, because we are anxious to admit those brushes whether they are made of the real hair or some excellent imitation. We wish to make the paragraph more comprehensive.

Request agreed to.

Senator CLEMONS:
Tasmania

– It is obviously thedesire of the Government, and of many honorable senators, that this paragraph should be completely free, for the reasons contained in the description of the articles covered by it. Why then tax them at 5 per cent. under the General Tariff? While I hope that England will be famed for her art for many centuries to come, I cannot pretend that she has a monopoly of it, or of the instruments used in it. I therefore move -

That the House of Representatives be requested to make item 395, paragraphb (imports under General Tariff), free.

Question put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 12

NOES: 16

Majority … … 4

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Request negatived.

Sitting suspended from 12.45to2.45 p.m.

Item 396 (Coke) agreed to.

Item 397. Manures, free.

Senator BEST:
VicePresident of the Executive Council · Victoria · Protectionist

– I move -

That the House of Representatives be requested to amend item 397 by adding the following new paragraph : - “ (a) Superphosphates, per ton (General Tariff), 10s. ; (United Kingdom), 5s.”

Subsequently, if that request be adopted, I intendto ask the Committee to agree to a request for the insertion of the following paragraph: - “(b) N.e.i., free.” The object of the present request is to give a small protection to the superphosphates industry. It has been established for a period of thirtyfive years, and certainly it is one of our best, perhaps one of our most flourishing, industries. It represents an investment of something approaching£1,000,000, and employs about 1,000 men at a cost of about £150,000. Honorable senators will naturally ask, Why is a protective duty sought at this stage? Hitherto we have been able, without any difficulty, to compete with the importations from the United Kingdom and Europe, but recently large importations have been made in Japan. In the latter country there exist great natural facilities for the production of superphosphates, and labour is obtainable at about one-twelfth of the cost which is paid in Australia. The large dumping operations which have taken place during recent years have created considerable misgivings. Under the old conditions the imposition of the duty proposed would not have been sought, but we regard with a large degree of apprehension the inroads which are being made by Japan in consequence of their cheap production of superphosphates. We have endeavoured,- by legislation and otherwise, to protect ourselves against dumping operations, but when we see that the local industry is liable to be injured, workmen discharged from employment, and capital employed unprofitably, it is our duty to give a reasonable measure of protection. I have no reason to fear that this duty would result in any increased price to the consumer.

Senator Millen:

– That is the very thing which the manufacturers have brought about now by a combination.

Senator BEST:

– The first thing we have to do is to secure the establishment of the industry on a sound and healthy basis, and then should combinations be formed they may be regulated by our internal legislation. We have large phosphatic deposits in the various States. I believe that there are enormous deposits in South Australia which are capable of being profitably worked. There are deposits in Tasmania from which sulphuric acid, which is a very important element in the manufacture of superphosphates, can be readily obtained. There are similar deposits in Western Australia ‘and in Queensland.

Senator Clemons:

– Of what?

Senator BEST:

– Of phosphatic rock.

Senator Mulcahy:

– No. The only phosphatic rock in the Commonwealth is in South Australia. There are deposits of pyrites everywhere in the Commonwealth.

Senator Givens:

– Superphosphates are being manufactured at Broken Hill and at Mount Lyell.

Senator BEST:

– And in several other places in the Commonwealth. The duty proposed would amount to about 12 J per cent, under the general Tariff, and about 6 per cent, on imports from the United Kingdom, and is submitted merely as a measure of protection against dump-, ing operations. I repeat that there is no reason to fear that the consumer will be in any way penalized under the operation of this duty, and as its imposition will tend to maintain the industry in a healthy condition, I recommend the request to the Committee.

Senator CLEMONS:
Tasmania

– I cannot congratulate the Vice-President’ of the Executive Council . upon the accuracy of his information, and if he hasbeen accurately informed I cannot congratulate the honorable senator upon the way in which he has tried to give the information to the Committee. We have todeal here with a comparatively simple question. It is well known that superphosphate is manufactured by the application of sulphuric acid to phosphatic rock, and the world’s supply of the phosphatic rock, which every manufacturer of superphosphate requires, is obtained practically from one island, known as Ocean Island.

Senator Lynch:

– And Christmas Island.

Senator CLEMONS:

– That is practically in the same group as Ocean Island. To show the extent to which Ocean Island is resorted to for supplies of phosphatic rock, I may say that both Australian and Japanese manufacturers of superphosphate obtain their supplies of phosphatic rock from that island. South Australia is the only State in the Commonwealth in which so far a phosphatic deposit somewhat in the nature of phosphatic rock has been discovered, and I say advisedly that if the South Australian deposit were good for the manufacture of manures the people who own it would be in possession of an immense fortune, as every manufacturer of superphosphate in Australia would be delighted to be able to obtain his supplies of phosphatic rock from that source. Unfortunately, although many scientific investigations of the deposit have been made, speaking generally the quality is not good enough for the purpose. Though the South Australian deposit is’ now availed of to a certain extent, there would be a rush of people engaged in the manufacture of superphosphate to obtain supplies from that source if the quality were what is required. As I have said, superphosphate is made by the application of sulphuric acid to phosphatic rock. Sulphuric acid is manufactured very largely by the Mount Lvell Company, by Cuming, Smith, and Company, of Melbourne, and other companies,’ and is derived from pyrites. Every pyritic ore contains sulphur, and it is the sulphur extracted from these pyritic ores’ that is applied by the manufacturers . to phosphatic rock to turn it .into superphosphates. I believe that the Mount Lyell Company are now the largest manufacturers of superphosphates in Australia, and they started their opera- tions when superphosphates were free of duty. They have practically no difficulty to surmount, but the. one difficulty common to all engaged in this industry in Australia of acquiring supplies of phosphatic rock.

Senator Story:

– Except that Japanese superphosphates can’ be landed in Australia at a cheaper rate than that for which the locally-manufactured article can be sold.

Senator CLEMONS:

– Speaking generally, I think that is not a fact. There have been only a few. casual shipments from Japan, and the quantity of superphosphates imported is comparatively insignificant compared with the quantity locally produced.

Senator Story:

– What about the importations this year?

Senator CLEMONS:

– I cannot give the honorable senator the figures with respect to the importations up to date.

Senator Mulcahy:

– Twenty-four thousand tons of phosphatic rock were imported from Ocean Island.

Senator CLEMONS:

– I have already said that the supplies of phosphatic rock, which is the basis of the manufacture of superphosphates, not only in Australia, but elsewhere, have to be obtained from Ocean Island. I regret, quite as much as Senator Story can possibly do, that South Australia cannot supply our manufacturers with the phosphatic rock they require.

Senator Story:

– She can.

Senator CLEMONS:

– If that be so, then the owners of the island near South Australia, which contains the deposit referred to, possess something better than a big gold mine, and I should like to own but a twentieth share in it. The Mount Lyell Company are manufacturing superphosphates to such ‘an extent, and so cheaply, owing to the advantage they have in owning the mines from which the sulphur, and consequently the sulphuric acid, which they require, are obtained, that their competition with other Australian manufacturers has become severe and - I greatly dislike to mention names - Messrs. Cuming, Smith, and Company, of Melbourne, are being beaten by them.

Senator Story:

– No, they are being beaten by the Japanese.

Senator CLEMONS:

– That is not so. They are being beaten by the Mount Lyell Company, because of the advantage possessed by that company owing to the fact that their own mines provide them with a better supply of the sulphur necessary to manufacture sulphuric acid than can be obtained from any other mines in the Commonwealth. The other firm to which I have referred is at the present moment compelled tto purchase pyrites from which to extract sulphuric acid, and the Mount Lyell Company, working on their own supply of pyrites, are consequently at a distinct advantage. It is clear that the competitors of the Mount Lyell .Company must pay much more for the pyrites from which to extract sulphur than the Mount Lyell Company have to pay, and the consequence is that they are being left behind in the local competition. I do not believe that the imposition of the proposed duty would help those suffering from the competition in the slightest degree, but a probable result of its imposition would be that the Mount Lyell and other companies manufacturing superphosphates would avail themselves of the duty by forming a combine to put up the price. The duty cannot be necessary to the Mount Lyell Company, because they began their industry about four years ago, when there was no duty imposed on this article; they made big strides in the business, and largely increased their output. I am satisfied that they are not suffering from the effects of any importation of superphosphates, real or imaginary. If this duty is imposed, it will represent, neither more nor less, than an added cost to the price which farmers must pay for superphosphates. Any one who is conversant with the modem progress in agriculture must recognise that, speaking generally, our farmers cannot use too much superphosphate. One of our chief troubles in connexion with the cultivation of land in Australia for many years past has been due to a neglect to apply scientific methods in the industry. So far, our farmers have not used nearly enough superphosphates, but their supply in the future must depend upon the supply of phosphatic rock.

Senator Mulcahy:

– Was this question inquired into by the Tariff Commission ?

Senator CLEMONS:

– I cannot answer the honorable senator definitely at the present time.

Senator Pulsford:

– Both sections of the Commission recommended that ‘there should be no duty ora this article.

Senator CLEMONS:

– Speaking from . memory, I think I can assure Senator Mulcahy that no one made an application to the Tariff Commission for the imposition of a duty on superphosphates. The Mount Lyell Company are doing very well, and their operations in the manufacture of superphosphates is responsible for a large percentage of their annual (profits. I emphasize my statement that if the phosphatic deposits in South Australia were of sufficiently high quality the owners would have a’ big fortune at their command for the obvious reason that at the present time manufacturers of superphosphate have to go to Ocean Island for their supplies of phosphatic rock. We do not need to be protected against the importation of sulphuric acid, because no ship would .bring it to Australia except at excessive rates of freight. Practically the same rates of freight would be charged on sulphuric acid as are charged on explosives, and we have therefore no reason to fear in Australia any importation of this article. Though it is scarcely relevant to the question, I admit that sulphur is sometimes imported by those who cannot obtain pyrites, but that is a very expensive means of obtaining the raw material for the production of sulphuric acid. I am certain that the imposition of this duty can only lead to an increased price of the article.

Senator Best:

– It would only affect 62,000 tons as against 134,000 tons.

Senator Mulcahy:

– If is not to be imposed on phosphatic rock.

Senator Best:

– No; that would be free.

Senator CLEMONS:

– I can scarcely understand Senator Best’s interjection. The honorable senator will agree that the question of importation does not come into the matter if there is to be a combine. Whilst the Mount Lyell Company are doing well now, and do not require this duty, if it is imposed, as business men, they would no doubt be prepared to avail themselves of the opportunity, by combination _ with other manufacturers of superphosphates, to secure this extra 10s. per ton. We have nothing that it is necessary to protect. There is no question of our wanting to protect pyrites or phosphatic rock. If we have that rock, it is just as good to us as gold. We might just as well impose a duty on gold to protect our gold mines, as impose a duty on ‘ phosphatic rock, if we have it in Australia. Seeing that it will inevitably result in adding to the cost to every farmer of what he ought to be using far more than ‘he. is at present, it would be extremely bad in the interests pf the Commonwealth to impose a duty.

Senator STORY:
South Australia

– If I thought that the imposition of a duty on superphosphates would increase the cost to the farmer, I should not be prepared to vote for it, but I feel absolutely certain that it will not. Senator Clemons has referred to the fact that the Mr Lvell Company has the advantage of other, makers, but I have been assured by the Australian manufacturers that they do not fear the competition of the Mr Lyell Company, or, in fact., the competition of any Australian or English manufacturer.

Senator Millen:

– Not of the Australian manufacturers, because they are all in the ring.

Senator STORY:

– But they do fear the Japanese manufacturers, and the dumping of Japanese manures in Australia. Provision has been made in Japan for the manufacture of a very much larger quantity ,of superphosphates than will ever be wanted there, and the Japanese will be prepared to dump the surplus into Australia. Before superphosphates were manufactured in the Commonwealth, the price was very much higher than it) is now. I suppose that every honorable senator has been supplied with a copy of this circular, which shows that, before the advent of local manufacturers, the price of superphosphates in Australia was £5 per ton. There are now at least nine Australian manufacturers, and surely their very number causes a certain amount of competition, which will prevent an absolute combination to raise prices. Since the advent of the Australian makers the price has been reduced to £4 7s. 6d. per ton. The Australian manufacturers are prepared to guarantee that in the event of’ this duty being imposed they will not raise their price to the consumers. They are prepared to give any guarantee that the Government, think necessary.

Senator St Ledger:

– The guarantee is not worth the paper it is written upon.

Senator STORY:

– Senator St. Ledger “ accentuates” the fact that he knows more than any other honorable senator does, but surely an arrangement can be made, between the manufacturers and the Government, if necessary, to guarantee that their assurance that the price will not be raised shall be effective.

Senator St Ledger:

– That can only be done by an Act of Parliament.

Senator STORY:

– As a matter of fact, Senator Clemons has shown that the Australian makers can supply the article to the consumers at the present cost, providing they have not to compete against the cheap labour of Japan.

Senator Clemons:

– The Mount Lyell Company can do it in any case.

Senator Mulcahy:

– How much comes in from Japan?

Senator STORY:

– In 1906, only 4,000 cwt.

Senator Best:

– Three thousand tons came in last year.

Senator STORY:

– Honorablesenators have been supplied with a cutting from the Melbourne Age of recent date, showing that the Farmers’ Co-operative Society at Warracknabeal called for tenders for the supply of superphosphates. The object of those farmers in co-operating is to obtain goods and retail them to their shareholders at wholesale prices, so that the farmer who wants only one ton of superphosphate - practically a retail quantity - gets it at a wholesale price. The whole of the Australian manufacturers, recognising that the object of the Co-operative Society was to sell retail quantities at wholesale rates, quoted a reasonable price which was very much lower than that prevailing before the article was manufactured in Australia, but a certain Mr. Hasell, an agent for Japanese companies, was able to quote a price of several shillings less per ton, and got the contract.

Senator Findley:

– Is it a fact that he is the agent for Japanese companies?

Senator Best:

– Has he not an industry in South Australia?

Senator STORY:

– Yes. But I know that he is the agent for Japanese companies. I have travelled with him from Melbourne to Adelaide, and I know that he has a much greater admiration for Japanese than for Australian workmen. It is a very fair assumption when he is able to undersell all the Australian manufacturers that he is supplying Japanese superphosphates.

Senator Clemons:

– The total value of Japanese superphosphates imported in the last year given in the official returns was only£790.

Senator STORY:

-That was for 1906.

Senator Best:

-£12,000 worth was imported in 1907.

Senator STORY:

– I am sure that the importations have increased largely.It is because of the alarming increase of the importations from Japan and Germany that the necessity for the proposed duty exists. Prior to the advent of the Australian makers, it was found that the im ported manures were largely adulterated, and in South Australia and Victoria special legislation had to be passed to deal with the question.

Senator Clemons:

– Good legislation, too.

Senator STORY:

– It was, undoubtedly, but it was necessary, because the manures were imported from foreign countries, over which the States had no control.

Senator Findley:

– The States have no control over them now.

Senator STORY:

– But the States authorities have absolute control over the local manufacturers, and can prevent the farmers being robbed by the supply of adulterated manures.

Senator Clemons:

– They have absolutely the same control over imported manures.

Senator STORY:

– It is much more difficult to analyze a shipment of manures than to supervise their local manufacture. The circular to which I have referred contrasts the rate of wages paid in. Japan with those paid in Australia, as follows -

The workman in. Japan receives only 7½d. to 10d. per day of eleven hours, whereas the average wage paid at present in this industry in Australia is 7s. per day of eight hours ; or, in other words, the manufacturer in Japan gets just twelve times as much labour for the same amount paid by the Australian manufacturer. In addition to this, Japan has superior facilities in regard to cheap raw material, and can land superphosphates in Australia at lower rates by subsidized steamers.

That is an additional advantage held by the Japanese over the Australian maker. A large amount of capital is invested in the Australian industry, which must expand enormously. Every year the amount of wheat-growing land for which this manure is principally used is increasing. In South Australia alone there are millions of acres that have never yet been used for wheat-growing - light lands which can grow wheat only with the use of superphosphates.

Senator Mulcahy:

– The honorable senator is going to make it more difficult for those lands to be used.

Senator STORY:

– If I thought that the imposition of a duty would make manures more expensive to the farmer, I should be one of the first tovote against it. But the manufacturers give an assurance that they will not increase the price.

Senator Mulcahy:

– What about a reduction of the price? The honorable senator seems to think that an increase of the price is the only thing to be looked at.

Senator STORY:

– This industry is just the same as any other. There are nine manufacturers in all the States except Western Australia. If the- combination to which Senator Millen referred is making such a good thing of it, that it is worth any One else’s while to go into the industry, I am certain that men of capital, like Senator Clemons and Senator Mulcahy, instead of investing their money in Government bonds, will put it into a factory for producing superphosphates, and enter into competition with the combination of nine companies who are alleged to be making such glorious profits by robbing the Australian farmers. I do not apprehend ‘that anything of the sort will take place. I am satisfied that the Australian manufacturers are business people who are satisfied with a fair business profit. All that they desire is to be protected against the dumping of this product from cheap-labour countries. They have not the slightest fear of each other. It would not matter if one company had a monopoly of sulphuric acid, which, by the way it has not. I am glad ‘that the VicePresident of the Executive Council has introduced this request. If he had not done so, it was my intention to move it, because I realize the magnitude of this great industry, and recognise its immensepossibilities of expansion. The local companies are now producing 185,000 tons, and employ 785 men, but those are only the hands in their immediate employ. In addition, there are hundreds occupied in quarrying the rock, carting it to the factory, and supplying the other necessary ingredients and materials, including fuel. When we estimate what the industry will be in a few years’ time, taking into consideration its probable expansion if we only impose a protective duty sufficiently high to enable Australian manufacturers to compete against the cheap labour of Japan and against the black labour of other countries - and the proposal of the VicePresident of the Executive Council is for a moderate duty - we must see that there is ample justification for this proposal, and I hope that the request will be agreed to.

Senator MULCAHY:
Tasmania

– I would like to give a lift to this ind,istry if it were not that sc. many larger interests would be affected by the imposition of a duty. I . think the principal portion of the material which is used by the Mount Lyell Company - the sulphuric acid - is made from rock brought over from the Mount Lyell mines.

Senator Story:

– There is plenty of it at Wallaroo, in South Australia.

Senator MULCAHY:

– I know that. There is plenty of it everywhere, but there is very little pyritic rock so. rich as that being mined at Mount Lyell, so to some extent this may be regarded as a Tasmanian industry. Therefore, if it affected Tasmania . alone, one might agree to a larger rate of duty being imposed. But -there is one matter which we must remember in connexion with this item, and it always affects my vote when we are dealing with primary industries, and particularly with the farmers. We have imposed’ duties on certain goods, and whatever may be the benefit to the industries concerned, those duties must penalize the farmers for some time.

Senator Story:

– The farmer must have everything free. ‘ 1

Senator MULCAHY:

– I think that if the farmer had most things free it would not be a bad thing for the production of the Commonwealth. One fact not referred to as frequently as it ought to be is well known in connexion with the farming industry, and that is that it is the natural tendency of farmers getting on fresh ground to exhaust that ground of all its fertile properties before renewing them. That has been going on for years in Tasmania, where there is the most fertile land in the world.

Senator Story:

– Queensland has the most fertile land.

Senator MULCAHY:

– Wherever a farmer takes up rich land, his tendency is to go on using and re-using it until its fertile qualities become exhausted and require renewing. There is a vast area of land in Australia that has been exhausted of its fertile qualities through unscientific farming. Crop after crop of the same nature has been produced from it. The history of the superphosphate industry is a good indication of that state of affairs. A little while ago the manure in use was the ordinary stable manure. Afterwards guano was used, and then a method was discovered of producing ‘from phosphatic rock a product having superior qualities. Just at the time when the farmers are feeling the necessity of using this material, it is proposed to impose a duty on it, in face of the fact tha’t the manufacture of this particular kind of manure has developed without any assistance in the way of a duty.

Senator Story:

– Do you, as a protectionist, say that the imposition of a duty increases the price?

