3rd Parliament · 2nd Session
The President took the chair at 2.30 p.m., and read prayers.
Compensation to injured SEAMEN.
Senator GUTHRIE. - I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Executive Council, without notice, if the promised Bill providing for compensation to seamen for injuries has yet been prepared, and when the Government intend to introduce it?
Senator BEST. - To . the best of. my knowledge, the Bill has been prepared, and is awaiting final revision. I think that I am almost justified in promising that it will be introduced before the close of the session. navigation bill.
Senator MACFARLANE. - I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Executive Council if he is prepared to lay upon the table’ the answer of the Government to the despatch which was received in February last regarding the Navigation Bill ? . He will remember that on the 24th March last he informed the Senate that a reply was in preparation.
Senator BEST. - It . is still in preparation.
Senator macfarlane.- Shall I give notice of the question?
Senator BEST. - Certainly .
Senator MILLEN. - Can the Minister give the Senate any .idea as to the length of time that will be required, either by the Ministry, or by the Department, to prepare a reply to the despatch?
Senator BEST. - It all depends upon ihe importance of the ‘subject.
page 10919
– Yesterday afternoon I was informed by the- Defence Department that some days previously instructions had been sent out to the paying’ officers in the several States, in which the grantees live, for payments to be made without delay.
– That will apply to only two or three cases. The others have relation to the Postmaster-General’s Department.
– I had overlooked that fact. I am not in a position to speak in regard to those cases ; but I shall make inquiries of the PostmasterGeneral’s Department this afternoon.
page 10919
– Of course, after that message has been disposed of, the deluge may come.
– Does my honorable friend mean the coalition deluge ?
– I cannot say. So soon as the present message has been dealt with it is my intention to ask the- Senate! to adjourn until Wednesday week.
– But suppose that the consideration of the present message is not completed .this week ?
– Then- we shall proceed until we have finished its consideration.
– When the Senate has dealt with the present, message, does the Minister propose to ask the Senate to acquaint the other House, by message, with what it has done in regard thereto, so as to place that House in exactly the same position as it -has placed us ?
– I am going to invite the .Senate to do so.
– I hope that it will not do so.
– Can the Minister stale what objection there can be to .the other House sending to the Senate a further message acquainting us with how it has dealt with other requests for alterations in the Tariff, so that we may keep in touch with that House?
– The present message from the other House deals with, I think, practically one-half of the Tariff. I do not think that it is desirable to ask the Senate to meet for the purpose of dealing with the few items which the other House has dealt with in the meantime. In other words, it would mean asking the Senate to meet in order to do two or three hours’ work at the most. I suggest that we should await the completion of the consideration of our requests by the other Chamber.
– I take it that if the whole of the items dealt with in. the present message are disposed of with the exception of a few, the Minister will not call the Senate together next week for the purpose of finishing the message?
– If it be only a matter of a few items - no.
– Quite so.
page 10919
– I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Executive Council, without notice, whether the Government are aware of the fact that Mr. McKay i-; not selling his harvesters at the reduced price in accordance with the law - instead of selling at £65, I think he is selling at something like ,£82 - and, if so, will they make inquiries into the matter, and take proceedings ?
– The whole question is sub judice; ‘ but if “my honorable frien-1 chooses to give notice of the question, I shall consult my honorable colleague about it. I do not think that under present conditions he would have anv knowledge as to the correctness or otherwise of the statement.
– Does not the Minister think that if Mr. McKay is selling his machines at £82 instead of at £65,he is also selling the purchasers?
– That I cannot say.
– Five or six weeks ago, when I asked a question on this subject, the Minister agreed to make an inquiry and inform the Senate of the result. I wish to know if anything has been done, and, if not, why?.
– Ifmy honorable friend will give notice of the question, I’ shall have an inquiry made of my honorable colleague.
SenatorW. Russell. - I gave notice weeks ago.