Senator MULCAHY:

– I do not want my protectionist principles to interfere with the large farming industry now dependent on superphosphates. I have never claimed to be anything but a commonsense protectionist. I am not going to impose a penalty on all farmers simply to encourage the superphosphate industry. What is that industry compared with the farming industry which is to” a great extent dependent on it, and which is becoming more dependent on it every day ? I quite understand Senator Story’s intention, but I would like the honorable senator to look at the question broadly. In South Australia there are enormous areas of very poor land - the poorest land in any of the States. Those areas can be easily cultivated and worked, but above everything else they need the kind of manure with which we are now dealing. What does Senator Story propose to do? For the sake of what is a miserably small industry compared with the farming industry he is going to penalize all the farmers of South Australia ?

Senator Story:

– Nothing of the kind. The price will not be increased by one farthing per ton.

Senator MULCAHY:

– That is an assertion based on a statement made here by interested people who have come forward.

Senator Millen:

– And we have the fact that they have already got a price agreement amongst themselves.

Senator Story:

– That is another assertion.

Senator Millen:

– It has been published and never denied.

Senator MULCAHY:

– If it has not been demonstrated that the manufacturers have a ring amongst themselves it will be equally admitted that they are not able to produce the highest quality of superphosphate manure required from material within the Commonwealth.

Senator Trenwith:

– It. has been demonstrated that they can.

Senator MULCAHY:

– The fact remains that the Mount Lyell Company have sent experts away thousands of miles to the South Sea Islands to look for this rock, at very heavy expense, when they would have been glad ‘to obtain it near at hand.

Senator Findley:

– If it is advantageous to the ‘farmer to get superphosphates from Japan, why not let the Japanese come into Australia! and make the manure here ?

Senator MULCAHY:

– The honorable senator is opening up a totally different question. The great fear of some honorable senators is that something is going to happen in connexion with Japanese importations. If honorable senators wish to do the right thing, a.nd I should be perfectly, willing to help them, the proper course is, when both Houses of Parliament are satisfied that the super-phosphate industry is developed to such1 an extent as to supply all Australian demands, to impose a duty by proclamation. I have only heard of one place where there are phosphatic deposits in South Australia.

Senator Story:

– I know of several.

Senator MULCAHY:

– I know only of one, and I went into the matter some years ago. We thought that we had phosphatic deposits in Tasmania, and the Government Geologist was sent to examine the localities where they were supposed to exist, but they were not there. Australian and Tas. manian farmers require this manure.

Senator Story:

– Because Tasmania has not the phosphatic rock the honorable senator is against the duty.

Senator MULCAHY:

– The honorable senator should not impute motives like that. If there were any reason why I should be influenced in that way it is the fact that the principal ingredient in the manufacture of superphosphatic manures is a by-product of the Mount Lyell mines in Tasmania, and therefore I should be in favour of the duty for Tasmanian purposes. It is not fair to tax Australian farmers’ until we have established the fact that superphosphatic manure can be produced here at bedrock prices, and that our natural conditions are such as to enable us to give farmers the manure they require at the lowest possible rates. We do not regulate the prices of wheat.. Our farmers have to realize at whatever they can get in the market.

Senator Turley:

– You. are progressing towards free-trade fast.

Senator MULCAHY:

– - It may be a good thing if I am, if my protectionist friends . are going to take the bit in their teeth like this and run mad on every little protectionist item -

Senator Story:

– Little item ?

Senator MULCAHY:

– Yes.

Senator Story:

– It is an immense item.

Senator MULCAHY:

– It is a little industry compared with the magnitude of the farming industry which it is proposed to cripple. The superphosphate industry is insignificant compared with the farming industry, which depends on these superphosphates.

Senator LYNCH:
Western Australia

– I am going to oppose the proposal of the Government because I believe, in view of the increasing quantity of superphosphates being used throughout Australia, it is very necessary that we should admit to this country the cheapest form of fertilizer. We know that our State settlements are now being pushed out into the drier regions, and that the settlers in those localities are greatly penalized unless they can obtain the cheapest form of fertilizer in order to make their areas productive.

Senator Findley:

– Why not admit all things free for the benefit of the farmers - all the methods of communication, engines, rails and everything else?

Senator LYNCH:

– I suppose the honorable senator is chiding me on votes I have given on other items dealing with farming implements.

Senator Findley:

– If manure is going to be cheap to the farmer so should everything else.

Senator LYNCH:

– If this- country were setting ‘out to be- simply a manure producing country I could understand the views of the honorable senator, but when we have a large dry area on which we desire to settle either now or in the near future a large number of people, the question is what is to be done to make the land productive ?

Senator Millen:

– Circumstances are forcing us out into the drier areas.

Senator LYNCH:

– It is unfortunately this country’s besetting difficulty that under existing circumstances we have to force our population into rainless districts. We are very much in need of an adequate rainfall in many parts- of the Commonwealth, and to overcome this climatic difficulty resort has been made to the use of superphosphates, in order that the crop may be got in” early and got out early before the dry weather of summer comes1 along to shrivel it up.

Senator Millen:

– It is really a corrective of drought. You might as well put a duty on irrigation as on this .item.

Senator Trenwith:

– The honorable senator knows very little if he says that superphosphates can be used without rain.

Senator Millen:

– No one says so.

Senator LYNCH:

– I have not attempted to say that, but superphosphates are being largely used in dry climates to force the crops so as to get them out before the sum-, mer sun comes on them.

Senator Findley:

– Agricultural implements are used in dry as well as wet areas, and the honorable senator voted for a duty on them.

Senator LYNCH:

– For. my part I care not where the fertilizer comes from, and I hold that it would be an absolutely mistaken policy to enforce any conditions that would render our dry areas less productive than they could be made. Under these circumstances, when it comes to making a choice between encouraging the manufacture of these manures in our several States and increasing the area of land that can be used for farming, I am strongly in favour of going for the enlarged area, and so creating for numbers of men an infinitely better means of .livelihood than could be obtained in the cities. I think that the rate of wage in this industry has been fixed at as low as 6s. and 6s. 6d. per clay. I do not allow that fact to influence me in the slightest degree, but I suggest to the Committee that it is far preferable to enlarge the area under cultivation, especially in the drier regions, by enabling the farmers to obtain the cheapest possible fertilizer, no matter whence it may come.. Under existing conditions, we are face to face with the fact that our people are being forced into, the drier regions.

Senator Givens:

– Who is forcing them? The free-traders !

Senator LYNCH:

– The arbitrary conditions of circumstance.

Senator Givens:

– No; the locking up of the lands is forcing them out.

Senator LYNCH:

– Our people will continue to go into the dry regions until we can provide an adequate remedy, and it is a simple act of justice on our part to see that all such persons are afforded every chance to make the lands productive, and achieve some result from their ‘labours. During the last twenty years, we have had periodical droughts, and statistics show that we have had to import wheat. For instance, we imported, in 1897’, 7,000,000 bushels, and, in 1903, 9,000,000 bushels.

Senator de Largie:

– Would a. plentiful supply of superphosphates have prevented those importations ?

Senator LYNCH:

– I do not say that it would. On five occasions during the last twenty-two years we have been obliged, to import wheat. What is the remedy proposed for Australia’s unfortunate lot in possessing a dry climate? Evidently it is to increase the cost of artificial manures. That will be a mistake if it is done. I believe that by encouraging the local manufacture of superphosphates we shall reduce the number of settlers in our dry areas, and to that extent diminish the amount of settlement, and production. I intend to oppose the request.

Senator McCOLL:
Victoria

– I believe that this is the first time that an attempt has been made in a Parliament in Australia to put a duty on manures. It has always been considered a wrong thing to impose any artificial barriers between the cultivator of the soil and those factors that will aid him in its cultivation. The use of manures during the last eight or ten years has revolutionized farming invery many districts. Much of our soil is not very rich, especially in the plain country. It has been found that the use of manures with a moderate rainfall has almost doubled the crops. Of course, without moisture superphosphates do more harm than good, but with the manure and a little moisture, a man obtains a much better crop.

Senator Story:

– The honorable senator has argued that protective duties do not increase the prices of articles.

Senator McCOLL:

– They have done so in some cases.

Senator Story:

– Why make an exception in this instance?

Senator McCOLL:

– Because I am not prepared at the present time to subject the farmers to the risk of an experiment of this description. In a matter of this kind, who are the parties to be considered by us ? Ought we to consider a few manufacturers in the centres of population, or the great body of agricultural population upon whom the prosperity of the Commonwealth absolutely depends? It cannot be denied that we have to depend almost entirely upon productions from the soil. To that source we owe our exports, and consequent large returns to the country. We have been told that there is no chance of the price of superphosphates being increased; but there are certain indications which point to the formation of a ring which is keeping up the price. For instance, the Melbourne Age of the 27 th of March published the following report from Warracknabeal -

All the manufacturers have been written to asking for quotations for fertilisers, and with one exception the price asked was £4 7s. 6d. per ton. This, it was considered, was evidence that the various firms had combined to keep the price up. The association decided to purchase 250 tons fromMr. Hasell at £41s. per ton, as he was the only one Who had stood aside from the combine. The chairman, Mr. S. Atkin, said the manure was better in quality than was arranged for.

We have heard a good deal of Japan as an exporter of superphosphates.

Senator Story:

– Mr. Hasell stood aside from the combine because he was importing the article from Japan.

Senator McCOLL:

– I do not care whence he was importing it. We want to give the farmer as cheap a fertilizer as can be obtained.

Senator Findley:

– Why not allow the Japanese to come in to aid the farmer ?

Senator McCOLL:

– That is quite a different argument. From several districts I have received letters in which the farmers have protested most vigorously against any duty being imposed on these manures.

Senator Story:

– But the honorable senator is supposed to represent manufacturers as well as farmers:

Senator McCOLL:

– I represent every one in this State, and am trying to do justice to all. It has been stated that the price of superphosphates will not be raised by the local manufacturer if the duty be imposed, but in the Journal of Commerce of the 25th February last, I find an article headed “ Chemical Manures - Is there a Price Agreement?” The concluding paragraph reads as follows -

After the above matter was in type, several local manufacturers of manure approached the Minister for Customs with a request that he should endeavour to induce the Senate to impose a duty on imported chemical manures. In view of that circumstance, we thought it desirable to make inquiries as to whether the similarity in prices set out in the Agricultural

Gazette did mean that makers were acting in concert. We have it on reliable authority that such is the case ; all the larger makers of superphosphate, and two out of three importing firms in Victoria having come to an understanding not only as to prices in this State, but with other manufacturers and importers in New South Wales and South Australia, not to trade within each other’s provinces ; the only States open to all being West Australia and Tasmania.

That is a nice exhibition of the Federal spirit ! They are to operate only in their own preserves, and not to go outside and give the public the benefit of competition.

Senator Story:

– That is the statement of an importer, which the honorable senator accepts without question.

Senator McCOLL:

– I am quoting the statement from the Journal of Commerce, which is a reputable newspaper. The article continues -

Further, we are informed, not only are prices fixed at £4 7s. 6d. per ton (in Victoria), but, as the analysis indicates, the intrinsic value has been reduced, as a comparison with the details given in the Agricultural Journal of February, 1907, shows. This difference, it is alleged, is equal to 5s. to 9s. per ton disadvantage to buyers.

This is an article which can be manipulated very easily. Unless you have a scientific test, you cannot tell the difference between manures. Therefore, these people are not only raising the price, but also reducing the actual value of the article by from 5s. to 9s. per ton.

European superphosphates are 2s. 6d. to 4s. per ton dearer owing to rise in cost of raw material. Concessions by way of discount to Farmers’ Unions have been withdrawn; and we learn that an additional 1 per cent, interest is this season charged by the firms in agreement on sales made on terms. This, however, we believe is not quite all the story, for, owing to the present large production, with prospects of further increase when the new works of the Mount Lyell and Wallaroo Company in South Australia are open, it has been found desirable to find a market for surplus output rather than induce greater local consumption by lower prices; so one company at least is selling superphosphate delivered at main New Zealand ports at 72s. 6d. to 75s. per ton, paying freight and insurance, as against £4, the lowest wholesale price to agents, and £4 7s. 6d. to farmers on this side.

What then becomes of the statement that the price o£ the article will not be increased? The production of the article has been increased largely, but instead of production and competition tending to lower the price of the article to the farmer, as we have been told, we find that these people are taking the product out of this country and dumping it into New Zealand at a price much lower than that at which they sell it to our own people. In the face of these facts, is it any wonder that we, who are trying to protect the farmers’ interests, should object to. this request? I trust that it will be rejected.

Senator FINDLEY:
Victoria

.- I trust that the request will be carried.Senator Lynch made a very strong speech in opposition to the proposal. Again, he showed his inconsistency as a protectionist. It will be recollected that while the Bounties Bill was under consideration he made a strong,’ and, in a measure, a pathetic appeal in favour of a bounty’ for the encouragement of an industry for the production of superphosphates.

Senator Lynch:

– Having the same object in view as I have now.

Senator FINDLEY:

– The honorable senator was then prepared to give protection to the industry by asking the taxpayers to contribute so many thousands a year in order to secure its establishment. For what purpose? So that it would be able to provide farmers and others with manures at a price which would be satisfactory as compared, with the prices of imported manures. It is a remarkable thing that, in respect to an industry, when a request is made that will not place the farmer or the primary producer at any disadvantage, honorable senators claiming to be protectionists should say that their first duty is to see that the cheapest article is provided for a certain section, irrespective of the conditions under which it is made or manufactured. If protection is a good thing in connexion with industries which are established in closely populated parts of the Commonwealth, it cannot be a bad thing for the farmers. I can understand this request being opposed .by honorable senators who have taken strong objections to every protective duty, but when Senator Lynch claims that the farmer should get this material as cheaply as possible, no matter under what labour conditions it is produced, he is very illogical. If a farmer is to be permitted to get his manures from Japan because it will be an advantage to him, surely, on that line of reasoning, the instruments which he re- . quires for the cultivation of his land should be allowed to come in free? I cannot understand the position in which some protectionist senators must find themselves.

Senator Millen:

– Why does not the honorable senator apply to this question the ‘ argument- which he used when moving to free corsets from duty?

Senator FINDLEY:

– I did not move to free corsets from duty. That is merely an aside. Senators Lynch and McColl have in various divisions been found voting in support of duties on agricultural implements and machinery on the ground that, as they are manufactured in the Commonwealth, the application of the principle of protection to the industry would lead to the employment of Australian workmen under Australian conditions, and that internal competition would tend to lower the cost of agricultural implements to the farmer. If they considered that contention sound and logical - and I say that it was - how can they reconcile with it their present contention that manures from abroad should be admitted free of duty? As other honorable senators have pointed out, the industry for the manufacture of this particular kind of manure is established in various parts of the Commonwealth. Considerable sums of money have been invested in it, and it gives employment to a large number of men.

Senator St Ledger:

– How many ?

Senator FINDLEY:

– Probably about 1,000.

Senator Millen:

– Not anything like that number.

Senator FINDLEY:

– I venture to say that directly and indirectly the industry finds employment for quite 1,000 men. Every member of the Committee is of opinion that the demand in Australia for superphosphates will largely increase, and the increasing demand will give increased employment in the industry. If honorable senators will not protect the industry, it will in a short period of time have to close up.

Senator Millen:

– It is getting command of the local market to a greater extent every year.

Senator FINDLEY:

– It is not doing anything of the kind. According to the figures quoted, I think, by Senator Millen by way of interjection, manures to the value of£700 were imported from Japan in 1906, whilst the Vice-President of the Executive Council has stated that the imports from Japan last year amounted in value to £ 12,000.

Senator Millen:

– The local manufacturers have about seven-eighths of the total trade to-day.

Senator FINDLEY:

– I can hardly believe that that statement is correct.

Senator Best:

– There is no reason why they should not have the whole of it.

Senator FINDLEY:

– That is so. If this request is not agreed to the probability is that in a few years’ time the Japanese manipulators will have the Australian market in their hands, and we know what we may expect when that takes place. When I say that there is not much commercial honesty about the Japanese trader, I am not voicing merely my own opinion after a visit to Japan, but the opinion of persons who have had many years’ experience of the Japanese.

Senator St Ledger:

– The honorable senator constantly says the same thing about the white trader.

Senator FINDLEY:

– The statement has been made that within a short period of time the quality of the locallymanufactured manures has deteriorated. That is a charge made against the Australian article by men who profess to be anxious to advance the interests of the Commonwealth. If they were so anxious to decry this Australian industry, why did they not look for opinions in regard to the quality of Japanese superphosphate? If they had done so they would have found that the Australian article is superior in every respect to the article imported from Japan. This is an industry which deserves protection, and if it receives the encouragement to which it is entitled, it will turn out as good an article as any that can be imported, and at a reasonable price. A guarantee is given by those interested that the price of superphosphates will not be increased if this duty is imposed.

Senator Millen:

– They have increased the price already as a result of combination.

Senator FINDLEY:

– We know that since the. establishment of the industry in Australia there has been an immense reduction in the price of superphosphates as compared with the price ruling before the establishment of the local industry.

Senator Story:

– And the imported article was inferior in quality as well.

Senator FINDLEY:

– There can be no doubt about that. As the farmers are given a guarantee that the price will not be increased, and as in Victoria and South Australia they are, by State legislation, protected against the adulteration of the article, honorable senators need not fear that they will be injuriously affected by the. acceptance of so reasonable a request as that submitted by the Vice-President of the Executive Council.

Senator MACFARLANE:
Tasmania

– The Minister began his speech by saying that the Australian manufacturers of superphosphates are doing very well. If that be so, I should like to ask the honorable senator who bias demanded the proposed increase of duty ? Did the local manufacturers ask that this request be submitted ?

Senator Gray:

– It is not the poor farmers who asked for the duty.

Senator Story:

– It is the people who believe in a White Australia.

Senator MACFARLANE:

– In view of the combination which has been formed amongst the local manufacturers of superphosphates, and in view of the fact that they do not require the imposition of this duty to enable them to carry on the industry, I fail to see why the Minister has submitted this request.

Senator Best:

– I told the honorable senator that it was intended to protect the local manufacturers against dumping. No less than£200,000 worth of manures is imported.

Senator MACFARLANE:

– Both the protectionist and free-trade sections of the Tariff Commission have recommended that there should be no duty imposed on manures, and I am opposed to the request, because the imposition of the duty would increase the taxation on farmers.

Senator VARDON:
South Australia

– I was a good deal surprised to hear the Vice-President of the Executive Council submit this request. Until I received a circular from local manufacturers this morning, I had no idea that there was a desire on the part of any one to impose a duty on manures. I find now that Ministers take up the same position as the local manufacturers, and wish to impose such a duty. In South Australia, the Adelaide Chemical Works and the Wallaroo Smelting Works are manufacturing superphosphates. The Broken Hill Proprietary Company has already started, or is contemplating the starting of, the same business, and I have heard no suggestion from the representatives of any of these companies that they cannot carry on without a duty. I think that if they suffered any hardships because of the fact that no duty is imposed on manures, I should have heard something about it.

Senator Best:

– Does the honorable senator mean to say that the South Australian manufacturers have not sought his assistance in the matter?

Senator VARDON:

– They have not.

Senator Best:

– It is very extraordinary that they should not apply to the honorable senator.

Senator Millen:

– They are not like Victorian manufacturers, who are always hanging around begging for more and more.

Senator VARDON:

– I had an interview this morning with some of the gentlemen who are responsible for this request, and their chief complaint was with respect to the importations from Japan. It is the cheap labour employed in the industry in Japan that is causing them incon venience. This is confirmed by the statement made by the Ministerin moving the. request. If it is the yellow man who is causing the trouble, I suggest that the Minister should propose a specific request for the imposition of a duty on. manures imported from Japan, leaving manures imported from other countries free of duty. That is a proposal which would be consistent with the position which the VicePresident of the Executive Council has taken up. If there is only one country against whose manures we desire to be protected, let us specifically refer to that country. I should like to say, from the farmer’s point of view, that, whilst we tax all his implements, and whilst recognising that with other people he should contribute something in this way, he cheerfully submits to that taxation, he is then put into competition with all the cheap labour of the world in the disposition of his product. He has to compete with the cheap labour of Russia, Greece, Argentine, and other countries, and it is useless for him to complain. If honorable senators in placing him at a disadvantage by imposing this duty could rectify matters by regulating the prices of his products, the position would be entirely different. The prices of his products are regulated by the world’s markets, and that being so, he should not be subjected to a duty on manures. Senator Lynch pointed out just now that the drier areas of country in Australia are gradually being opened up, and this mustlead to an increased consumption of superphosphates, because country with a limited rainfall can only be profitably cultivated bv the aidof these manures. Their use is not confined to the. drier areas of country, because inferior land, with a reasonable rainfall, can also be profitably cultivated with the aid of superphosphates. This all goes to show that the demand for this article will increase year by year as settlement extends, and that is a strong reason why we should refuse to impose a duty, because the output of the local manufacturers must be very largely increased. If the only objection is to the low priceof labour in this industry in Japan, I repeat that the Minister should submit a request to make manures free from other countries and dutiable if imported from Japan. That would be the logical course to take, and unless the Government are prepared to take it, I shall not vote for the proposed duty.

Senator ST LEDGER:
Queensland

– I should not have intervened at this stage but for Senator Story’s statement that the Australian manufacturers are prepared, if a duty be imposed, to give a. guarantee not to raise prices. I interjected at the time that the guarantee was not worth the paper it was written on. 1 did not mean by that remark- to reflect in the slightest degree on the personal integrity of the Australian manufacturers. I was simply pointing out, what every school boy ought to know, that a guarantee of that kind is, as a matter- of -law, hot worth the paper it is written on. I meant ‘ no reflection whatever upon the personal or financial integrity of the firms concerned.

Senator McGregor:

– The honorable senator would not take such a guarantee if it were written on tables of stone.

Senator ST LEDGER:

– Such a guarantee if .written on tables of stone would probably be neither, clearer nor more binding than if written on paper. The Government, in departing from the arrangement made in another Chamber by proposing to alter this item, are not, if I may suggest it to them, going sufficiently far. We might well have expected notice to be given of an important request of - this kind some time ago.

Senator Millen:

– The Minister could not give notice of it. He had not- then received his instructions.

Senator ST LEDGER:

– Possibly the whip had not gone round, or was not sufficiently heavy upon the back of the Government. But now, on the eve of concluding the Tariff debate, a request concerning a most important item is sprung upon us without notice. Possibly the VicePresident of the Executive Council thought that the fighting power of the Opposition in this Chamber was exhausted. We all desire to bring this business to a speedy conclusion, and if we get fair and straight play we shall .give fair and straight play in return. We had a right to expect a few hours’ notice at least of this move. Now that the Government are going, of their own accord, or being driven, along this track, either by influence inside this Chamber or by some power outside it, they should go a little further. They are surely sufficiently acquainted with developments upon the other side of the world to know that there is such a thing as nitrogen, which is said by the greatest scientists to be one of the most powerful factors in the development of agriculture. Possibly, as nitrogen,, according to the scientists, will play a most important part in promoting the agriculture not only of Australia, but of the world, the Minister will accept my suggestion reinsert a prospective prohibitive duty against the importation of that product in its manufactured state.

Senator Best:

– The honorable senator is growing positively humorous !

Senator ST LEDGER:

– I did not intend to be,- but now that the Government are grasping for more and more at this late stage of the Tariff, without giving us notice of their intentions-

The CHAIRMAN:

– I draw the honorable senator’s attention to the fact that he has already dealt several times with the question . of -notice not having been given of this request.

Senator ST LEDGER:

– Then I will content myself with suggesting that the Government may still more completely achieve their purpose if they move a request to bring nitrogen or other scientific, manufactures used for the purpose of manures ‘ under the operation of the duty now proposed.

Senator STORY:
South Australia

– I am delighted that Senator Lynch and Senator Vardon, who sit upon opposite sides of the chamber, are going so exactly upon the same lines. Senator Lynch a few days ago was most eloquent in advocating a duty on cane lounges, settees, and wickerwork generally, in orderto shut out the product of cheap black labour. To-day he is equally eloquent in his attempt to induce the Committee, to admit free the product of Japanese labour in the shape of artificial manures. That is beautiful consistency ! The honorable senator is usually strong in his assertion that we must shut out from Australia black or other Asiatic immigration, but on this occasion he advocates the free admission of a product, of cheap- coloured labour. . The night before last Senator Vardon was most eloquent in proposing a duty on certain almanacs - a. part of the printing trade that he knows something about:- because, they were made in Japan. To-day he advocates the free admission of Japanese manures’. I feel bound, therefore, to compliment those two honorable senators on the consistency of their inconsistency. ‘

Senator Lynch:

– The’ honorable senator was very “ rocky “ on the timber duties. ‘

Senator STORY:

– Timber is not the product of Asiatic labour anywhere. Bearing out my statement that a large amount of manures was imported in 1906, and a larger amount in 1907, comes the news that only to-day a steamer has arrived at Melbourne with a cargo of 1,000 tons of Japanese superphosphates.

Senator Lynch:

– Does not that make our country richer, and theirs poorer?

Senator STORY:

– Should it not rather be an inducement to Senator Lynch, even at this late hour, to reconsider his decision, and, if he cannot vote for a duty to protect this most important industry, at any rate to refrain from voting at all? The honorable senator, as a protectionist, has argued that if the local manufacturer is crushed out and the importer has the full control of any market, the latter will immediately raise the price to the consumer. That is perfectly true, but to my astonishment the honorable senator who, throughout the discussionof the Tariff, has been a consistent protectionist, excepting on one or two items of mining machinery, and has been especially emphatic in his advocacy of the exclusion of the product of black and Asiatic labour, has on this item slipped from the protectionist oath and from the White Australia ideal, and desires to admit duty free the product of Japanese superphosphate manufacturers. The ultimate effect of that policy must be, according to his own arguments on previous items, to shut up Australian factories, and allow the cheap labour of Japan to overwhelm an important Australian industry.

Senator HENDERSON:
Western Australia

– I shall not trouble the Committee for many minutes, nor shall I reflect upon honorable senators for the grievous sins that they are committing in respect of this item. I pity Senator Vardon somewhat, and feel intensely sorry for Senator Lynch. I support the request moved by the Vice-President of the Executive Council in the belief that it is in the best interests of Australia that the item should carry a duty. There is nothing that I know of to prevent Australians from becoming expert manufacturers of manures equal to anything that can be made in any other part of the world.

Senator Millen:

– They are expert in that, because they are running the quality down as they run the price up.

Senator HENDERSON:

– Probably that may be said about almost anything, but my reason appeals to me in the opposite direction. If a number of manufacturers are engaged in the production of manures, it will be to their advantage to produce, not an inferior, but the very best article. Senator Gray will admit that when he enters upon the manufacture of any goods, he desires to make the very best in order to shut the other fellow out of the market.

Senator Gray:

– I do not think about doing that at all. I endeavour to make the best article and let it take its chance.

Senator HENDERSON:

– To make the best money out of an industry one has to produce the best article; That is business all the way through, and there is no doubt the manufacturers engaged in making superphosphates are inspired by exactly the same idea. Therefore, I believe the Government are doing a proper thing. The duty will not injure the farmer or anybody else, but we shall benefit Australia as a whole when we have set ourselves the task of providing for our own requirements. Surely there is no place where fertilizers of every description can be manufactured better than in Australia, and therefore I will support the request of the Government.

Question - That the House of Representatives be requested to amend item 397 by adding the following new paragraph, “ (a) Superphosphates, per ton (General Tariff), 10s. ; (United Kingdom), 5s. (Senator

Best’s request) - put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 12

NOES: 15

Majority … … 3

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Request negatived.

Senator FINDLEY:
Victoria

– I move -

That the House of Representatives be requested to amend item 397 by adding the following new paragraph: - “a. Superphosphates, per ton (General Tariff), 5s.; (United Kingdom), free.”

I move this request with a view to giving those honorable senators who have proclaimed themselves strong preferential traders an opportunity of voting to. give preference to the United Kingdom.

Senator Best:

– The United Kingdom provides three-fourths of the imports.

Question put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 12

NOES: 15

Majority … … 3

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Request negatived.

Item agreed to.

Item 398 (Rope, Cordage, &c.) agreed to.

Item399. Fishing and Rabbit Nets, and Netting therefor; Fishhooks; Floats for Fishing Nets; and Lines, ad val. (General Tariff), 20 per cent. ; and on and after 12th December, 1907, 5 per cent. ; (United Kingdom), 20 per cent. ; and on and after 12th December, 1907, free.

Senator BEST:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · Victoria · Protectionist

– I move -

That the House of Representatives be requested to amend item399 by leaving out the semicolon and the words “ and Lines.”

The words “ and lines “ appear in the item owing to a misapprehension. The effect of striking them out will be that fishing lines will fall under item 398, which we have just passed. These lines are made in every port in Australia, and I am sure honorable senators will agree to them having the protection afforded by item 398.

Senator MILLEN:
New South Wales

– There is one point I wish to point out to the Committee. In the Tariff we have made free the tools of trade of quite a number of occupations. We are now dealing with the tools of trade of one of the hardest worked classes of our citizens, and it is proposed, for some reason or other, to make them subject to a duty of 25 per cent.

Senator Best:

– Nets are free, but lines are made throughout the whole of the Commonwealth.

Senator Findley:

– The amateur fisherman can well afford to pay for lines and hooks.

Senator MILLEN:

– On this matter, as usual, Senator Findley knows nothing more than he can learn in Bourke-street or Collinsstreet. Otherwise, he would be aware that there is a considerable number of men who obtain their living by line fishing. We have allowed the tools belonging to a large number of occupations to come in duty free, and, as a matter of equity and justice, it is only right that we should make duty free the tools of trade of fishermen, whose occupation is more hazardous, and certainly less surrounded by the pleasures of life, than probably is any other occupation.

Senator BEST:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · Victoria · Protectionist

– The tools of trade of the fishermen are left free by item 399. Fishing and rabbit nets, and netting therefor, and floats for fishing nets, are to be subject to a 5 per cent. duty under the general Tariff, and under the United Kingdom Tariff they will be free.

Senator Millen:

– Is not a line a tool of trade ?

Senator BEST:

– No.

Senator Millen:

– The honorable senator does not know what he is talking about.

Senator BEST:

– The honorable senator has absorbed all the knowledge on this subject, as on other subjects.

Senator Millen:

– I do not say that, but I know all about this matter.

Senator BEST:

– Fishing lines are made throughout the Commonwealth. The industry is a well-established one, and there is no reason whatever why it should not receive a reasonable protection of 25 per cent.

Senator E J RUSSELL:
VICTORIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– It is a little puzzling to understand Senator Millen’s attitude on this question. He has repeatedly stated in the Chamber that he was returned, not to reduce the Tariff, but practically to maintain the existing Tariff, and to rectify anomalies.

Senator Millen:

– These lines werefree previously.

Senator Best:

– The duty was 20 per cent.

Senator E J RUSSELL:
VICTORIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– Yes, as cordage. The local industry was established with a protection of 20 per cent. Very early in the morning when its members ought to have been in bed, instead of dealing with the Tariff, the question of fishing hooks cropped up in another place, and, strange to say, somebody suggested the inclusion of the words “ and lines “ in this item. The suggestion was adopted because it was not recognised at the time that if was taking away a protection from a wellestablished industry not only in Victoria, but throughout the Commonwealth. It may be doubted whether it is possible toproduce fishing lines. But I hold in my hand over twenty samples of various kinds which I believe will catch from the smallest fish to a shark. I submit that any honorable senator who was returned to maintain the rates in the old Tariff must vote to retain the duty of 20 per cent. on fishing lines.

Senator Millen:

– According to this document, which was placed in our hands by the Government, they were free before.

Senator E J RUSSELL:
VICTORIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– If the honorable senator will refer to item 398 of the old Tariff he will find that they came under cordage and were dutiable at 20 per cent.

Senator SAYERS:
Queensland

– I am surprised at any honorable senators advocating this request when thousands of persons have to make their living by fishing off the coast of not one State alone but all the States, especially as the tools of every other trade are admitted free. I suppose that there is no body of men who work harder or receive less than do our fishermen.

Senator Henderson:

– They do not fish with these lines.

Senator SAYERS:

– Surely the honorable senator must be aware that what are called deep-sea fish are caught with these lines? For instance, schnapper and trumpeter are caught with hand lines, though a few of the latter variety may be caught in a net. I really cannot understand why any honorable senator should desire to levy a protective duty on fishing lines. The position would be different if the proposal were one to levy a duty on all lines required for fishing rods, because they are chiefly used by amateurs, but it is simply absurd to tax the lines by means of which men have to make their living on our coast. Rightly or wrongly, the other House decided to allow these articles to come in free from the United Kingdom, and at 5 per cent. from other countries. I am amazed at the action of the Government in making a stand on this item when everything was proceeding so smoothly here. Is it fair or reasonable to tax the lines by means of which the ordinary fisherman obtains his living, especially when the duty produces such a small sum? I shall vote against the request, as this is purely a revenue duty and affords no protection to any one.

Question - That the House of Representatives be requested to amend item 399, “ Fishing and Rabbit Nets, &c.,” by leaving out the words “ ; and Lines “ (Senator Best’s request) - put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 16

NOES: 11

Majority … … 5

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Request agreed to.

Senator GIVENS:
Queensland

– I move -

That the House of Representatives be requested to make item 399 free.

If there was any reason for giving a preference on any of these items, a preference should have been proposed on item 398. But on this item it cannot have any effect, because a number of the articles with which it deals are not produced in the United Kingdom, although they may be shaped and turned out there. Senators Millen and Sayers have treated us to a very eloquent disquisition on the absolute need of allowing tools of trade to come in free.

Senator Millen:

– And the honorable senator voted to put aduty of 25 per cent. on them.

Senator GIVENS:

– I voted to put a duty on tools of trade which can be produced here. But here are articles which we do not produce, and which I hope will be allowed to come in free, because they are required in the prosecution of certain industries, which are essential to the wellbeing of the Commonwealth. Fishing is a very important industry for the development of which the Parliament has appropriated a considerable sum. Why should we hamper the industry by imposng a duty on its essentials? Again, rabbit nets and netting are essentials to the men engaged in the industry of trapping rabbits. That is becoming a very important industry. In many parts, in fact, nearly all over Australia, rabbits are becoming a pest, and it is desirable that the means of keeping them in check should be obtainable as cheaply as possible. This duty represents merely a bogus preference as do many other duties which disfigure this Tariff from end to end.

Question put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 13

NOES: 13

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Request negatived.

Item 400. Yarns -

Senator MULCAHY:
Tasmania

. -I wish to point out to the Minister that it becomes necessary for some manufacturers to import a kind of cotton yarn that has undergone a process known as “ mercerizing.” The object is not to adulterate a material which should be made entirely of wool, but to produce a design or pattern on a woollen material by the use of a silkor mercerized cotton thread. The durability of the material is in no way affected by the use of this mercerized cotton yarn, but a certain appearance required to suit the public taste is obtained by mixing a thread of mercerized cotton yarn to form a check or a stripe. I therefore suggest that mercerized cotton yarn should be admitted free. Drapers in a large way of business, finding that certain designs of imported materials become veryfashionable and are much inquired for, send patterns to local manufacturers if the material can be manufactured locally at practical prices, and ask them to supply a material like the pattern submitted, showing a design produced by the use of mercerized cotton yarn. I might mention that the price of this yarn ranges from 4s. to 5s. per lb. It is somewhat dearer than wool yarn, and is only used, as I have said, as a substitute for silk to embellish a woollen material. I propose to move a request for the insertion of a new paragraph making mercerised cotton yarn free.

Senator Best:

– There is no objection to that, but it would be necessary first of all in this paragraph to insert the letters “n.e.i.” after the word “yarn.”

Request (by Senator Mulcahy) agreed to-

That the House of Representatives be requested to amend item 400, paragraphc, by inserting after the word “Yarn” the letters “n.e.i.”

The CHAIRMAN:

– I point out to Senator Mulcahy that as mercerized cotton yarn is not referred to in the paragraph, the Committee will deal first of all with the paragraph, and the honorable senator can thensubmit a request for the insertion of the new paragraph to which he has referred.

Senator CLEMONS:
Tasmania

– I have already said that whilst I do not approve of a protective policy to foster industries, I do not approve of anything that would hamper an established industry. Under the Tariff of 1902, cotton yarn was free of duty. We are not manufacturing cotton yarn in the Commonwealth to any appreciable extent.

Senator Turley:

– It is being manufactured in Queensland at the present time.

Senator CLEMONS:

– I repeat that it is not being manufactured to any appreciable extent, and it is the raw material of the people who make cotton socks and stockings. It was advisedly made free of duty under the old Tariff with the object of assisting people engaged in what promises to be an importantindustry.

Senator Turley:

– What industry is that?

Senator CLEMONS:

– The making of cotton socks and stockings for which cotton yarn is used. I can assure Senator Turley that those engaged in that industry would welcome the free admission of cotton yarn. As a matter of fact, they expressed a desire that it should be free of duty. It was made free under the old Tariffin the interests of a protected industry, and although that industry is still in existence it is now proposed to tax its raw material.

Senator Mulcahy:

– The protectionist section of the Tariff Commission recommended that cotton yarn should be admitted free of duty.

Senator CLEMONS:

– No doubt for the reason that I have given. I see no reason for the imposition of duties of 15 and 10 per cent. on cottonyarn, when their only effect will be to handicap to a greater or lesser extent the industry of those engaged in making cotton socks and stockings.

Senator BEST:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · Victoria · Protectionist

– I hope honorable senators will see their way to permit these duties to remain. The protection afforded by them is comparatively small, but it would have an encouraging effect, and should be considered in conjunction with other legislation with which we have dealt. We have passed a Bounties Bill in which we have provided encouragement, by way of bounty, for the growth of cotton in Queensland. It is being freely grown in that State, and we have reason to anticipate that it will shortly be grown to a very much larger extent than it is at present. The necessary plant has been laid down for the manufacture of cotton yarns, and just when the people concerned are starting this new industry, relying upon the proposal of the Government, it would be very discouraging and possibly disastrous to them if the Committee did not agree to the imposition of these duties.

Senator Clemons:

– To whom is the honorable senator referring?

Senator BEST:

– To certain manufacturers of cotton yarn in Queensland.

Senator Mulcahy:

– What do they do with the yarn that they manufacture?

Senator BEST:

– It furnishes the necessary raw material for other industries.

Senator Clemons:

– I never heard of these manufacturers.

Senator BEST:

– I admit that the industry has just been started. I have it on authoritative information, verified by certain telegrams sent to Senator Turley, and information given to the Customs Department. The people to whom I have referred have made all their arrangements for proceeding with the industry. As I said, the duties proposed are very moderate, and I hope that the Committee will agree to them.

Senator TURLEY:
Queensland

– When the Tariff was first introduced a duty was imposed on cotton piece goods. Certain people acquired a plant originally established at Ipswich for the manufacture of cotton piece goods, and with the idea of continuing the manufacture of such goods they did a great deal in the way of inducing farmers to cultivate cotton, with which they could supply the local mills. When cotton piece goods were made free the company realized that they had no chance of competing against the outside world in those articles; but, having the place in going order, they were able to manufacture cotton yarn, with which they supply the market to a very great extent.

Senator Mulcahy:

– What is it used for?

Senator TURLEY:

– It is used to a considerable extent in the manufacture of blankets.

Senator Clemons:

– We do not make blankets in Tasmania out of cotton yarn.

Senator TURLEY:

– There are different qualities of cotton yarn, which are bought up by people in Victoria and other places engaged in the manufacture of blankets and flannels. A considerable amount is used in a number of industries. In very few cases can it be said that garments are all wool.

Senator Clemons:

– We should like to see it.

Senator TURLEY:

– I am not sure of that. I have had all-wool clothing, and some made of a mixture of cotton and wool, and I am not sure that the all-wool was the better.

Senator Clemons:

– Surely the honorable senator will admit that all-wool blankets would be better?

Senator TURLEY:

– Yes, provided that I could afford to pay for them. If I were compelled to procure a cheaper article, as a large number of people are, I should want to get what suited my pocket. As this Parliament has already passed bounties for the production of cotton, in order to induce the farmers in West Moreton or other districts to take up that industry,we should not allow all cotton manufactures to come in free when we know that a mill has been put up for the production of cotton yarn and other cotton goods.

Senator Mulcahy:

– Can the honorable senator give any information as to the extent of the works?

Senator TURLEY:

– I cannot at present, although the history of the factory has been given in this chamber several times. The building is substantial, and contains a considerable amount of machinery. The Queensland Government at one time gave a bounty for the production of cotton piece goods, and a certain amount was made. For one reason and another, very little raw cotton was produced after that time. The company have, without the intervention of the Government, procured information regarding cottongrowing, and supplied it to the farmers, and have obtained also the best cotton seed available, and practically given it free to the farmers around the district to induce them to grow the raw material to supply the mill. As they have done so much in the direction favoured by this Chamber when it passed the Bounties Bill, it is only reasonable for us to give them a small amount of protection for producing cotton yarn or other cotton goods, which will go some way towards meeting the demands of other people in Australia.