– I have no doubt that if my honorable friend had given written notice of the question, I should have received a reply in the usual way. If he will now do so, I shall be very glad indeed to make inquiry, and inform him exactly as to what we are doing.
page 10920
asked the Minister representing the Minister of Defence, upon notice -
– No complaints have been received, but inquiries will be made by the Department with reference to the representations contained in the honorable senator’s questions.
– Arising but of the Minister’s answer, I should like to ask him if, when inquiries are being made, he will ascertain whether the saddles which I have mentioned are being manufactured in Western Australia; if not, will information be elicited as to where they are being made, and whether competitive tenders are called for ?
– Those matters will be inquired into.
page 10920
asked the Minister re presenting the Minister of Trade and Customs, upon notice -
– The answers to the honorable senator’s questions are as follow -
page 10920
asked the Min ister representing the Minister of Trade and Customs, upon notice -
Whether the decision that deductions of pay for wet weather may jeopardize the payment of bounty on white-grown sugar cane will be enforced in the case of contracts, providing for such deductions, approved by the Prime Minister last year, in connexion with labourers introduced bv the State Government of Queensland ?
– The answer to the honorable senator’s question is as follows -
The contracts referred to will not be affected by the recent decision.
page 10920
Bonds for Sick Sailors
In respect of two Russian sailors, one of whom was in hospital on account of typhoid fever, the other on account of an affection of the eve- Is it a- fact that the Collectors of Customs ‘ at Adelaide and Newcastle respectively notified the captains of the ships (of which the sailors in question had been or were members of their crews), requiring them to give bonds to the amount of£500 in respect of each sailor, or else remove them from the Commonwealth?
– The answer to the honorable senator’s question is as follows -
Nothing is known regarding the case at Newcastle, but inquiries will be made.
Regarding the Adelaide case, the facts are that a Russian sailor on board the ship Fahrwohl was taken ill when the yessel was at Wallaroo, and was placed in the hospital at that port. The vessel then left Wallaroo, and proceeded to Adelaide. The ship’s agents there were asked for an undertaking to pay the hospital expenses, but declined to give it. The master of the ship was then asked for a bond. He communicated with the Russian Consul-General, who agreed to be responsible for the hospital expenses. The request for a bond was therefore not proceeded with.
It may be added that the departmental instructions are as follow : - “ No formality shall be permitted to interfere with the prompt removal from the vessels of injured . or sick seamen urgently requiring hospital treatment.”
– Another mare’s nest !
– Arising out of the Minister’s answer, I desire to ask him whether he will kindly state the amount of the bond? My question mentions a specific sum, but the Minister has not dealt with that point.
– The request for the bond was not proceeded with.
– What was the amount required ?
– Seeing that the bond was not ultimately asked for, that is a matter of little or no importance.
– It is very important. I give notice’ of a further question to be asked to-morrow.
page 10921
– I have given . notice of a question with reference to the Customs Conference which was arranged to meet at Pretoria last month ; but in view of a cablegram in this morning’s newspapers my question is no longer necessary.
– I may state that when the report is received we shall be only too glad to make it available.
page 10921
Motion (by Senator Colonel Neild) agreed to -
That two months’ leave of absence be granted to Senator Lt.-Colonel Cameron, on account of urgent private business.
Motions (by Senator Millen) agreed to -
That leave of absence for two months be granted to Senator Dobson, on account of urgent private business.
That leave of absence for two months be granted to Senator Walker, on account of urgent private business.
page 10921
In Committee (Consideration of House of Representatives’ message resumed from 6th May, vide page 10874) :
Item 105. Tea : -
Senate’s Request. - Leave out ‘figures “20” and insert in lieu thereof the figure “ 5.”
House of Representatives’ Message. - Amendment not made.