Senator MULCAHY:
Tasmania

– I am glad that Senator Turley has been able to give us some information on this question. The use of cotton yarn in woollen fabrics is often called adulteration, but strictly speaking it is not regarded by people who understand the trade as adulteration at all. It is a mixture. Certain people require flannel of a certain price, or blankets of a certain weight. Their purse will not allow them to purchase the finest qualities. Woollen material mixed with cotton is being largely manufactured in Australia. It is also being adulterated or mixed in some of the mills with something which many people regard as worse than cotton - the material generally spoken of as “shoddy.” But there may be various degrees of quality of shoddy.

Senator Turley:

– Shoddy is an adulterant, because it is simply rag torn up.

Senator MULCAHY:

– There are good and bad shoddies. In any warehouse in Australia can be found tweed goods which are composed to a large extent of shoddy, but which are really more highly priced and more sightly and durable than some of the so-called wools would be. These are requirements of trade, which will exist so long as human nature remains what it is. People will be poor, and, to quote the old Irish proverb, “ Poor people must have poor weddings,” so they must have cheaper qualities of flannels or blankets. It does not necessarily follow that a certain amount of adulteration or mixture makes such articles unfit for the purposes for which they are used. A low-priced flannel, adulterated to a certain extent with cotton, is not a bad material, although it is not pure wool. The only deceit about it is when it is sold as pure wool at a higher price than people would otherwise pay for it. Looking at the matter in an economical and industrial light, the Australian manufacturers will have to compete to a certain extent with outside manufacturers of these articles, and, therefore, cotton yarn will be necessary. I am glad to hear that in Queensland the yarnis being manufactured. Although some honorable senators think that its use in the manufacture of woollen goods should be prevented, I see no obiection, as it will have to be used, to confining its use to that manufactured in Queensland.

Request (by Senator Clemons) put -

That the House of Representatives be requested to make item 400, paragraph c (imports under General Tariff), free.

The Committee divided.

AYES: 7

NOES: 21

Majority … … 14

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Request negatived.

Request (by Senator Mulcahy) agreed to-

That the House of Representatives be requested to further amend item 400 by inserting the following new paragraph : - “cc. Mercerised cotton yarn, free.”

Request (by Senator Best) proposed -

That the House of Representatives be requested to amend item 400, paragraph .e, by leaving out the word “ Hose,” and inserting in lieu thereof the word “ Hosiery.”

Senator MULCAHY:
Tasmania

– Are the Customs officers satisfied that they will have no difficulty in discriminating between “ Wool Yarn n.e.i.,” under paragraph b, and “ Hosiery Yarn n.e.i.,” under paragraph e ? There are yarns specifically made for hosiery purposes, but there are other yarns made for the purpose of weaving cloth, and which may incidentally be used for hosiery.

Senator Givens:

– They are very dissimilar.

Senator MULCAHY:

– If the Customs officers are not satisfied that they can discriminate, it would be better to admit both at the lower rate of duty.

Senator BEST:
Vice-President ofthe Executive Council · Victoria · Protectionist

– We have already passed paragraph b, and it is put in its present form no doubt at the instance of the manufacturers whose raw material it is. There will be some difficulty in the way, but the Department is very anxious if possible to meet the manufacturers, and such a discrimination is made.

Senator MULCAHY:
Tasmania

– I think the Vice-President of the Executive Council is not fully informed on this matter, but I would like him to go into it between now and the closing of the Tariff.

Senator Best:

– I have already considered it. We cannot do what the honorable senator suggests.

Senator MULCAHY:

– We cannot recommit now, but it may be desirable to recommit later on. All I want is the Minister to inquire if these two yarns are not sometimes of the same nature. I want to prevent the Customs officials having trouble, and to relieve the importers of yarn for the making of hosiery from being sometimes called upon to pay the higher rate of duty because the yarn might be used for something else.

Senator CLEMONS:
Tasmania

– I understand that the Vice-President of the Executive Council has moved a request to alter the word “Hose” into “Hosiery.” I wish to bring under his notice one consideration which possibly he has overlooked. I expect the honorable senator knows as well as I do that garden hose made of indiarubber covered with a kind of cotton yarn is frequently used.

Senator Mulcahy:

– It is not covered with yarn.

Senator CLEMONS:

– The hose is covered with a substance that might come under the paragraph.

Senator Givens:

– Hoses are covered with canvas.

Senator CLEMONS:

-The covering might be termed “cordage.” I desire to know from the Vice-President of the Executive Council whether he is sure that the word “Hose” was not put in on purpose to cover these articles. A kind of garden hose manufactured probably abroad and probably also in Australia is in common use. It is made of indiarubber, inside, but is covered with something that resembles cordage.

Senator Best:

– The hose is covered with a certain cotton material, which comes in free already.

Senator CLEMONS:

-As the paragraph stands the hose I refer to might be included.

Request agreed to.

Senator GIVENS:
Queensland

– I move -

That the House of Representatives be requested to make item 400, paragraphe, free.

I notice that only the free-trade members of the Tariff Commission recommended a duty on these articles. The protectionist section recommended that they should be free, and I fail to see why they should not. The paragraph includes all fingering wools and other wools that are used by the women of Australia for knitting the family stockings. Every woman is continually engaged in knitting stockings for her family.

Senator Vardon:

– And the wool is used by machinists.

Senator GIVENS:

– I am particularly concerned with the household use of this article. It is an essential for every family and I desire it to come in free. I remind honorable senators that the duty of 5 per cent. will give an effective preference, because 90 per cent. of the fingering wools used for knitting stockings and of yarn used in factories is made in England.

Senator Findley:

– Then the wool will come in duty free.

Senator GIVENS:

– The English manufacturers will be subject to no outside competition, and will be able to put up the prices of their goods to the full extent of the duty. They have done that continually in the past where there has been no outside competition.

Senator Findley:

– Does that not apply to every item in the Tariff?

Senator GIVENS:

– As far as I am concerned that question does not influence me in the slightest, because I have been against the preferential duties all the time.

Senator Findley:

– The honorable senator has voted for them.

Senator GIVENS:

– I have never voted for a preference except to preserve the balance of the Tariff where it was necessary to put on protective duties. I have never voted for a preference where the duty was not necessary to protect an Australian industry. Where the question of Australian protection does not come in, I want goods to be free. The wool coming under this paragraph should be free because it is a common article of household use, and is the raw material women use in knitting stockings. In addition, as has been pointed out by Senator Vardon, this yarn is the raw material of a number of hosiery manufacturers, and as the duty is merely a revenue duty, the Committee ought to make it free.

Senator MULCAHY:
Tasmania

– I would like to remind honorable senators who are prepared to give preference to Great Britain of the quantity of yarn made partly or wholly of wool imported in 1906. The total imports were of a value of £90,935, and of them £75,234 worth came from the United Kingdom and £13,326 worth from Germany. Between £15,000 and £16,000 worth altogether of these yarns came from Europe, and it is only to that wool that the duty of 5 per cent. really applies.

Senator Givens:

– It will enable the English manufacturers to put up their prices.

Senator MULCAHY:

– I think we might very well leave the preference to Great Britain as it is.

Question put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 12

NOES: 15

Majority … … 3

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Request negatived.

Item 401 (Reaper and Binder Twine and Yarn) agreed to.

And on and after 12th December, 1907 -

Item 402: Sewing and Embroidery Silks and Twists ; Household Threads and Cottons ; Sewing Threads and Cottons n.e.i. for manufacturing purposes, and Saddlers’ Twine, free.

Senator BEST:
VicePresident of the Executive Council · Victoria · Protectionist

– I move -

That the House of Representatives be requested to amend item 402 by leaving out the comma and the words “ and Saddlers’ Twine.”

These words were put in by a mistake. Saddlers’ twines were dutiable at 20 per cent. under the old Tariff and are freely made throughout the whole Commonwealth.

Request agreedto.

Senator CLEMONS:
Tasmania

– As far as I am concerned, the item is eminently satisfactory, but I would draw attention to the fact that in another place an effort was evidently made originally to give a preference of 5 per cent. to the United Kingdom. This preference, to which some people seem to attach a certan amount of importance, was removed. If certain honorable senators are aiming at giving a preference to the United Kingdom, I cannot detect any difference between this item and the last item we voted on.

Senator McGregor:

– It is a kind of give and take.

Senator CLEMONS:

– Yes. I am wondering what is becoming of those ardent preferentialists who were so anxious to retain 5 per cent, as the general Tariff in the last item.

Senator Givens:

– Ask your colleagues.

Senator CLEMONS:

– In this “case it is not a question so much of talking to one’s colleagues as to all sides of the Chamber. We will say that the Ministry are responsible for the preference in the last item. I cannot understand why they fought so hard to give a preference of 5 per1 cent, to Great Britain in the last item, while in this item and in the two following items all goods are admitted free. Surely this item afforded another opportunity for the Ministry to exhibit their marvellous preference to Great Britain. Why does not Senator Findley, who is full of enthusiasm of same sort, vote to make the general Tariff on this item 5 per cent. ?

Senator Best:

– The honorable senator complains when we do that, and also when we do not.

Senator CLEMONS:

– I am complaining of the Minister’s inconsistency, and he cannot retaliate upon me so far as this or any other item is concerned. I- am not afraid of any vote I have given, but I am glad to see that the Ministry are afraid, or reluctant or unwilling, to extend a preference on this item.

Item 403 (Unserviceable Cordage, &c.) ; item 404 (Metal Cordage, &c.); and item 405 (Copying Apparatus; &c.),- agreed to.

Item 406. Fumigators, Atomizers, Odorizers Vaporizers, and the like, ad val. (General Tariff), 20 per cent. ; (United Kingdom), 20 per cent. ; and on and after 12th December, 1907, 15 per cent.

Senator LYNCH:
Western Australia

– I desire atomizers to be dealt with in a new paragraph, and made free,’ as they are. used by men employed at rock drilling in mines. They may be made in Australia..

1. Senator McColl. - For what purpose are they used?

Senator LYNCH:

– An atomizer is used by a person who is employed with a rock drill to prevent particles of rock from getting into his lungs, and thus driving him “into a hospital.

Senator McColl:

– I understood that the atomizers in this item are used in the toilet.

Senator LYNCH:

– If that is the case, it w.ill alter my intention; but I desire to know definitely whether the atomizers used by miners come under this item?

Senator Best:

– The atomizer which is referred to in the item is a toilet arrangement for spraying perfume. I am not acquainted with the article which the honorable senator says is used in connexion with mining.

Senator LYNCH:

– I assure the Minister that atomizers are used by miners in connexion with rock drilling, and, with a view to subsequently moving a request for the insertion of a new paragraph, I move -

That the House of Representatives be requested to amend item 406 by leaving out the word “Atomizers.”

I understand that the atomizers which are referred to in the item correspond with the articles I have named?

Senator CLEMONS:
Tasmania

– - The word “ atomizer “ may be used to describe an instrument which is used for two different purposes. I am not quarrelling with the duty which relates to the instrument which is used purely for toilet purposes. But an atomizer is also used by a miner when working a rock drill, and it is most desirable that it should be made free.

Senator Best:

– Does the honorable senator know that it is so used?

Senator CLEMONS:

– I know that the term atomizers is used by the miners themselves. As the Minister knows, a rock drill is employed for making holes in very hard ground, from which, of course, dust flies. The miner uses an atomizer practically to prevent his lungs being injured by the dust.

Senator Mulcahy:

– That is a respirator.

Senator CLEMONS:

– No; it is used as. a spray on the machine to prevent the dust from flying.

Senator de Largie:

– That is called a spray.

Senator CLEMONS:

– In Tasmania: it is called an atomizer. I suggest to theMinister that he can put the matter beyond all dispute by adopting this form “of words -

Fumigators, Atomizers, Odorizers, Vaporizers, and the like, used for toilet purposes.

If, as he says, atomizer’s are used for toilet purposes only, he can have no objection to making that perfectly clear, and it would meet the desire of Senator Lynch too’.

Senator Best:

– Fumigators for toilet purposes ?

Senator CLEMONS:

– That interjection just shows how we may be deluded bv this group of articles. No doubt a fumigator is often ordered by a medical man to be used for the purpose of . disinfecting a house in which there has been an infectious disease. I cannot understand why an instrument of that kind should be grouped with an odorizer, nor do I believe that Senator Best would desire to see an instrument used for sanitary purposes put in the same category as an ordinary article of toilet use such as an odorizer.

Senator Best:

– The item, as it stands, is quite right, because these are all articles of a kindred character. ‘

Senator CLEMONS:

– Yes ; but they are not put to the same use.

Senator Best:

– The fumigator is an apparatus which is used for spraying and disinfecting with formalin.

Senator CLEMONS:

– That is what 1 imagined. Surely the Minister does not want to put that article in the same category as a toilet article?

Senator Best:

– All these instruments are of the same character, and that is why the introduction of the words “ for toilet purposes “ would not be proper.

Senator CLEMONS:

– I ask the Minister to consent to the .item being altered to read-

Atomizers, Odorizers, Vaporizers, and the like, for toilet purposes.

Senator Best:

– You only want vaporizers for toilet purposes.

Senator CLEMONS:

– Surely the Minister wants the others to be used for toilet purposes ?

Senator Best:

– For household and toilet purposes.

The CHAIRMAN:

– May I .suggest that the end which honorable senators- are seek- ing to attain would be met by Senator Lynch moving a request to insert the letters “ n.e.i.” after the- word “Atomizers,” and a request to add the following paragraph “ b, Atomizers for mining purposes, free “ ?

Senator CLEMONS:

– That would not touch fumigators.

Senator BEST:
VicePresident of the Executive Council · Victoria · Protectionist

– A vaporizer is a glass bottle with a rubber bulb. These articles are all of the same class, and are made here. The only atom izers intended to be covered by the item are the .spraying articles I have described. 1 suggest to Senator Lynch that he need not bother about taking the word “ Atomizers “ out of this item.

Senator Lynch:

– Under what item would atomizers for mining purposes come?

Senator BEST:

– If they are not mentioned in the schedule, they would be free, but I should like to hear the honorable senator describe them.

Senator LYNCH:
Western Australia

– - An atomizer, as understood in mining, is an instrument which has been invented lately by a South African miner. It is specially used in very dry ground, where rock drilling is carried on, for the purpose of separating the particles of rock in the air, and so making the air purer for the miner.

Senator Best:

– It is nothing like a spray ?

Senator LYNCH:

– It is a patented mechanical instrument. . It is a combination of a spray. I have only read the history of its invention- in the Mining Journal.

Senator Best:

– Is it attached to the rock drill?

Senator LYNCH:

– I believe that it is.

Senator Best:

– Then it will come in under “ Machinery n.e.i.”

Senator LYNCH:

– If the atomizer which is used for toilet purposes is worthy of consideration, I suggest to the Minister that the miners’ atomizer is a very suitable subject for special consideration at our hands. I intend to adopt the suggestion of the Chairman, to ask for the insertion of the letters “n.e.i.” after the word “Atomizers,” and of a new paragraph, making atomizers for miners free. Request, by leave, withdrawn.

Request (by Senator Lynch) proposed -

That the House of Representatives be requested to amend item 406 by inserting after the word “Atomizers” the .letters “n.e.i.”

Senator MILLEN:
New South Wales

– The Minister has stated that the item with which, we are dealing does not cover the atomizer referred’ to by Senator Lynch. If that is so, he can indicate to the Committee the item under which it comes.

Senator Best:

– It is some new invention, about which we know nothing.

Senator MILLEN:

– I am not prepared to believe that the Customs officers will not find some item which will cover any invention.

Senator Best:

– I have said that if it is attached to a rock drill, it will come in as “ Machinery n.e.i.”

Senator MILLEN:

– At a duty of 20 per cent. ?

Senator Best:

– Yes.

Request agreed to .

Request (by Senator Lynch) agreed to -

That the House of Representatives be requested to further amend item 406 by inserting the following new paragraph : - “(b) Atomizers for mining purposes, free.”

Item 407 (Cork Mats, &c.) agreed to.

Item 408. Corks -

1. Small Corks (up to 8-oz. bottles), bungs and rings, per lb.,1s. ; and on and after 12th December, 1907, free.
2. N.E.I., per . lb., 6d. ; and on and after 12th December, 1907, free.

Senator DE LARGIE:
Western Australia

– I move -

That the House of Representatives be requested to make the duty on item 408, paragraph a, per lb.,1s.

This is a proposal to revert to the duty imposed under the Tariff as originally introduced in another place. I think this item did not receive the attention there to which it was entitled. Under the old Victorian Tariff’ there was a duty of 4d. per lb. on these corks, and at that time a very large number of cork-cutting machines were in operation in this State. When the Victorian duty was abolished by the first Federal Tariff, practically the whole of those machines were thrown out of use and a number of men in the cork-cutting industry had to join the army of the unemployed. One of our objects is to remove anomalies existing under the old Tariff, and as this is the only opportunity we may have to do justice to this industry I take advantage of it.

Senator Givens:

– How many men are employed in the industry ?

Senator DE LARGIE:

– I do not suppose that at the present time there are more than twenty employed in the industry throughout the Commonwealth, but prior to the introduction of the Tariff of 1902 there were 130 employed in Victoria alone. It may be said that the industry is not a very important one, but we have given protection in this Tariff to smaller industries, and it will be admitted that it was a very great hardship upon men who had sunk the little capital they possessed in the purchase of cork-cutting machines and found employment at this work, that they should have to seek work at another calling. As honorable senators have been supplied with a good deal of printed matter in connexion with this item, I shall not delay the Committee further.

Senator BEST:
VicePresident of the Executive Council · Victoria · Protectionist

– I should have been glad if the honorable senator had given me earlier notice of his intention to move this request.

Senator de Largie:

– I should have done so, but I understood that Senator Trenwith intendedto move it.

Senator BEST:

– I have, however, had an opportunity of finding out what my honorable colleague the Treasurer had to say in connexion with this item. The Government were very anxious to secure the imposition of the duty proposed, but in another place a proposal to make the item free was carried against them. We will, of course, support the duty we originally proposed.

Question put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 15

NOES: 12

Majority … … 3

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Request agreed to.

Request (by Senator de Largie) agreed to-

That the House of Representatives be requested to make the duty on item 408, paragraph b, per lb., 6d.

Item 409. Explosives, viz. : -

Request (by Senator Best) agreed to -

That the House of Representatives be requested to amend item 409, paragraph a, by leaving out the word “ filled.”

Senator McCOLL:
Victoria

.- I notice that these cartridges were free under the Tariff of 1902. They are used throughout the Commonwealth because certain vermin, such as hares, dogs and foxes can only be killed by the gun.I am informed that the price of cartridges has been increased from 8s. to 10s. per 100 since this duty was imposed. As cartridges were free under the old Tariff, I move -

That the House of Representatives be requested to make item 409, paragraph A (imports under General Tariff), free.

Senator BEST:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · Victoria · Protectionist

– I do not think that the Committee should agree to this request. Cartridge cases and powder are admitted free, and the filling of these cartridges in the Commonwealth is a recognised industry. It is very convenient for men to be able to have the cartridges they prefer to use filled locally to order. I hope honorable senators will agree to pass this item as it stands.

Question put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 12

NOES: 15

Majority … 3

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Request negatived.

Item 409. Explosives, viz. : -

Senator FINDLEY:
Victoria

.- I move -

That the House of Representatives be requested to make the duty on item 409, paragraphc, (imports under General Tariff), per coil,1d.

If that request is carried, I shall afterwards move for a duty of¾d. against the United Kingdom. There are in Victoria two fuse factories, in which large sums of money have been invested. The Bendigo one represents an outlay of about£20,000. Employment is given to a fairly large number of hands.

Senator Millen:

– I have just read it all.

Senator FINDLEY:

– On one or two occasions, when I have not stated my reasons for submitting a request, honorable senators opposite have found fault with me. Now, when I am saying a few words, they do not want the explanation. I am prepared to sit down if the Committee desire it.

Senator Millen:

– With all these circulars in our hands, it seems a pity for the honorable senator to read them out.

Senator FINDLEY:

– I did not read a word from the circulars. Miners who have had experience of fuse in the different States assert that no fuse of better quality than that made in Australia is placed on the market.

Senator Gray:

– It is the best in the world! Go on.

Senator FINDLEY:

– According to mining inspectors’ reports, it is the best of the kind in the world.

Senator Clemons:

– What mining inspector ?

Senator FINDLEY:

– That is the opinion of Mr. Hake, the Inspector of Explosives for Victoria. A number of mineowners have also the highest opinion of it. Mr. Lazarus, of Bendigo, who with his brother had a mine there, used this fuse for a considerable time, and spoke in high terms of the results obtained from it. It is also stated by those who are in a position to judge that imported fuse deteriorates on long voyages, and consequently its use often endangers life and limb.

Senator BEST:
VicePresident of the Executive Council · Victoria · Protectionist

– My colleague in another place accepted the lower duty under a misapprehension. He at once explained the mistake he had made. I therefore have no hesitation in supporting the request.

Senator Colonel NEILD (New South Wales) [6.21]. - It is a rather peculiar state of affairs into which we have drifted. A private member proposes something, and the Minister, with a splendid anxiety to get on with the business, at once announces his entire concurrence with the raising of the duty. For a good many years I was a member of a Chamber that was specially concerned in the granting of taxation. I must own that it is a novel experience to me, although it may be a useful one, to find private members, without a message from the Crown, proposing taxation.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order !

Senator Best:

– The honorable senator did not work then under the Commonwealth Constitution. This is perfectly right under our Constitution.

Senator Colonel NEILD:

– The Chairman thinks that it is improper for me to discuss this phase of the question. The Minister, on the other hand, suggests that it is perfectly proper for private members to initiate or increase taxation.

Senator Best:

– In this case the honorable senator simply proposes a request for an amendment elsewhere.

Senator Colonel NEILD:

– I shall not take up time by quoting the Constitution, but I think my memory is sufficiently accurate to affirm that the Constitution refers to the initiation of taxation.

The CHAIRMAN:

– I must ask the honorable senator not to discuss the constitutional aspect of the matter, as to whether we can or cannot submit requests for the imposition of taxation.

Senator Colonel NEILD:

– I quite appreciate and respect your direction, sir, and do not intend to attempt totrespass upon your ruling. I am making only a passing reference to the unusual incident of a private member practically proposing taxation.

Senator Best:

– It has been done fifty times before in this Chamber.

The CHAIRMAN:

– I must again direct the honorable senator’s attention to the fact that that question is not before the Committee.

Senator Colonel NEILD:

– I submit, with the greatest respect, that it is involved. However, I do not wish to go behind your ruling; but I am sure you will permit me to reply to the Minister’s statement that this thing has been done fifty times before. Murder has been committed in this world fifty times and a thousand times fifty times, but that does not make it any the less murder to-day. A thousand offences against the laws of God and man have been committed in the past; but that does not make them any more appropriateto-day. My honorable and learned friend, with whom I would be the last to have a personal difference, should not practically challenge me with the proposition that a thing is right because it has been done a great many times. I regret that this proposal has been made. I do not think it my duty to follow the lead of any private member in imposing taxation; and shall therefore vote against it.

Senator HENDERSON:
Western Australia

– It is very necessary to give wise consideration tothis item, and not to rush madly to a decision. I have a vivid recollection of agood many different makes of fuse. This is a matter that has cost a good many Australian miners their lives.

Senator Findley:

– Not the Australian fuse.

Senator HENDERSON:

– Wherever the fuse came from, it has been responsible for a great many of the fatal and minor accidents in Australian mining. Whilst I have used miles of fuse, I do not think that I ever handled a piece made in Victoria. Ihave usedseveral of the imported fuses, and have headed agitations to prevent mine-owners from supplying certain classes of fuse, because of its inferiority and the disconnexions of the explosive in it. There is, however, an imported fuse known as Bickford’s, which is the best ever put into a miner’s hands.

Senator Trenwith:

– That is the man who started the Victorian fuse making.

Senator HENDERSON:

– His fuse is being imported. I suppose that if fuse is made in Bendigo the Bendigo miners will get it immediately it is made, and consequently in the very best condition. But I question very much whether a yard of Victorian fuse would be seen in any of the Queensland or New South Wales mines. In Western Australia, so far as my experience goes, there is scarcely a miner who will take any other kind into a mine with him than Bickford’s double tape, which is known to be thoroughly safe and reliable. This is a matter upon which we ought to be very careful. The duty as it stands is sufficiently high. I should not like to give a vote that would prevent Bickford’s fuse from coming into Australia, or increase its price.

Senator McGregor:

– Could not Bickford manufacture it here?

Senator Trenwith:

– He did.

Senator HENDERSON:

– Probably he could; but the fact remains that he does not.

Senator Findley:

– One would think from the honorable senator’s reasoning, that only one kind of fuse was imported or used in Australia.

Senator HENDERSON:

– Very few kinds of fuse are used in Australia, because the Australian miners have long ago discovered that Bickford’s is a reliable one.

Sitting suspended from 6.30 to 7.45p.m.

Senator McCOLL:
Victoria

.- There is no doubt that very much of what Senator Henderson has said is perfectly correct. In mining there is nothing to be more careful about than the selection of good fuse, and I suppose defective fuse has been the cause of more explosions in mines than anything else. I would like to point out, however, that the factory making the largest quantity of fuse in’ Australia, and which sends fuse all over Australia, is that of Bickford, Smith, and Company, of Bendigo. They are the company making the fuse of which Senator Henderson speaks so highly. They purchased their factory at Bendigo in 1888, when it was a small affair, and have been carrying on business there since. I believe the fuse manufactured by that company is the only kind in use in the Bendigo district, where there are some 150 mines at work. To my knowledge there has never been any complaint whatever about it. With regard to the way the factory is managed, and to the question of wages, I do not think that there is any similar place in Australia where there are better conditions, or conditions even as good. In a way, the manner in which this factory is carried on can be compared with Cadbury’s cocoa factory in the Old Country. The greatest attention is paid to thecomfort of the persons employed, and the wages are excellent. That, however, is only a subsidiary question. The real question is : Are they making a good fuse that the miners can depend upon for safety and uniformity? There is no doubt whatever about that Bickford, Smith, and Company started the factory under a duty imposed by the Victorian Parliament. That duty was taken away, I think, under Federation, and it is a slight thing to give them the increase they ask for. It only amounts to one farthing on the coil.

Senator HENDERSON:
Western Australia

– There is one point I wanted to make previously, and that is, whatever may be the opinions of honorable senators who are theoretical miners, the practical miner regards the fuse as being one of the most important factors in connexion with his calling.

Senator Best:

– That is our chief contention.

Senator HENDERSON:

– It is said that Bickford commenced making this fuse at Bendigo, but nobody will tell me that Bickford is in the Bendigo businessat the present time.

Senator Trenwith:

– That is right.

Senator HENDERSON:

– No one can say that the perfection attained by Bickford in this material has been attained by the Australian manufacturer. Otherwise the Bickford fuse, which is being imported in very large quantities, would not be imported. Nobody would bring Bickford fuse from England to Australia for the mere fun of importing it.

Senator McGregor:

– It is because they have not tried the Bendigo fuse. They do not bring Bickford fuse to Bendigo.

Senator HENDERSON:

– I question very much whether that is the case. It is quite possible that it would be an easy matter tofind some Bickford fuse in some of the Bendigo mines. Nobody imports it simply for the fun of doing so. Bickford fuse is the most costly fuse on the market to-day. I will give the position regarding the fuses that are used as I knew it something like four years ago. There were three brands of fuse. One we could purchase at 7½d. per coil ; another at 8½d. per coil; but for the Bickford fuse we never paid less than10½d. per coil, and we were prepared to pay that twice over in preference to using the stuff that could be got at 7½d. per coil, for the simple reason that the Bickford fuse was reliable. Every time we had to use fuse we knew our lives were in our hands.

Senator Millen:

– The Bickford fuse was afuse and a life insurance as well.

Senator HENDERSON:

– That is precisely the position.

Senator McGregor:

– Would not the duty induce Bickford to come here and manufacture again?

Senator HENDERSON:

– No duty would induce Bickford to come here. Can anybody tell me why he left Australia ?

Senator McColl:

– The company in Bendigo is Bickford, Smith, and Company.

Senator HENDERSON:

– Bickford is not in the business now.

Senator McColl:

– Quite wrong.

Senator HENDERSON:

– Is the Bickford fuse imported?

Senator McColl:

– No, it is made here. It is better than any fuse that comes into the country. It is made both here and at Home.

Senator HENDERSON:

– I am very sorry indeed for the honorable senator’sinformation in respect to this matter. The Bickford fuse comes here in miles from the Old Country, and it is used becauseof the fact that it is a double tape.

Senator McColl:

– It is double tape fuse that is made at Bendigo.

Senator HENDERSON:

– I candidly admit that I have never used the Victorian fuse.

Senator Best:

– Senator McColl is a mining man.

Senator HENDERSON:

– I know that, but at the same time I do not think that the honorable senator has used a yard of fuse for every thousand yards I have used.

Senator McGregor:

– The honorable senator did not use all the good fuse in the world.

Senator HENDERSON:

– No, I did not, but I always refused to use bad fuse.

Senator Findley:

– So do the Bendigo miners, and that is why they take the local article.

Senator HENDERSON:

– Probably that is so. I am not interfering at all with what the Bendigo miners are doing. If they are taking the locally-made fuse, my position is absolutely tenable. The present condition of the schedule gives them an opportunity to continue using the Bendigo fuse. I am not endeavouring to compel them to use Bickford fuse, but I am trying to prevent the Committee doing anything that will force other people to use fuse that is inferior to Bickford fuse.

Senator McColl:

– You are absolutely wrong in stating that the Bendigo fuse is inferior. It is fully as good as the imported fuse, if not better.

Senator HENDERSON:

– I have been mining in Australia for the past twenty-two years, and during the whole of that time I have been using fuse. How strange it is that in the northern mines of Queensland, where I mined for gold, in the southern mines of New South Wales, where I mined for coal, and in the mines of Western Australia, where I worked for years, I never came in contact with one foot of Victorian fuse.

Senator Best:

– That is only a coincidence.

Senator HENDERSON:

– It is a coincidence with a force behind it that compels me to take the stand which I am now taking, and I sincerely hope the Ministry will not endeavour to increase the duty. I am quiteprepared to vote for the duty as it stands, but if the Ministry are stupid enough to make an attempt to increase it, then in the interests, not only of the miners but of the general community, and to prevent as many accidents as I possibly can, I shall be compelled to vote against them.

Question- That the House of Representatives be requested to make the duty on item 409, paragraphc(imports under General Tariff), per coil,1d. (Senator Findley’ s request) - put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 8

NOES: 15

Majority … … 7

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Request negatived.

Item 410. Lantern Slides ; Photographic Sensitized Films and Paper; Photographic Mounts; Photographic Backgrounds (mounted or unmounted); Photographs of Australian subjects; Postcards (sensitized with or without letter press) ; Powdered Magnesium ; Sulphite of Soda ; Metabisulphite of Soda; Metabisnlpihite of Potash; Nitrate of Silver; and Chloride of Gold, ad val. (General Tariff), 35 per cent. ; and on and after 12th December, 1907, 30 per cent. ; (United Kingdom), 25 per cent.

Senator BEST:
VicePresident of the Executive Council · Victoria · Protectionist

– I have given notice of my intention to submit several requests in connexion with this item. My object is to eliminate those articles which are not made in the Commonwealth and to make them free. The articles which will be left in the item are made here, and from that stand-point the duty is protective. In the first instance, I move -

That the House of Representatives Be requested to amend item 410 by leaving out the words “ and Paper,” and inserting before “Photographic Mounts” the words “Photographic Sensitized Papers n.e.i., Linen, or other Material.”

Senator MACFARLANE:
Tasmania

– I desire to ascertain from the Minister whether he intends to move a request for the omission of the words “ Sensitized Films “ ?

Senator Best:

– Certainly not.

Senator MACFARLANE:

– Under item 341 sensitized films were made free.

Senator Best:

– Yes, for use in connexion with kinematographs, bioscopes, and kinetoscopes, which is quite another thing.

Senator MACFARLANE:

– They are not made in this country.

Senator Best:

– Those arenot, but the others are.

Senator MACFARLANE:

– I understand from a photographer that they are not made in Australia, and therefore I ask the Minister to afford me an opportunity to submit a request for the omission of the words “ Sensitized Films “ from this item.

Request, by leave, withdrawn.

Senator MACFARLANE:
Tasmania

.- I move-

That the House of Representatives be requested to amend item 410 by leaving out the words “ Sensitized Films.”

Senator Pulsford:

– For what purpose?

Senator MACFARLANE:

– Because I understand from a photographer in a large way of business that the articles are not made in this country. Under item 341 we have made sensitized films for certain purposes free, and therefore they ought to be made free for photographic purposes.

Senator BEST:
VicePresident of the Executive Council · VICTORIA · PROT

– I hope that Senator Macfarlane will not press his request. Under item 341 we did make free certain sensitized films, because they are not made in the Commonwealth. They are different from the sensitized films which are usedin connexion with photographic apparatus. It must be known to honorable senators generally that a plant has been purchased and a factory is being erected for the production of photographers’ sensitized films on a very large scale. A member of a very enterprising firm has been in America and has made all his arrangements for the establishment of a factory here, because he was encouraged to that end by the terms of the Tariff. I suggest that in the circumstances we should grant this reasonable protection of 30 and 25 per cent. I may add that at present these films are only made on a very small scale here, but the enlargement of the business is proceeding.

Senator CHATAWAY:
Queensland

. -I propose to ask the Committee to add the words “ and Paper “ to the words which Senator Macfarlane desires to be omitted from the item.

Senator Best:

– I intend tomove a request for the omission of those words and the substitution of the words “ Photographic Sensitized Papers n.e.i., Linen or other Material.”

Senator CHATAWAY:

– At what rate of duty ?

Senator Best:

– The object of my proposal is to make free certain articles which are not made here, and to leave those articles which are made here subject to the duties of 30 and 25 per cent.

Senator CHATAWAY:

– I am satisfied.

Senator MULCAHY:
Tasmania

– I do not know whether every honorable senator is fully seized of the effect of the Minister’s proposal. The item includes certain articles which are being partly manufactured here. Does the Minister intend to strike out the words ‘ ‘ Sensitized Paper “ for the purpose of levying a higher or a lower duty ?

Senator Best:

– To make it free.

Senator MULCAHY:

– Sensitized paper of all kinds?

Senator Best:

– I want the Committee to request the omission of the words “ and Paper,” the substitution of the words “ Photographic Sensitized Papers n.e.i., Linen or other Material,” and the insertion of the following new paragraphs - “ Photographic Materials, viz. : -

1. Platinotype Paper, Autotype Paper, and Scenic Backgrounds, free.
2. Metabisulphite of Potassium and Metabisulphite of Sodium, under departmental by-laws, free.”

Senator Millen:

– That will still leave some sensitized papers in this item ?

Senator Best:

– Certainly.

Senator FINDLEY:
Victoria

.- I hope that protectionist senators will realize the seriousness of the request of Senator Macfarlane. As soon as the Tariff was introduced elsewhere an enterprising firm, with an establishment in each State, decided to start manufacturing operations in a very extensive way. It is only right that every honorable senator should know that sensitized films will be made here in a very short period.

Senator Mulcahy:

– Are they being made here now ?

Senator FINDLEY:

– The machinery is on its way to Australia, and it would be a cruel wrong, I think, no this enterprising firm to delete the words “ Sensitized Films “ from the item. It is an industry which ought to receive every encouragement at our hands. I feel sure that when it is established it will give satisfaction to every one who is engaged in the photographic business throughout Australia.

Senator MULCAHY:
Tasmania

– There is very good reason to anticipate the early erection of machinery and buildings for the carrying on of this industry in Australia, but I do not see why we should deal with this anticipated industry in a manner different to that in which we have already decided to deal with other industries which it is expected will be established within the Commonwealth at no distant date. We have dealt with other cases of this kind by making provision for the imposition of certain duties by the issue of a proclamation after a resolution has been carried by this Parliament stating that the industry has been established locally to such an extent as to warrant the imposition of the duty.

Senator Findley:

– Let us do one thing or the other. What is the use of misleading people?

Senator MULCAHY:

– Why should we treat one industry differently from another? Why should we not in this case follow the practice we have already laid down in regard to industries which it is anticipated will shortly be established in Australia ? I do not wish to suggest that in this instance there is any desire to deceive the Committee, but I believe that in at least one other instance the Committee was induced to agree to the imposition of duties on a mere empty statement without corroboration that something was going to be done at! some future undefined date.

Senator Best:

– The honorable senator is referring to textiles.

Senator MULCAHY:

– Yes, I am referring to dress materials. Some of the articles included in this item are already being manufactured here, and I should like to see their manuf acture encouraged within reasonable bounds. They are referred to in a letter which I have received from a worthy Australian Federalist, and I believe a sound protectionist.

Senator Findley:

– Who is he?

Senator MULCAHY:

– Mr. Beattie, of

Hobart - one of the best landscape photographers in Australia.

Senator Findley:

– He has largely eulogised Australian productions.

Senator MULCAHY:

– He has, and he has done more, I think, than any one else in Australia to advertise Australian picturesque spots. He writes -

The principal photographic materials manufactured in the States of the greatest importance to the photographic art are dry plates and sensitive papers. These are of the utmost consequence to the production of photographic work, and it is essential that both should be of reliable and good uniform quality. As a large user of Australian sensitive papers (by compulsion), I regret to say that it possesses neither of these qualifications.

Senator Findley:

– Why “ by compulsion “? There is wholesale dumping being carried on.

Senator MULCAHY:

– I wish Senator Findley to listen to what this man has to say, because he is a fair-minded man, and states his case fairly. Referring to Australian made sensitized paper he writes further -

When it is, however, obtainable in good order, I must say that its quality is equal to the English or American makes; but, owing to its uncertainty in this respect, and the heartbreaking losses occasioned thereby, I, along with the other members of our profession, fail to understand why we should be penalized for the benefit of a few firms, who boycott the better class of imported papers to push their own inferior manufactures.

Australian Dry Plates are simply laughed at by the profession in Australia, the English plate, which is unapproachable in every way, being exclusively used.

In the face of this professional opinion I do not think we should increase these duties in the way proposed. We have decided to encourage other industries by the imposition of duties of 25 per cent. and 20 per cent., and I am at a lossto understand why we should go beyond that measure of protection in this case, and also why we should depart from the very wise course we previously adopted in respect of industries to be established of recommending the imposition of duties when by resolution of Parliament it has been affirmed that the local industry is sufficiently established to warrant their imposition. I should prefer Senator Macfarlane to specifically mention in his request the articles on which he thinks duties might be imposed, and to add the condition which we have previously adopted providing for the withholding of the suggested protection until it has been demonstrated that the articles can be manufactured of good quality in the Commonwealth.

Senator Macfarlane:

– Is the Minister prepared to agree to Senator Mulcahy ‘s proposal ?

Senator Best:

– No.

Request negatived.

Requests (by Senator Best) agreed to -

That the House of Representatives be requested to amend item 410 by leaving out the words “ and Paper,” and inserting in lieu thereof the words “ Photographic Sensitized Papers n.e.i., Linen, or other Material.”

That the House of Representatives be requested to further amend item 410 by leaving out the words “ Photographic Backgrounds (mounted or unmounted)” and the semicolon following.

Senator FINDLEY:
Victoria

.- I move -

That the House of Representatives be requested to further amend item 410 by inserting after the word “letterpress” the words “ Stereoscopic Views “ and a semicolon.

In submitting this request I desire to say that an enterprising Australian has for years made trips to almost’ every part of the earth, and has taken many thousands of views of various places. He ‘has established a business in three of the States, and is now engaged in reproducing stereoscopic views of these scenes. I have samples of them here and can assure the Committee that the work is done by Australian workmen, and the letter-press on the back of the views is printed by Australians.

Senator Chataway:

– The scenery is not Australian.

Senator FINDLEY:

– The collection includes scenery in Victoria, New South Wales, Queensland, Tasmania, South Australia, India, Great Britain, Europe, and Asia. That these cards are of the highest class is evidenced by the fact that the Education Department of Victoria has introduced them into the schools of the State. The production of these cards constitutes an industry which might legitimately be granted a measure of protection.

Senator Chataway:

– To prevent any one else introducing these views, now that the man to whom the honorable senator refers has produced them.