– Before referring specifically to the item tea, I wish to refer to a question which Senator Millen put to me yesterday’, as to whether I could . furnish information as to how the revenue was affected by the alteration in the Tariff requested by the Senate. I can now supply some figures upon that subject. There were sixty-six requests for increases of duty that were accepted right out. As regard sixteen requests for increases of duty, they represent duty to the amount of £45,000 per annum. I also mentioned that twenty-three requests related to decreases. The number should have been twenty-four. The effect of those decreases is estimated to result in a loss of revenue of £155,000 per annum. Of course, these figures relate only to the requests of the Senate dealt with in the present message. In regard to the item, tea, it will be remembered that as the Tariff came up from the House of Representatives the form of paragraph a was as follows - “ In packets not exceeding 20 lbs. in weight, 1d.”
The Senate made a request in regard to the weight of the packages, that the 20 lbs. limit should be reduced to 5 lbs. Another place has seen fit to make the amendment so requested. I intend to move that the request be not pressed. The object which we had in view in fixing the packages that were to pay duty at 20 lbs. was to encourage the local industries of packing, tinning, and printing in connexion with packet tea. The effect of the alteration made by the Senate would be to destroy that industry - or at all events to discourage it. The result, if the amendment requested by the Senate were made, would be that tea would be brought in in packets of, say, 6 lbs., or some other quantity greater than 5 lbs. There is no reason why we should discourage an Australian industry which has been well established. I move -
That the request be not pressed.
– I ask the Committee to remember why it dissented from the proposal as it came from another place. It was then pointed out that the ordinary custom of the trade meant that, if we passed this item as it appeared in the schedule, the settlers in the country districts would be penalized, whilst it would make no difference to those in the towns, and that to that extent it became something in the nature of a class tax. The ordinary town householder goes to his grocer and gets tea in½-lb. or1-lb. packets, made up by the grocer or his assistants.
– Does the honorable senator assert that the teas which ‘ go in large packages to the back country come direct from Ceylon in those packages?
– The great proportion of the teas that go to the country go out in packages of 10 lbs. and over. If there is not a considerable quantity coming in in large packages, what is the object of the duty ?
– To prevent the packages being made up in Ceylon.
-That is an admission that ‘ they are coming in and being utilized by our rural population.
– Lipton said hewould start packing teas in Ceylon.
– How long is it since Senator Findley accepted as gospel truth the idle utterances of some of these extremely wealthy men ?
– The honorable senator does not propose to remove the duty on packet tea.
– I proposed previously to strike it out altogether. I do not move that now, because the Committee then decided to make the size of the packet 5 lbs. We must either stand by the request or recede from it, or offer a compromise. The reason the Committee made the request was that otherwise the tax would fall as a special impost upon country customers - that particular class that every one in Australia professes to desire to assist and encourage. We ought to press the request, but if honorable senators think 5 lbs. is too low, there is still a big difference between that and the 20 lbs. proposed by the other place. I think 5 lbs. is quite large enough, and shall not move for a compromise, but if any one differs from me, the road is open to him to move to meet another place half way. I ask the Committee to be slow to impose a duty which will fall specially upon country people, and have no influence upon those living in much better and more favorable circumstances in the environs of the towns.
Question put. The Committee divided.
AYES: 13
NOES: 12
Majority … … 1
AYES
NOES
Question so resolved in the affirmative.
Request not pressed.
– We have now reached the textile division, and I shall ask the Committee to postpone the intervening requests until after we have dealt with the requests on item 123, Piece Goods. The form of the item which we have now reached will be contingent on how we deal with those three requests. I move-
That requests Nos. 33 to 40 inclusive be postponed until after the consideration of requests Nos. 46, 49, and 50.
– Is there any occasion to postpone the consideration of the item of gloves, which have nothing to do with blankets?
– I shall explain again. Our request No. 33 affects item 114, and following the practice we have already established in dealing with that particular item, I ask that this request should be postponed until after we have dealt with Nos. 46, 49, and 50, because we shall be guided’ as to the way in which we shall deal with item 114 by the way in which we deal with the items affected by our requests Nos. 46, 49, and 50.
Motion agreed to.