Senator FINDLEY:

– No; any one who pleases is at liberty to take photographs of the same scenes’ and reproduce them. The people engaged in this industry have to pay duty on some of the raw materials used in connexion with their production, and are to that extent placed at a disadtage as compared with foreign manufacturers of stereoscopic views.

Senator Millen:

– How are they placed at any disadvantage?

Senator FINDLEY:

– Because they have to pay duty on the raw materials they use.

Senator Millen:

– Does not that make the raw materials cheaper?

Senator FINDLEY:

– As Senator Millen is aware, in dealing with this Tariff, we have imposed some duties, on articles that are not made in Australia, though I have not voted to do so. Some of the raw materials of this industry are dutiable, and I consider that an Australian industry of this kind, which is of an educational character, deserves encouragement and protection.

Senator Sayers:

– How do outsiders obtain their advantage if not under this Tariff?

Senator FINDLEY:

– That is so, and if the representations which have been made to myself and other honorable senators had been made in another place, the proposal I now make would probably have been agreed to there. As soon as the matter was brought under the notice of the Customs authorities, they admitted that the people to whom I have referred are placed at a disadvantage, and it is in order to relieve them of that disability that I submit my request;

Senator CHATAWAY:
Queensland

– We cannot let this request go without some further information than Senator Findley has given. According to the honorable senator, some Australian has been abroad, has taken photographs, and then converted them into .stereoscopic views in Australia, and now he wishes to impose a duty of 30 per cent, upon anybody else who wishes to introduce stereoscopic views. The honorable senator enlarged upon the educational value” of these views, but why we should specially educate our people by means of this particular set of stereoscopic views, and should not permit them to obtain other equally good views for the same purpose, I am unable to understand. Senator Findley admits that his proposal is one which would impose a tax upon the education of the people, in respect of a knowledge of what is to be seen abroad. If that kind of thing is to be done, we might just as well impose a duty of 30 per cent, on works of art. I should like the Minister to explain why he remained silent when Senator Findley brought forward this entirely new proposal, which is so much at variance with opinions which members of the Government have expressed in connexion with other items. -

Senator BEST:
VicePresident of the Executive Council · Victoria · Protectionist

– Senator Chataway is quite in error in saying that Senator Findley’s proposal is new to the Government. It is not. It was contained in the Tariff as originally introduced. The word “ photographs “ only was used, but this was limited in another place by the addition of the words ‘ ‘ of Australian subjects.” That limitation had the effect of admitting stereoscopic views from other parts of the world free. The case made out by Senator Findley is that there is established in three of the States a photographic business whose proprietor is sufficiently enterprising to send throughout the world photographers to take the most attractive views.

Senator Chataway:

– Senator Findley’s argument was that some Australian had done so in the past.

Senator BEST:

– No. It is an old establishment in Australia. The negatives taken by the travelling photographers are sent to the proprietor in Australia, who finishes them and turns them into regular stereoscopic views of a very high class. Some have been exhibited to me and to other honorable senators. As the request was comprehended within the original proposal of the Government, and involves the encouragement of an excellent industry, I have no hesitation in supporting it.

Senator Chataway:

– Is duty paid on the negatives?

Senator BEST:

– Yes.

Senator PULSFORD:
New South Wales

– If I have any idea about the views of honorable members of both Chambers, it is that anything in the nature of the goods referred to should be either free or as nearly free as possible. Works of art are free under other items. There are numerous other instances in which the common sense of the community and their love of the beautiful has overwhelmed the desire for the promotion of protection to these exceedingly limited industries. I trust, therefore, ‘ that the Committee will reject the proposal.

Senator HENDERSON:
Western Australia

– It would be inadvisable to follow Senator Pulsford’s advice, because there are many articles in this item that are essentially taxable, and that we should not think of making “ as free as possible.” Why should nitrate of silver and chloride of gold be made free?

Senator Pulsford:

– I referred only to stereoscopic views.

Senator HENDERSON:

– I beg the honorable senator’s pardon. I thought that he argued for making the whole item free. Any man with an idea of chemistry can produce nitrate of silver or chloride of gold in Australia without trouble.

Senator MILLEN:
New South Wales

– The difficulty which confronts me is that, as I gather from the VicePresident of the Executive Council, negatives are dutiable.’

Senator Best:

– Yes, under item 413.

Senator MILLEN:

– It seems anomalous to charge a duty upon negatives which might be in the possession of the enterprising Australian about whom Senator Findley has been so eloquent, . and allow some one who develops negatives outside Australia to send the completed views in free.

Senator Findley:

– Therefore the honorable senator ought to vote for my request.

Senator MILLEN:

– It would appear so at first sight. I do not want to go to the extreme of taxing the negative and allowing free the print taken from it. That would be an inducement to an Australian or anybody else to develop his plate outside Australia and send the print in. On the other hand, I object to Senator Findley’s proposition that because some one has taken a photograph in New York we should place a duty on some one else who takes a photograph in London. The honorable senator cannot tell me that any one is sufficiently energetic to have visited and taken photo- graphs of the scenery in all parts of the world. The honorable senator, because this Australian is said to have visited aH the beauty spots of the world, would make dutiable astronomical views which can only be taken by scientific men at the various Observatories. Is it desirable to put a tax on those, merely in the interests of the one individual to whom the honorable senator refers? A reasonable way out of the difficulty would- be to accept Senator Findley’s request, but to considerably reduce the duty on the item, which is double that of the 1902 Tariff. . Will the Minister accept a reduction of the duty? The item covers licht-pauspapier - light tracing paper in the prepared state. We have already agreed to make light tracing paper in the unprepared state - licht-pausrohpapier - free. That paper is prepared in Australia by, I believe, one man only, in a small way, but, on the other hand, it is used by engineers and draughtsmen allover Australia for duplicating their plans by the helio process. It is rather a heavy handicap on them to place a duty of 30 per cent. on the paper they use merely because one man in Australia is attempting in a primitive way to sensitize the unprepared paper. The paper I refer to is not the ordinary paper used by photographers, but comes under the term “sensitized paper.” At . this stage of the Tariff I shall not propose to make a separate paragraph of it. It is far better to leave it where it is, and reduce the duty after the body of the item has been dealt with.

Question- That the House of Representatives be requested to further amend item 410 by inserting after the word “ letterpress “ the words” Stereoscopic Views “ (Senator Findley’ s request) put.

The Committee divided.

AYES: 13

NOES: 10

Majority … … 3

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Request agreed to.

Request (by Senator Best) agreed to -

That the House of Representatives be requested to further amend item 410 by leaving out the words “ Metabisulphite of Soda; Metabisulphite of Potash.”

Senator MULCAHY:
Tasmania

– If my recollection is correct, the words “ photographic mounts “ were left out.

Senator Best:

– No.

Senator MULCAHY:

– I understood the question to be putthat the words “ photographic mounts, photographic backgrounds (mounted or unmounted) “ be left out.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Colonel Neild:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– Senator Mulcahy is correct in saying that in the first instance I put the question in that way, but I re-stated it before the matter went to a vote.

Senator MULCAHY:

– Unless some one wishes to move a lower rate of duty, it is my intention to move a request for the duty on imports under the general Tariff to be 25 per cent., and later on to move that the United Kingdom Tariff be 20 per cent.

Senator Chataway:

– I rise to a point of order. In the past the practice has been, when a request to leave certain words out of an item has been carried in order to put them in a new paragraph, to complete the new paragraph before dealing with the part of the item from which the words have been taken. Would it not be more consistent to do that in the present instance?

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

– It has been done both ways before. The matter is one for the convenience of the Committee.

Senator BEST:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · Victoria · Protectionist

– I move -

That the House of Representatives be requested to further amend item 410 by adding the following new paragraphs : - “ Photographic Materials, viz. : -

Platinotype Paper, Autotype Paper, and Scenic Backgrounds, free.

Metabisulphite of Potassium and Metabisulphite of Sodium, under departmental by-laws, free.”

Senator CHATAWAY:
Queensland

– I would ask the Vice-President of the Executive Council if he cannot see his way to include aristotype paper in paragraph a. I understand that paper is not made in Australia.

Senator Best:

– I have made inquiries regarding aristotype paper and find it is made to a very large extent in Australia.

Request agreed to.

Senator MULCAHY:
Tasmania

– I would like a ruling as to whether, if I submit a request to make the duty under the general Tariff in item 410 25 per cent., and the Committee decides to retain the duty of 30 per cent., I would be in order in moving the following proviso -

To come into operation on a date to be fixed by proclamation. Proclamation to issue so soon as a joint address has been passed on the motion of Ministers by both Houses of Parliament stating that the manufacture is sufficiently established in the Commonwealth. Until such proclamation is issued, duties to be 20 per cent. and 15 per cent.

Senator Findley:

– If that applies to the whole of the articles it is a farce, because a lot of them are being made here at present.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

– I think the honorable senator would be in order in moving such a request. The question at present before the Chair is the rate of duty under the general Tariff.

Request agreed to.

Request (by Senator Mulcahy) put -

That the House of Representatives be requested to make the duty on item 410 (imports under General Tariff), ad val. 25 per cent.

The Committee divided.

AYES: 11

NOES: 13

Majority … … 2

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Request negatived.

Item 411. Cameras, and Magic or Optical Lanterns, including lenses and accessories, ad val. (General Tariff), 35 per cent.; and on and after 12th December, 1907, 5 per cent. ; (United Kingdom), 25 per cent. ; and on and after 12th December, 1907, free.

Request (by Senator Best) agreed to -

That the House of Representatives be requested to amend item 411 by inserting after the word “accessories” the letters “n.e.i.”

Item 412 (Photographic Accessories of Rubber, &c.) ; item 413 (Photographic Dry Plates and Negatives); item 414 (Prepared Plates for Engravers and Lithographers); item 415 (Smoking Pipes, n.e.i., &c.); and item 416 (Clay Smoking Pipes), agreed to.

Item 417.Works of Art, framed or unframed, imported for public institutions or purposes under Departmental By-laws, free.

Senator DE LARGIE:
Western Australia

– I wish to remind honorable senators that the Minister was good enough to give a promise that by the time , this item was reached he would look into a matter which was brought forward by Senator Millen. I believe that he mentioned that under this item stained glass windows would be dealt with, and I desire to know what he intends to do in the matter.

Senator BEST:
VicePresident of the Executive Council · Victoria · Protectionist

– I made some inquiries as to whether stained glass windows or other artistic glass should be admitted duty free, and found that the highest class of work is done here. Printed testimonials to the effect that it is equal to the best imported standards are at the disposal of honorable senators. On the production of this class of work there are engaged five firms in Melbourne, four firms in Sydney, three firms in Adelaide, two firms in Perth, and two firms in Brisbane. I may mention that in addition to the testimony which was borne by my honorable colleague as to some very artistic work which had been done in Tasmania, I hold certain testimonials which speak in the highest possible terms as to the artistic character of Australian work. We have various firms engaged in the industry, and. if the work can be done here as well as it is done abroad, there is no reason why we should import any articles of this description.

Senator NEEDHAM:
Western Australia

. -I rise to remind Senator Best that when we were discussing item 249 Senator Millen submitted a request for the omission of the word “Heraldic,” and that a long debate ensued. The Minister of Home Affairs was then in charge of the Tariff, and after he had given us much more information than Senator Best has just supplied, he, at the suggestion of Senator Millen, agreed to include stained glass windows in item 417.

Senator Best:

– Oh, no.

Senator NEEDHAM:

– Ihave just as good a memory as has the honorable senator.

Senator Best:

– Iam only stating what my honorable colleague has told me.

Senator NEEDHAM:

– If Senator Keating has told the honorable senator anything different from what I have said, he must have a very bad memory. I think that if he turns up the Hansard report of his speech he will find that, in. response to a request from Senator Millen, he made a distinct promise that stained glass windows could easily be, and would be, included in this item. . I see no reason why Senator Best or Senator Keating should go back upon the distinct promise which was made to the Committee.

Senator BEST:
VicePresident of the Executive Council · Victoria · Protectionist

– I most distinctly protest against my honorable friend venturing to charge my honorable colleague or myself with going back upon any promise that we made. We have done nothing of the kind. Perhaps I had better read from Hansard what took place on the occasion. Senator Keating said -

I was present at the unveiling of a stainedglass window at Launceston, and there expressed my pleasure and satisfaction that such stainedglass windows could be made in Australia. The writer pointed out the necessity for adhering to the Tariff as it was submitted to the House of Representatives, and attached an extract from one of the daily papers published in Launceston, giving details as to this decorative art in churches.

Subsequently he said -

It seems to me that this sort of glass can be, and is, manufactured in the Commonwealth.

Senator Needham:

– We admit that he made that statement, but- let the Minister read his concluding statement on that item.

Senator BEST:

– I knew nothing about the matter until a few moments ago.

Senator Millen:

– We have discovered that.

Senator BEST:

– However, my honorable colleague is here now to speak for himself, and whatever he promised will, of course, be redeemed.

Senator KEATING:
Minister of Home Affairs · Tasmania · Protectionist

– I have not had the advantage of hearing the discussion as I was engaged, elsewhere.

Senator Needham:

– I simply mentioned that the honorable senator made a promise to include stained glass windows in this item.

Senator KEATING:

– I made no promise of the kind. I mentioned that I had been waited upon by certain persons who were interested in having stained glass windows made free, and that long before the question was raised here I had declined to make any promise to them. I have not re-read what I said on that occasion, but I feel certain that Ilansard will show that I simply stated to Senator Millen that the proper place for discussing the matter was in connexion with an item in the miscellaneous division. I pointed out that the request if carried would go beyond the expressed wishes of those who were responsible for its submission, because it would permit of the free admission of not only church windows, but also the parts that are imported and assembled into the various designs which find expression in windows in ecclesiastical and other buildings. I simply indicated, as I am sure Senator Millen will remember, that the proper time to discuss the proposal would be when we reached this item. Although representations of a very strong character had been made to me, I declined to promise to support any suchproposal. I opposed the idea and pointed out that if it were to be discussed, free from ever)’, other consideration, there was one place in which it could be raised, and an opportunity would be afforded to any one 4.- submit a request. But as for supporting a proposal to include heraldic-glass in this item I certainly gave no such promise.

Senator MILLEN:
New South Wales

– I had overlooked this item until attention was drawn to it by Senator de Largie. But I have a recollection of the discussion which I originated some time ago. I had not had an opportunity ot looking up the debate, but I think that my honorable friends have misconstrued The’ statement of the Minister. I cannot recollect any remark which justifies the statement of Senator Needham that Senator Keating made a definite promise. One of my complaints about this Ministry is that one cannot get a definite promise about anything. It would, indeed, startle me if in this matter the Minister had committed himself, because at that time there was no reason why he should. Although he is politically young, still he has been here long enough, I venture to say, not to give a promise unless he is absolutely compelled by the circumstances of the case. He gave me the impression that he was trying to get “rid of the matter for the time being. He uttered a great many phrases about matters which were not pertinent to the subject, and I thought that he was displaying some skill at considerable length in avoiding the real issue. I hope that he will not do so tor night.

Senator Keating:

– The honorable senator will remember that .1 commenced my speech on that occasion by quoting the fact that I had seen the completed works in Launceston and approved of them.

Senator MILLEN:

– I remember that the honorable senator brought in a little testimonial to his own powers of perception ; but the question is whether or not we ought to make heraldic glass free under this item. Senator Best objects to the proposal, because in Australia we can produce very high quality work of this kind. That remark applies to every other work of art which is admitted free. The honorable senator said that a certain number of persons are engaged in turning out work of the highest quality. Cannot the same thing be said in regard to works of art such as statuary and pictures?

Senator Trenwith:

– But. the difference is that a stained glass window is not a work of art.

Senator MILLEN:

– Does the honorable senator seriously say that?

Senator Trenwith:

– Yes; because an artist does not touch the glass. A stained glass- window is merely a reproduction by a first-class artisan of a work of art.

Senator MILLEN:

– The honorable senator might just as well tell me that a steel engraving is not a work of art because more than one man was engaged on the operation. When he says that one of these exceedingly handsome windows is not to be classed as a work of art, I ask him to define what a work of art is.

Senator Trenwith:

– It is a copy of a work of art. The real work of art, the drawing, would be admitted free.

Senator MILLEN:

– I fear that I must regard the honorable senator as hopeless. I propose to submit a request which will test the. question whether the Committee agrees with Senator Trenwith that a stained glass window is not a work of art or with me. I move -

That the House of Representatives_ be requested to amend item 417 by adding after’ the word “by-laws” the words “also Stained Glass Windows for churches or public institutions under departmental by-laws.”

Senator NEEDHAM:
Western Australia

– Tn the absence of the Minister of Home Affairs I stated that the honorable senator promised the Committee that he would agree to the inclusion of stained glass windows in item 417. I find on reference to Hansard that mv statement was scarcely correct. I should like to say now that when we were dealing with item 24Q I was under the impression that the honorable senator would be willing to include stained glass windows in item at 7. because when, during the discussion, Senator Millen said that he would move his ‘request again when the

Committee reached item 417, the Minister of Home Affairs replied that there would then be no confusion.

Senator Keating:

– If the honorable senator will permit me, the confusion I was referring to was the possible confusion between heraldic glass and completed stained glass windows.

Senator NEEDHAM:

– Just so. Senator de Largie, in referring to the matter, was also desirous that there should be no misunderstanding, and the impression conveyed to my mind by the discussion which took place on the previous item was that the Minister would be quite willing when the Committee reached item 417 to accept the request which Senator Millen then moved and which he has again submitted to-night.

Senator CLEMONS:
Tasmania

– Before Senator Millen’s request is put to the Committee I wish to move a prior request. I wish this item to read -

Works of Art, framed or unframed, imported for public institutions or churches under Departmental By-laws.

Honorable senators must be aware that the authorities of various churches in the Commonwealth import some of the finest pictures that find their way to Australia. Under this item as it now stands they would be unable to import these pictures free of duty, because churches are not mentioned in the item, and I believe that in the Commonwealth they are not covered by the definition of a “ public institution.” Under the item as it stands persons interested, in public institutions would be able to import works of art free qf duty, and I desire to permit church authorities to do the same.

Senator Best:

– What about item 419. It would cover pictures n.e.i. imported for churches as well as for public institutions, and private people.

Senator CLEMONS:

– I looked at that item, but we recognise an element of danger in the letters “n.e.i.,” as we have to look for other items in which the articles they refer to are made dutiable or are admitted free, as the case may be.

Senator Best:

– In this case they cover pictures not included in item 420, and also certain picture advertisements under stationery which we have made free.

Senator CLEMONS:

– Will Senator Best assure the Committee that with the exception of the pictures referred to in 420, and the stationery pictures referred to, the words “ Pictures n.e.i.” in item 4T9 cover the pictures that might be imported.

Senator Best:

– I am so assured by the officers of the Department.

Senator CLEMONS:

– Then under the Tariff as it stands pictures imported for churches are admitted free.

Senator Best:

– That is so.

Senator CLEMONS:

– Then it is unnecessary that I should move the request that I intended to move.

Senator Lt Col NEILD:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT

-Colonel GOULD (New South Wales) [9.25]. - I wish to ask a question in reference to this matter. “ Pictures n.e.i.” and “ Works of Art, framed or unframed, imported for public institutions,” are admitted free under separate items. Why should we have two different items dealing with the same matter. It seems to me that there was clearly in the mind of the framer of this portion pf the schedule the necessity of making a distinction between works of art and ordinary ‘ pictures which could not be so described.

Senator Best:

– Item 417 would cover other things besides pictures, and in item 419 pictures not dealt with in other items in the Tariff are made absolutely free.

Senator Lt Colonel GOULD:

– Then we are to understand that in the interpretation of the Tariff pictures for churches would be regarded as coming under item 419-

Senator Best:

– Yes.

Senator CLEMONS:
Tasmania

– Is the Vice-President of the Executive Council prepared to accept Senator Millen’s request? I am sorry that the honorable senator is not able to say at. once that he will do so. I am sure that he is not altogether destitute of artistic taste, and I therefore regret that he should have said that there is no limit to our excellence in the production of stained glass work. I am sorry also that one of his supporters should have- asserted that a stained glass window does not represent art.

Senator Trenwith:

– I did not say so. I said that a stained glass window was not a work of art. It often does represent art, and of a very high order.

Senator CLEMONS:

– I am extremely sorry ‘that Senator Trenwith should say that a stained glass window does not represent a work of art. .

Senator de Largie:

– Some do not.

Senator CLEMONS:

– That is so, and if we relied entirely upon Australian productions I am afraid that many would not. I should like to remind Senator Trenwith that some of the finest works of art produced in the history of the world are re presented by the stained glass windows in the Old Country. Some of the very finest art productions of human hands and skill are represented by stained glass windows.

Senator de Largie:

– Many are as well known as the most famous paintings.

Senator CLEMONS:

– Of course they are, and in many cases they represent the very highest artistic attainment.

Request agreed to.

Item 418 (Works of Art, being Statuary), item 419 (Pictures n.e.i.), item 420 (Pictures, being Coloured Supplements for Newspapers), item 421 (Undertakers’ Requisites), and item 422 (Wall and Ceiling Parts) agreed to.

Item 423. Cotton, Asbestos, and other packings; including Sheet Asbestos, and Cord, ad val. 20 per cent.

Senator BEST:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · Victoria · Protectionist

– I desire to alter the wording of this item, and, at the same time, to put on the free list certain articles that are not made in Australia. I move -

That the House of Representatives be requested to amend item 423 by leaving OUt. after the word “packings,” the semicolon and the words “ Sheet Asbestos, and Cord,” and inserting in lieu thereof a comma and the words “ Asbestos Cloth (with or . without wire) proofed with rubber; Asbestos Cord.”

I shall afterwards propose a new paragraph, making certain other asbestos preparations free.

Senator CLEMONS:
Tasmania

– I understand that the Minister proposes to leave out sheet asbestos?

Senator Best:

– And substitute words which mean exactly the same thing.

Senator CLEMONS:

– Does the honorable senator not propose to make it free?

Senator Best:

– No.

Senator CLEMONS:

– If the honorable senator is satisfied that the words which he is substituting are an exact equivalent of sheet asbestos, I will not pursue the subject. Personally, I do not think they are.

Request agreed to.

Request (by Senator Best) agreed to -

That the House of Representatives be requested to further amend item 423 by adding the following new paragraph: - “D. Asbestos Millboards, Asbestos Yarn, Asbestos Cloth (with or without wire) unproofed, free.”

Item 424 (Asbestos Pipe . and Boiler Covering, &c), item 425 (Inks and Stains for Leather), and item 426 (Articles n.e.i. of Celluloid, &c.) agreed to.

Item 427. Surgical Appliances, n.e.i., including Belts, Trusses, Pads, Corsets, Braces, Breast

Supports, Vaccination Shields, ad val. (General Tariff), 25 per cent. ; (United Kingdom), 25 per cent. ; and on and after 12th December, 1907, 20 per cent.

Senator CLEMONS:
Tasmania

– This is one of those dangerous “n.e.i.” items to whichI object. Item 422 includes a number of surgical appliances, which are made free. More than once I have objected to putting heavy duties on such articles, and my objection still remains, in spite of many defeats. I see no reason why the few articles in this item should have been removed from the free; list. Whether they are made here or not, they should be free. It is a great blot on this Tariff that we should be taxing articles of medicine and surgical appliances. I move -

That the House of Representatives be requested to make item 427 (imports under General Tariff), free.

Senator BEST:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · Victoria · Protectionist

– The reason why the articles specified in this item are made dutiable at 25 per cent. and 30 per cent., while a large number ofother surgical, dental, and veterinary instruments are made free under item 442, is that these are made here, while those are not. Hence the distinction. I submit that 25 per cent. is a fair protection to give.

Question put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 14

NOES: 12

Majority …… 2

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Request agreed to.

Request (by Senator Clemons) agreed to-

That the House of Representatives be requested to make item 427 (imports from the United Kingdom), free.

Item 428 (Articles imported by the Commonwealth), item 429 (Articles imported for the official use of the GovernorGeneral); item 430 (Articles imported for the official use of the State Governors), item 431 (Articles imported for the use of the Blind, Deaf, and Dumb), and item 432 (Uniforms, Flags, &c., imported by Consuls) agreed to.

Item 433. Fire Brigade Appliances, n.e.i., viz. : - Fire Escape and Fire Ladders, Ladder and Hose Carriages, and Water Towers, free.

Senator McCOLL:
Victoria

.- I move -

That the House of Representatives be requested to amend item 433 by inserting after the word “Towers” the words “Woven Canvas Hose, 2½ inches in diameter and over, plain or rubber lined.”

That is the hose used by fire brigades all over Australia. It is a special make, the best of which is produced in Dundee - the “ Rob Roy “ hose, made by McGregor. The Metropolitan Fire Brigade will be importing, this year, 25,000 feet of it. That is only one brigade, and there are ninetynine in Victoria, considerably more in New South Wales, and many in the other States. The duties of 25 per cent. and 20 per cent. in item 349, under which this hose would otherwise fall, will mean a very serious expense for the brigades to meet. Hose of this size is not made in this country, although smaller hose is. The Committee, I am sure, have no wish to penalize those bodies, which exist for the public good, and are maintained partly by public subscriptions, by compelling them to pay a large amount to the Commonwealth revenue.

Senator BEST:
VicePresident of the Executive Council · Victoria · Protectionist

– I quite admit the correctness of what has been stated by the honorable senator as to this class of canvas hose not being made here, and I have no objection to the request.

Request agreed to.

Senator Colonel NEILD (New South Wales) [9.46]. - I hope the Vice-President of the Executive Council will also consent to the addition of a few words which I intend to submit. I would like the words, “apparatus for saving life at fires” to be added to the request.

Senator Best:

– That is already included in the item.

Senator Colonel NEILD:

– The item does not include nets and similar appliances into whichpeople cut off by fire have to jump to save their lives. I do not want to harrow any one’s feelings, but at a great fire in Sydney a few years ago, since the inception of the Commonwealth, and while the Senate was actually sitting, a young man driven to the top of a high building by the heat of the fire from below was at last forced to make an awful leap - a leap that ended in death. I am sorry to say that I have to own that this occurred because the Fire Department had not provided the nets or whatever appliances are used for persons to jump into. When any one passes that lofty building, as I and other New South Wales’ senators have frequently to do, the thought is borne back to us with a feeling of much more than sorrow that any human being should be placed in such an unfortunate position as that young man.

Senator McGregor:

– Your proposal would not make any difference if the brigade neglected their duty.

Senator Colonel NEILD:

– It is not a question of neglecting our duty. Sometimes we find out what our duty is only by the occurrence of tragedy.

Senator Best:

– What words does the honorable senator wish to add?

Senator Colonel NEILD:

– I have suggested the addition of the words “ and apparatus for saving life at fires,” but I shall be very glad to be guided by the VicePresident of the Executive Council as to what words would include appliances such as nets by means of which those cut off from below by fire may effect their escape.

Senator Best:

– Will the insertion of the words “ life-saving appliances under departmental by-laws” cover the position?

Senator Colonel NEILD:

– I shall be most happy indeed to fall in with the view ofthe Vice-President of the Executive Council because I am sure we all have one object in view - theprotection of human life -and that being provided for I accept the Minister’s suggestion. I move -

That the House of Representatives be requested to further amend item 433 by inserting after the word “ rubber-lined “ the words “ also Life-saving Appliances, under departmental by-laws.”

Request agreed to.

Item 434 (Minor articles prescribed by Departmental By-laws) ; item 435 (Models of inventions, &c.); item 436 (Collections of Antiquities) ; and item 437 (Specimens of Natural History, &c.) agreed to.

Item 438. Passengers’ personal effects ; Passengers’ Furniture and Household Goods which have been in actual use by such passengers for at least one year, not exceeding£50 in value for each adult passenger*, free.

*Two members of a family, under eighteen years of age but not less than twelve years, maybe reckoned as one adult.

Senator CLEMONS:
Tasmania

– This item seems to carry with it a recommendation onthe part of the Ministry that any immigrant, or for that matter any citizen of the Commonwealth, returning from abroad, shall be allowed tobring into the Commonwealth furniture and household goods free. But there is a proviso that the furniture and household goods shall not exceed £50 in value for each adult passenger. If we are going to recognise the principle - and it is a desirable one too - it seems to me we are making the limitation too low. I can quite conceive that many immigrants from England, desirable from many points of view, might come here, and bring furniture and household goods, preferring to do so than to sell them, and I think the limitation of£50 is too low. I would ask the VicePresident of the Executive Council, seeing that the Government recognises the principle I have mentioned, to increase the amount. I. suppose it is assumed that a man coming to Australia will not have more than£50 worth of furniture and household goods. If he is a valuable immigrant, and brings anything at all, he will bring goods of a greater value than£50, and it would not be a pleasant thing to tell him on his arrival that wewill only allow him to bring in£50 worth of his goods free, and will tax the rest. The limitation is too low, even for a man of very humble means, and is too low altogether for a person possessed of considerable means. I do not think it would be anything more than the occasion requires; if the Government made the limitation£150.

Senator BEST:
VicePresident of the Executive Council · Victoria · Protectionist

– The£50 limitation contained in the item was in the Tariff of 1902, and is the limitation which existed previously in certain State Tariffs. The limitation is£50 for each adult. The first thing I would point out is that if a man comes to Australia with four children and a wife, he will be able to bring in household goods’ to the value of£300.

Senator Clemons:

– No; if you will look at the footnote you will see that he can not.

Senator BEST:

– That is so. He could bring in household effects valued at£200.

Senator Clemons:

– The children must be over twelve years of age. There is no allowance whatever if a child is under twelve years. If there were six children under twelve years of age they would not count at all.

Senator BEST:

– I do not know about that.

Senator Clemons:

– The footnote says that two members of a family under 18 years of age, but not less than 12 years of age, may be reckoned as one adult. An immigrant may bring in four children under 12, and he would be allowed to bring in no additional household effects on that account.

Senator BEST:

– A case of that kind might occur. I submit that the limitation is a very reasonable one as regards immigrants who come here alone. It is very seldom that they bring any furniture at all. An unmarried man coming to Australia brings no furniture.

Senator Clemons:

– It would not matter in a large number of those cases.

Senator BEST:

– I would point out, moreover - and I speak from experience - that the Customs Department are most liberal in their allowances in connexion with people bringing in furniture. The limitation is one which we are accustomed to, and it was in operation in certain of the State Tariffs.

Senator CLEMONS:
Tasmania

– Senator Best’s answer does not make the position much better. Until I pointed it out to him he did not recognise that if a man comes to Australia with a wife and family, and his children are under 12 years of age - they would be desirable immigrants, I suppose - no additional allowance is made him with regard to the goods he may bring in free. The item ought to be more elastic in one of two directions. Either the amount should be increasedto £150, or two children should be reckoned as one adult, no matter what are their ages. If the latter course were adopted it would save the Customs authorities from inquiring into the age of a man’s children, and would probably save the father of a family making mis-statements regarding his children’s ages.

Senator Best:

– I will agreeto the latter proposal. I am assured by the Customs officials that on no occasion have they enforced duty on the furniture of returning citizens or immigrants.

Senator CLEMONS:

– That is a very dangerous thing for the Customs authorities to admit. They ought to interpret the Act as it passed Parliament. I move -

That the House of Representatives be requested to amend item 438 by leaving out the words “ under eighteen years of age but not less than twelve years “ in the explanatory note.

Request agreed to.

Senator CLEMONS:

– Still another alteration is wanted, as the Vice-President of the Executive Council will see. I move -

That the House of Representatives be requested to further amend item 438 by inserting the words “being children” after the word “ family “ in the explanatory note.

Request agreed to.

Item 439 (Pictorial Illustrations, &c.), agreed to.

Item 440. Scientific Instruments and Apparatus (and materials for scientific purposes) for use in Universities, Colleges,Schools, or Public Hospitals, or any Public Institution under departmental by-laws, free.

Senator Colonel NEILD (New South Wales) [10. 1]. - On an earlier item I raised the question that while microscopical instruments were free microscopes were apparently dutiable. I should like to be absolutely sure that this item covers microscopes for the institutions designated therein.

Senator Best:

– I think that I gave an assurance on that point tomy honorable friend.

Senator Colonel NEILD:

– I should prefer to get an assurance on this item rather than in a tentative way as on the previous occasion.

Senator Best:

– I gave my honorable friend that assurance on a previous occasion, and I confirm it now.

Item agreed to.

Item 441 (Machinery specially designed, &c.), agreed to.

Item 442. Surgical and Dental and Veterinary Instruments and Appliances (not being Furniture), viz. : -

Amputating ; Cupping ; Dissecting ; Examining and Operating ; Veterinary ; Lint ; Gauzes ; Bandages n.e.i.; Ligatures; Oil Silk; Poroplastic Felt; Splints and Artificial Limbs and Eyes; Surgical Pessaries, except of glass ; Operation Bags fitted with Instruments; Syringes, except of glass; Galvano-cautery Batteries’ and Appliances ; Operating Tables ; Dressing and Instrument Trays; Accident Emergency Cases; Hot

Air Apparatus for legs and arms; X-ray Apparatus except Motors ; Snake-bite Outfits ; Medicated and Absorbent Wool and Surgical Dressings ; Aseptic Paper ; Impression Trays ; Dental Rubber ; Dental Alloy and Cements ; Amalgam and Gold Filling in Pellets or Cylinders, ad val. (General Tariff), 10 per cent. ; and on and after 12th December, 1907, free ; (United Kingdom), free.

Senator BEST:
VicePresident of the Executive Council · Victoria · Protectionist

– I move -

That the House of Representatives be requested to amend item 442 by leaving out the words “Operating Tables.”

In Sydney alone five firms are making a speciality of operating tables. I know that they are described by leading surgeons as tables of a very fine type indeed.

Senator Pulsford:

– If they are taken out of this item what will happen ?

Senator BEST:

– Under item 299 they will be dutiable at 35 and 30 per cent.

Senator Colonel Neild:

– Oh, that is too miserable. Drop the request and let us get on.

Senator BEST:

– Under the previous Tariff operating tables were liable to a duty of 20 per cent.

SenatorClemons. - Withdraw the request.

Senator BEST:

– This is a recognised industry, and I submit that the protection should be given.

Senator Colonel NEILD (New South Wales) [10.5]. -I am loath to occupy the attention of the Committee for even five minutes, but I remind the Minister that the number of operating tables which are wanted in the Commonwealth cannot, I suppose, amount to half-a-dozen per annum.

Senator Best:

– Do they not?

Senator Colonel NEILD:

– No, because once they are supplied they will remain in position for years. Surely we do not want to raise revenue from the tables on which poor humanity is to be carved? I ask the Minister not to press the request. I have occupied the time of the Committee very little, and if I make a friendly appeal to my honorable friend I think that he might give way.

Senator Best:

– My honorable friend cannot expect every friendly appeal to be successful. The last one was.

Senator Colonel NEILD:

– I am very sorry that the Minister will not yield. I hope that the Committee will negative his proposal.

Question put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 13

NOES: 13

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Request negatived.

Senator MILLEN:
New South Wales

– I move -

That the House of Representatives be requested to amend item 442 by inserting after the words “Operating Tables” the words “Dental Chairs;”

I need hardly remind honorable senators that a dental chair is a chair with many movements and many parts. It can readily be understood thatthese chairs are not yet made in Australia. Probably the Minister will accept my proposal to include them in this item.

Senator BEST:
VicePresident of the Executive Council · Victoria · Protectionist

– I am informed that dental chairs are made here.

Senator Millen:

– Oh ! Any chair can be made here.

Senator BEST:

– It will be noted that the introductory words to this item are -

Surgical and Dental and Veterinary Instruments and Appliances (not being Furniture).

An item dealing with furniture and including dental chairs has already been passed. I point out that they really cannot be included in this item ; but, apart from that, I urge that, inasmuch as they are being made here, they should not be admitted free.

Senator MILLEN:
New South Wales

– Surely no one will pretend that the kind of chair to which I have referred, and which I suppose most honorable senators have unfortunately filled, at some time or other, can be regarded, like an ordinary piece of furniture, as an article of comfort.

If the Minister’s view is right, an operating table might also be called a piece of furniture.

Request agreed to.

Senator BEST:
VicePresident of the Executive Council · Victoria · Protectionist

– I move -

That the House of Representatives be requested to further amend item 442 by- leaving out the words “ except Motors,” and inserting the following words, viz : - “ X-ray Tubes, Tube Shields, Fluorescent Screens, Tube Holders, Apparatus for localization and stereoscopic radiography.”

It will be noticed that the present item includes “ X’-ray apparatus except Motors.” The parts of the X-ray apparatus which will be covered by the item in the proposed new form will be all except motors and motor interruptors, which are not included therein at present. Of course, if the request in regard to electric motors is accepted elsewhere, motors over jo horse-power will be free; otherwise (they -will be liable to duty. In any circumstances motors are specially excepted from the item before the Committee, but it is thought that this is the clearer method to adopt so as to avoid, any difficulties in regard to interpretation.”

Senator Millen:

– If the words “except Motors “ are deleted from this item tinder what item will the motors fall ?

Senator BEST:

– They will be dutiable as machinery, as they now are under this item. But the object of the request is to specify clearly the component parts of the X’-ray apparatus which are intended to be free.

Senator CLEMONS:
Tasmania

– I want to see the whole of the X-ray apparatus made free. I understand that the Minister’s proposal is to request the omission of the words ‘ ‘ except Motors ‘ ‘ and the insertion of various articles in the blank.

Senator Best:

– Which constitute the component parts of the X-ray apparatus.

Senator CLEMONS:

– So that they may be dutiable?

Senator Best:

– No; they are free here.

Senator CLEMONS:

– Is the object of the present request to enlarge the items of the X-ray apparatus which will be free ?

Senator Best:

– The object is to except motors which are already excepted and motor interruptors.

Senator CLEMONS:

– With a view to insert other words?

Senator BEST:
VicePresident of the Executive Council · Victoria · Protectionist

– My honorable friend evidently misunderstood me. I asked the Committee to request .the omission of the words’ “ except Motors,” and in their stead to include the component parts of the X-ray apparatus, which I have already enumerated, and all of which will be admitted free.

Senator CLEMONS:
Tasmania

– If Senator Best will give me his assurance that the words which he proposes to insert will include the whole of the X-ray apparatus, I shall be satisfied.

Senator Best:

– I am told that they include everything except motors and motor interruptors.

Senator CLEMONS:

– And those would be liable to the ordinary duty imposed on motors ?

Senator Best:

– That is so.

Request agreed to.

Items 443 (Theatrical Costumes) and 444 (Trophies), agreed to.

Item 445. Goods which have been passed by the Customs and subsequently sent out of the Commonwealth for repairs, which, in the opinion of the Minister, cannot be reasonably done in the Commonwealth, may, upon reintroduction, under departmental by-laws, be admitted upon payment of duty on the dutiable value only of any repairs -or additions to the goods.

Senator CLEMONS:
Tasmania

– I ask Senator Best. to agree to a request to strike out some of these words. It is not conceivable that any one would send an article out of the Commonwealth to England or America to have some repairs done to it, unless they could not be done here. The item reads - -Goods which have been passed by the Customs and subsequently sent out of the Commonwealth for repairs, which-, in the opinion of the Minister, cannot be reasonably done in the Commonwealth.

I do not think it is desirable that we should ask the Minister, whoever he may be, to say whether or not certain repairs could be done in the Commonwealth. No one is going to be so ridiculous as to send articles out of the Commonwealth for repairs which could be effected here.

Senator Best:

– This item is intended for the protection of persons who send goods out of the Commonwealth for repairs, so that when they are returned duty can only be charged on the repairs.

Senator CLEMONS:

– I ask the Minister to agree to a request for the omission of the words “which, in the, opinion of the Minister, cannot be reasonably done in the Commonwealth.” We should allow all these goods in respect of any repairs made to come in free, and save the Minister, whoever he may be, from having to say that, in his opinion, certain repairs could not be done in the Commonwealth. No one would abuse the privilege. Who would send an article to Europe or America for repairs which could be done here?

Senator Givens:

– This only shows the evil of the free-trade doctrine under which goods are imported to which repairs cannot be made here.

Senator CLEMONS:

– That is not the point. The point is that we should not throw upon any Minister the onus of saying whether or not certain repairs can be. made in the Commonwealth.

Senator BEST:
VicePresident of the Executive Council · Victoria · Protectionist

– I hope the Committee will retain the words referred to. They are most important. If theywere not retained, any one, of his own volition and without restriction, could send his goods elsewhere to be repaired, and on bringing them back be liable onlyin respect of the repairs, although the repairs might just as readily have been made in the Commonwealth if it were not for the existence of a certain prejudice. Thispractice would no doubt be adopted by the importing agents for special classes of goods.