Requests No. 33, 34, 37, 39, and 40 postponed.
Item 123. Piece Goods, viz. : - . . .
Senate’s Request. - Leave out the words “ viz. : - Women’s and children’s dress goods.”
House of Representatives’ Message. - Amendment not made, but insert “ including women’s and children’s dress flannels” after the words “ dress goods.”
– We had a very lengthy discussion on this item when it was last before the Committee, and ultimately it was decided to leave out the words, “ viz. : -women’s and children’s dress goods.” The effect of that was to enlarge the scope of the item, and to include men’s dress goods not weighing over 5 ozs. per square yard in the woollen piece goods dutiable at 15 and 10 per cent. Honorable members in another place think that would be throwing open the gate too widely, because there are factories, and particularly one in Parramatta, in which this class of goods, weighing 5 oz. and under per square yard, are manufactured. They agreed to the special treatment of women’s - and children’s dress gcods of these materials, and they suggest a very important modification, including in this paragraph of the item, women’s and children’s dress flannels.
– They enlarge that to which the Senate took exception, and make the mischief which we sought to remedy greater than it was before.
– No; their . proposal is ithat it should be only in the case of women’s and children’s dress goods and flannels that the material must not weigh over” 5 oz. per square yard to secure the benefit of the lower duty.
– If the words “women’s and children’s dress flannels” are not inserted, under what item would those goods fall?
– They would fall under item 114, and would be liable to duties of 30 and 25 per cent. I submit that the modification of the Senate’s request made by another place represents a fair compromise. I think that another place has gone
That the request be not pressed, and that the modification be agreed to.
Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON (South Australia) [3.9]. - This is the most singular kind of compromise I ever heard of. The Vice-President of the Executive Council says that another place has met the wishes of the Senate, and has carried them out by adding to the item “ women’s and children’s dress flannels.” That is certainly offering something, but it is not in the direction desired by the Senate. I think that it was on the motion of Senator Mulcahy that we requested the House of Representatives to leave out the words “ women’s and children’s dress goods.” The basis of his proposal for the exemption of these goods from the higher duties was not that they were used by women and children, but that they did not weigh over 5 oz. per square yard. I do not see myself - andI think that was the feeling of the Committee at the time - that there is any particular reason to fix that rate simply because those who are to wear these articles, not exceeding in weight 5 ozs. to the square yard, should be women and children.
– That was the argument used in favour of imposing a low dutv.
– I never heard anything of the kind. My honorable friend is either - forgetting or undergoing a process of obscuration, so far as his mental attitude on the Tariff is concerned, because the Committee- requested the omission of the words so as to give the lower duty in respect Of all-
– Light tweeds, which were said to be used by only women and children.
– Nothing of the kind. My honorable- friend is attributing to the Committee a degree of stupidity which I am astonished to find emanating from him. The Committee requested the omission of the words “women’s and children’s dress goods,” so that if material of this character not weighing over 5 ozs. to the square yard came in the one rate of duty should lae chargeable. That was in the direction of simplicity. To my mind it is not very material one “way or the other. I wish to point out the comicality of this great concession which is offered to the Senate. The proposition is to retain the words which we requested to be struck out - “ women’s and children’s dress goods “ - and to add the words “ including women’s and children’s dress flannels.” If it is put to us that we are not to insist upon our request because of the liberal concession offered by the other House, that is no reason at all, and the Minister might just as well have asked us not to press the request without giving a reason of any kind.
Question put. The Committee divided.
AYES: 12
NOES: 13
Majority … … 1
AYES
NOES
Question so resolved in the negative.
Request pressed, and the modification disagreed ‘to.
Item 123. Piece Goods, viz. : -
Senate’s Request. - Make the duties (General Tariff) 5 per cent., (United Kingdom) free.
House of Representatives’ Message. - Amendment not made.