Senator Millen:

– Why charge the owner of the goods when they are returned repaired for work that could not be. done in Australia?

Senator BEST:

– Because in the case of repairs which, in the opinion of the Minister, could not be done in Australia, when the repaired article was returned, if it were not for this item it would be dutiable not only in respect of the value of the re-‘ pairs, but of the value of the whole article.

Senator MILLEN:
New South Wales

– The Minister has shown conclusively that whilst the earlier portion of the item may be necessary-

Senator Clemons:

– The reference to the opinion of the Minister?

Senator MILLEN:

– Yes, I think those words are quite necessary. The whole object of the Tariff is to impose duties in respect of things which can be made in Australia, and that principle should be applied in this case. Before goods are sent out of the Commonwealth for repairs, the Minister must cer tify that the repairs cannot be done in Australia, and that being so, there is neither sense nor justice in charging duty on the repairs when the goods are returned. I move -

That the House of Representatives be re quested to amend item 445 by leaving out the words “ upon payment of duty on the dutiable value only of any repairs or additions to the goods,” and by inserting in lieu thereof the word “free.”

Senator Best:

– That would open up the whole thing to fraud.

Senator MILLEN:

– Let us see where the fraud could come in. If amended as I suggest, the item would read -

Goods which have been passed by the Customs and subsequently sent out of the Commonwealth for repairs, which, in the opinion of the Minister, cannot reasonably be done in the Commonwealth, may, upon re-introduction under departmental by-laws, be admitted free.

That would apply to these repairs the principle which we have applied to goods which cannot be manufactured in Australia.

Senator Best:

– A man might send out the minor part of a machine, and bring back an entirely new machine.

Senator MILLEN:

– When they were called uponto give a decision before it was sent out of the Commonwealth, as to whether the proposed repairs could be made in Australia, would not the officers know the machine when it was returned ?

Senator Best:

– It might have been passed in that way long before.

Senator MILLEN:

– If fraud might be worked in the way the honorable senator suggests, importers might in the same way import a new machine, and say that it was an old machine repaired.

Senator Givens:

– Does the honorable senator propose to request that there should be a preferential duty attachedto this item ?

Senator MILLEN:

– We can discuss that later on. In the meantime, I ask the Committee to agree to a request to strike out the words to which I have referred.

Question put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 11

NOES: 15

Majority … … 4

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Request negatived.

Item agreed to.

Item 446. Goods brought back to Australia by the person who was owner, or the legal representativeof such owner at the time of exportation, after exportation without drawback having been paid thereon ; subject to the provisions of section 151 of the Customs Act 1901, free.

Senator Colonel NEILD (New South Wales) [10.29]. - Iaskthe Minister to consent to a request for the omission of the words “ at the time of exportation.” He will seethat the owner of the goods at the time of exportation would not be likely to have a legal representative. If I read the item incorrectly, my honorable and learned friend will put me right, but it seems to me that the words “ at the time ofexportation “ set up a difficulty which is practically insurmountable. So long as the owner of goods is alive, he will not have a legal representative in the sense involved in this item. I thinkthe words to which I refer might be omitted without the slightest detriment to the revenue. I have no doubtthat what is meant is that if a person leaves the Commonwealth with goods in his possession on which duty has been paid, and dies abroad, those goods being returned in charge of the legal representative of the deceased should be admitted free. I am afraid that the words “ at the time of exportation “ render this item a nullity. I propose to move a request to leave out those words, but will not do so if there is some explanation that will get over the difficulty.

Senator BEST:
VicePresident of the Executive Council · Victoria · Protectionist

.- The honorable senator appears to beputting upon this item a limitation which it does not bear. He comes to the conclusion that the owner of the goods has died abroad. That is not necessarily so. This is the recognised provision. Personal effects come in under item 438. This item deals with travellers’ samples, which must be checked on exportation. Would it meet the honorable senator’s views to insert the words “ at the time of exportation “ after the word “ owner “ where it first occurs, instead of’ where it second occurs ?

Senator Colonel NEILD (New South Wales) [10.32]. - Yes. I move -

That theHouse of Representatives be requested to amend item 446 by inserting after the word “ owner,” first occurring, the words “ at the time of exportation,” and leaving out the words “ at the time of exportation “ “after the word “ owner,” second occurring.

Senator VARDON:
South Australia

– I think that Senator Neild is making a mistake. If a man goes abroad in this way, leaving behind him a power of attorney, and dies abroad, the man with the power of attorney will not be able to act for him.

Senator Best:

– He could act. That would be governed by the terms of the power.

Request agreed to.

Item 447. Blankets, Rubber or Wool for Printing Machines,. Top Cloths for Ruling Machines, when imported with the machines of which they form a necessary working part, one or more as required for working the machine ; and Felts and Wires for Paper Making Machines, free.

Senator VARDON:
South Australia

– Does the item mean that if one of these blankets or top cloths should wear out a new one imported separately would be dutiable?

Senator Best:

– Certainly.

Senator VARDON:

– Then it is a very silly provision.

Senator Givens:

– They could be made here.

Senator VARDON:

– They are not made here. I move -

That the House of Representatives be requested to amend item 447 by leaving out the words “ when imported with the machines of which they form a necessary working part, one or more as required for working the machine,”

Senator BEST:
VicePresident of the Executive Council · Victoria · Protectionist

– If imported separatelythese articles would be liable under different items. The honorable senator’s proposal practically means going over what we have already done.

Senator CHATAWAY:
Queensland

– The Vice-President of the Executive Council has given an absolutely inadequate explanation.

Senator Best:

– This is not the time for speeches, at all events.

Senator CHATAWAY:

– If the honorable senator imagines that I am goingto sit here and be bullied by him, just because it happens to be nearly twenty minutes to eleven, into passing anything without an adequate explanation, he is mistaken. Senator Vardon’s statement is perfectly correct. These blankets, which are not blankets in the ordinary sense, are not made by the people who make the. machine, but are bought by them from some one else when putting up the machine. They give what is called a “spare.” Under this item half-a-dozen spares can be imported with a machine, but if a spare is bought after the machine has been brought in, duty has to be paid on it. The proposal is absurd.

Senator CLEMONS:
Tasmania

. -The Vice-President of the Executive Council must either accept Senator Vardon’s request or strike the whole item out. It is absurd to allow the articles to come in free with the machine, and at the same time make them dutiable if they want renewing. It is fair that they should come in free, and I support the request.

Question put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 12

NOES: 14

Majority … … 2

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Request negatived.

Item agreed to.

Item 448. Scientific Instruments and Apparatus, viz. -

Senator CLEMONS:
Tasmania

– This seems to me to be an unnecessary exception. We are now dealing with a long category of scientific instruments and apparatus, and, with this one exception, all are free. I suppose that some one has written a letter, or otherwise communicated with the Government, asking Parliament to place a duty on these few articles.

Senator Turley:

– These articles are being made in Australia.

Senator CLEMONS:

– That may be, but why make such an exception in the case of scientific instruments? If these instruments are being made here, they will probably be sold, whether there be a duty or not. I desireto ask the Vice-President of the Executive Council if he can enlighten me as to the meaning of the word “ Barkometers “?

Senator Best:

– I am informed that it is an instrument to test the astringent strength of bark.

Senator CLEMONS:

– All the other words in this paragraph are built on proper derivations, and why should we degrade our Tariff by permitting such a word as “Barkometers”?

Senator Best:

– We are simply calling a spade a spade.

Senator CLEMONS:

– At any rate, I move -

That the House of Representatives be requested to make item 448, paragraph b, free.

Senator BEST:
VicePresident of the Executive Council · Victoria · Protectionist

– This motion brings us back to some ancient history. In the case of items 255 and 256 which included glass scientific apparatus, the latter was struck out with a view of making them dutiable, seeing that similar articles are manufactured in Queensland. The paragraph now under consideration embraces practically the same class of instruments, and, therefore, it is only consistent to make it dutiable.

Request negatived.

Amendment (by Senator Best) agreed to-

That the House of Representatives be requested to amend item 448, paragraph e, by inserting the word “Intensity” after the word “ Dispersion.”

Item 449 (Ophthalmic instruments and appliances) agreed to.

Item 450. Outside packages n.e.i., including the solecontaining package in which goods are ordinarily imported, free.

Request (by Senator Best) agreed to -

That the House of Representatives be requested to amend item 450 by inserting after the word “ imported “ the words “ when containing such goods.”

Postponed item 54. Fruit and Vegetables, viz. : -

Fruits, Dried, viz. : -

Currants, per lb., 3d.

Dates, per lb., 2d. ; and on and after 31st October, 1907,1d…..

Senator PULSFORD:
New South Wales

– With regard to paragraph a, I point out that a duty of 2d. per lb. on currants was all that was asked for by the A section of the Tariff Commission, the B section recommending only 20 per cent. Even a duty of 2d. per lb. is equal to an ad valorem duty of about 100 per cent. Now it is proposed to increase that duty by one-half. So that a duty equal to something like 150 per cent. is proposed. Surely this is an enormous rate. It would be absurd to agree to it. It is time to take notice of the way in which important revenueproducing items are being treated, the revenue being thrown recklessly away. Why should we impose a duty of 150 per cent. on an article such as is used in every home in the Commonwealth? I cannot believe that the Committee is willing to pass a duty exceeding 2d. per lb., and therefore I move -

That the House ofRepresentativesbe requested to make the duty on item 54, paragraph a, Currants, 2d. per lb.

Question put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 9

NOES: 16

Majority … … 7

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Request negatived.

Senator FINDLEY:
Victoria

.- I move -

That the House of Representatives Be requested to make the duty on item 54, paragraph b, 2d. per lb.

The Tariff, when first introduced, provided for that duty. I feel sure the reasonablenessof the request will meet with the approval of the majority of honorable senators.

Senator Clemons:

– Not even the protectionist section of the Tariff Commission thought that a duty of1d. per lb. was not ample.

Senator FINDLEY:

– Dates are grown in South Australia, and are produced under totally different conditions from those which prevail in the other countries from which imports chiefly come.

Senator Chataway:

– There is a bounty on dates.

Senator FINDLEY:

– In the Bounties Act we have provided a certain sum of money each year for the encouragement of date-growing.

Senator Millen:

– They want to get at the Public Treasury in two ways.

Senator FINDLEY:

– That is the proper way to establish the industry. Senator Chataway said that we are encouraging the industry by means of a bounty. We have done that in connexion with coffee.

Senator Chataway:

– But we did not increase the duty.

Senator FINDLEY:

– We provided ft duty of 3d. per lb. on coffee. The dates produced in South Australia are grown under healthy conditions, and as regards flavour they are much superior to any imported dates.

Senator Millen:

– Were the samples you have sent to you from Mildura?

Senator FINDLEY:

– No; dates are not grown there.

Senator Millen:

– I know that, but the samples might have been sent from there.

Senator FINDLEY:

– Dates do grow at Mildura, but the fruit does not ripen. I do not think that the climate is sufficiently hot for them. If there is one reason that should move the Committee in favour of a duty against imported dates it is contained in the report which has been presented to the Senate in connexion with Secret Drugs, Cures, and Foods. In that report there is the following reference to dates -

A personal friend, who was for many years an exporter of dates and other produce from Northern Africa, where he was a resident merchant, related as follows : - Dates are brought in bunches from the interior on camels’ backs, which are unloaded every night, the loose hair and general dirt are well mixed up in the process. Before packing, the dates are “ washed “ in tanks which are themselves never cleaned from year to year. Water is added, any water, as the liquid diminishes in the tanks whence the dates are taken for packing. During the season the packers are gathered from the streets or anywhere; ragamuffins with any or every kind of disease, and all irredeemably dirty and insanitary. The dates are pressed into the boxes with the packers’ feet. Details do not matter. “ No more dates for me,” he added, “ I have never touched them since.”

Senator Vardon:

– What authority is that ?

Senator FINDLEY:

– That is contained in the report of Mr. Beale, which was presented to Parliament. Honorable senators may laugh, but these statements have been made by tourists visiting the parts mentioned.

Senator Chataway:

– Did Mr. Beale say he saw that?

Senator FINDLEY:

– He said a personal friend of his, who was an exporter of dates from Northern Africa, made those remarks. I have no hesitation in saying that the remarks in respect to dates are also applicable to figs.

Senator Millen:

– Beale’s report is the greatest collection of hearsay evidence ever seen.

Senator FINDLEY:

– In my opinion it is one of the most valuable documents that has ever been presented to Parliament. In the interests of those who would be encouraged by the imposition of the increased duty, and in the interests of public health, I hope that the Committee will agree to the request.

Senator MILLEN:
New South Wales

– I would like to say very briefly that this request is made solely in the interests of the Mildura raisin and currant-growers. As far as the date industry of Australia is concerned, whatever it may be in the future, at present it is hardly in its infancy, and Parliament has already passed a bounty on . dates. That is sufficient encouragement for the growers. There is also a duty of1d. per lb., which is the most the protectionist section of the Tariff Commission ventured to suggest. The proposal can only have one object in view, that is, to shut out dates, not in the interests of any one growing them here, but simply because they come into competition with the dried fruits which Mildura sends out. There ought to be a limit beyond which the Committee will not go. There is a duty on dates recommended by the protectionist section of the Tariff Commission, and there is also a bounty.

Senator Findley:

– It is not equal to that on currants.

Senator MILLEN:

– Probably the honorable senator has been moved to make this proposal by the currant-growers of Mildura.

Senator Findley:

– The honorable senator is not correct in making that statement. The proposal does not come from Mildura.

Senator CLEMONS:
Tasmania

– The invoice price of dates is,I think, if anything, under, rather than over,1d. per lb. The existing duty is1d. per lb., and surely Senator Findley cannot be in earnest in pressing this request.

Senator Findley:

– Am I not in earnest? Ido not do these things for fun.

Senator PULSFORD:
New South Wales

– Senator Findley has informed the Committee that the hair-raising paragraph he read referred to dates coming from Northern Africa. The Customs return shows that practically the whole of the dates coming to Australia are exported from Asia .

Senator Findley:

– I did not say coming from Northern Africa. I said the statement was that of an exporter from Northern Africa.

Question put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 12

NOES: 14

Majority …. … 2

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Request negatived.

Item agreed to.

Clause1 (Short title).

1907?”

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 2 to 5 agreed to.

Clause 6 (Application of Tariff).

Senator PULSFORD:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT

– I have given notice of a request in connexion with thisclause, and as it deals with a matter of considerable importance, I ask the Minister to agree to report progress now, so that it may be discussed to-morrow.

Senator BEST:
VicePresident of the Executive Council · Victoria · Protectionist

– Let it be discussed to-night. I am very anxious that the Bill shall be put through to-night, so that a copy of all the requests may be placed in the hands of the members of the other Chamber as soon as possible. The officers have had a considerable amount of work to do, and it will facilitate matters if we complete our consideration of the measure to-night.

SenatorClemons. - It is in connexion with the schedule that the requests have been carried.

Senator BEST:

– I am assured by the officers that the carrying of the Bill tonight will make a considerable difference to them.

Senator PULSFORD:
New South Wales

.- It is altogether unreasonable to ask me to go on now, in view of the exceeding gravity of my proposal. I should not have brought it forward had I knownthat I would be driven in a corner like this. I have hardly spoken to-day or yesterday, and my long absence is an additional reason why the Minister, by reporting progress, should giveme an opportunityto put for- ward my proposal to-morrow.

Senator Best:

– There was a general understanding that the consideration of the measure should be completed to-night.

Senator PULSFORD:

– I was no party to it. If the Minister persists in treating me in this unfair way, it is useless to bring the matter forward.

Senator Clemons:

– The honorable senator can move the recommittal of the Bill for the reconsideration of the clause, andthen discuss the matter.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 7 to 9 agreed to.

Senator BEST:
VicePresident of the Executive Council · Victoria · Protectionist

– In accordance with notice, I move -

That the House of Representatives be requested to insert the following new schedule.

Schedule “ B.”

Rebate for Home Consumption.

No. of Item in Schedule “A,” 123.

Tariff Item. - Piece-goods of any material, when used in the manufacture of Rubber Waterproof Cloth.

Rebate. - Up to and including11th December, 1907, three-fourths ofthe duty paid.

No. of Items in Schedule “A,” 162 and 165.

Tariff Item. - Machinery, and parts thereof, used in the manufacture of Fibrous Materials and Felt, and Felt Hats, when installed for use in a Woollen Mill or a Hat Factory for the manufacture of such Materials, Felt, and Hats.

Rebate. - Up to and including28th November, 1907, the full duty paid.

I have already explained that as the Tariff was originally introduced, it contained a schedule providing for a rebate of threefourths of the duty on piece goods when imported under item 123, and a rebate of the whole duty on machinery and parts thereof for certain purposes when imported under items 162 and 165. The other House saw fit to strike out the schedule, but on item 123 duty was paid from the 8th August to the nth December, 1907, and on items 162 and 165 from the 8th August until the 28th November. In some cases the rebate was paid, but in other cases, although it was claimed it was not paid. The object in requesting the insertion of this new schedule is to permit ofsmallclaims for rebate during the period I have mentioned being duly paid.

Senator Colonel NEILD (New South Wales) [11.23]. - I simply rise to ask the Minister a question. In the case of a firm who paid duty under protest, and who did not raise the prices of the machinery articles they sold in consequence of any increase of the duty, have they, under this proposal, a reasonable hope of getting a refund of the duty so paid?

Senator BEST:
VicePresident of the Executive Council · Victoria · Protectionist

– The answer to my honorable friend’s question is “ No.” Under the Tariff as it was originally presented, the Government proposed to give the manufacturers of rubber waterproof cloth a rebate of threefourths of the duty paid on the piece goods which they used. In some cases, the manufacturers got their rebate, but in other cases they have not claimed or got it, and the object of the new schedule is to treat all persons alike during the periods mentioned in thenew schedule.

Senator Clemons:

– Is the Government satisfied that the rebate is going to the person properly entitled to it?

Senator BEST:

– Certainly, because it is all done under our supervision.

Senator Clemons:

-Has the Government seen that the rebate is going to the user or consumer?

Senator BEST:

– It is all right. We are acting on just the same principle as when articles are made up in bond.

Request agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Excise TariffBill.

Clause 2 (Incorporation).

Progress reported.

page 9951

PRIVILEGE:SELECT COMMITTEE UPON PROCEDURE

The PRESIDENT:

– I have to report the receipt of the following messagefrom the House of Representatives : -

Message No. 23.

The House of Representatives transmits to the Senate the following resolutions, which were this day agreed to by the House of Representatives : -

That a Select Committeebe appointed, to join with a Select Committee of the Senate, to inquire and report as to the best procedure for the trial and punishment of persons charged with the interference with or breach of the powers, privileges, or immunities of either House of the Parliament or of the Members or Committees of each House.

That the Members of this House upon such Committee be Mr. Bamford, Mr. Fuller, Sir John Quick, and Mr. Wise ; two to be a quorum.

That such Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records.

That a Message be sent to the Senate requesting it to appoint a similar Committee empowered to act conjointly with the Committee of this House.

The Houseof Representatives requests the Senate to appoint a Committee as asked by paragraph 4 of the said resolutions.

W. HOLDER,

Speaker.

House of Representatives,

Melbourne,1st April, 1908;

Motion (by Senator Best) agreed to -

That the consideration of the message bean Order of the Day for to-morrow.

page 9951

AMERICAN FLEET

Senator BEST:
VicePresident of the Executive Council · Victoria · Protectionist

.- I have to lay on the table certain cablegrams with respect to the proposed visit of the American Fleet. The material portion of one received from the Secretary of State for the Colonies is as follows -

Arrival of United States Fleet in Australia will not beaffected by visit to Japan. Armoured cruisers will not cross Pacific, but entire battle fleet, consisting probably of sixteen battleships, will visit Australia, probably divided into two squadrons of eight each.

I have to lay on the table also a copy of another cablegram from the Prime Minister to the Secretary of State for the Colonies to the following effect : -

Ministers will be glad if American Government can be informed that strong desires have been expressed by Governments of Western Australia, South Australia, Tasmania, and Queenslands that fleet should call at Fremantle, Adelaide, Hobart, and Moreton Bay.

Senate adjourned at 11.33p.m.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 1 April 1908, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1908/19080401_senate_3_45/>.