– No doubt it will be generally remembered ‘ that the duties on cottons were reduced to 5 per cent, and free. This item relates particularly to flannelettes, and the Committee thought it desirable that they should be placed on the same basis as cottons, and I confess that I take the same view. While it is quite open to argument that the use of flannelettes should be discouraged, that will not be done by the imposition of duties such as 10 and 5 per cent. If the original proposal of the Government to impose duties of 25 and 20 per cent. - that is, to give an effective protection - had been accepted, I could have quite understood it, but in the circumstances, I cannot see my way to ask the Committee to go back upon its decision,, and I hope that I shall not be opposing the wish of Senator Millen when I move -
That the request be pressed.
– Hear, hear ; there is a gleam of life at last.
Motion agreed to.
Item 123. Piece Goods -
Senate’s Request. - Insert the following paragraph : -
Rubbered waterproof cloth -
House of Representatives’ Message. - Amendment made as to (1) and (3),’ and made as to (2) with duties of ad val. (General Tariff) 25 per cent., and (United Kingdom) 20 per cent.
– I have no difficulty about asking honorable senators to accept this modification. . It will be recognised that inasmuch as we propose to reduce the duties on silk, this would be a consequential amendment. I therefore move -
That the modification be agreed to.
Motion agreed to.
Item 114. Blankets (except of Rubber); Blanketing ; Flannels, including Domett containing wool ; Rugs, n.e.i., including Buggy Rugs or Aprons, and Rugging, ad val. (General Tariff), 30 per cent. ; and on and after 8th November,” 1907, 25 per cent. ; (United Kingdom), 30 per cent. ; and on and after 8th November, 1907, 20 per cent.
Senate’s Request. - After “Flannels” insert “ whether plain, fancy, or printed” ; after “ Wool “ insert “ also Crimean and Ceylon Shirtings containing wool “ ; and make the duties sul val. (General Tariff) 30 per cent., (United Kingdom) 25 per cent.
House of Representatives’ Message. - Amendment not made as regards insertion of words in item, and made as regards alteration of duties.
– The Committee has seen fit to request the omission of the word “ Flannels “ from item 123B, and consequently that will alter the form of this item to a little extent. I’ therefore move -
That the request as regards the insertion of the words “whether plain, fancy or printed,” be pressed, and that the request as regards the insertion of the words “ also Crimean and Ceylon Shirtings containing wool “ be not pressed.
The reason for submitting the latter part of the motion is that the duty on those goods has been made the same as the duty on item 123A.
Motion agreed to.
Item 115. Carpets,Carpeting, Floorcloths, Floor’ and Carriage Mats of any material except Coir ; Lap Dusters ; and Floor Rugs and Coverings, including Felts and Pads, ad val. (General Tariff), 20 per cent. ; (United Kingdom), 15 per cent, on and after 8th November, 1907.
Senate’s Request. - Make the duties ad val. (General Tariff), 15 percent.; (United . Kingdom), 10 per cent.
House of Representatives’ Message. - Amendment not made.
– In this case, the original proposal of the Government was for duties of 20 and 15 per cent. The Senate requested that those duties should be . reduced to 15 and10 per cent The other Chamber insists upon the original duties. As the Tariff in this respect, so far as the United Kingdom is concerned, leaves the dutv at the same figure as it was in the 1902 Tariff, I move -
That the request be not pressed.
– This item was one which the Senate regarded as being of- a purely revenue character. It is not likely that: duties of 20 and 15 percent. would lead to the establishment of local industries, inasmuch as duties of 40 and 50 per cent, in other cases are considered essential to protect industries already established. It mav be said that we want the revenue; but if it should be found that the revenue is required for Commonwealth purposes, Parliament can be appealed to to make pro vision. With a revenue from Customs and Excise jumping up to the neighbourhood of £1 2,000,000 this year, we are not called upon to impose duties of 20 and 15 per cent, upon articles which at present, and for some time to come, will be imported.
– Why not propose a modification, to make the item free?
– I, and other honorable senators, endeavoured on the former occasion to make the duties even lower, but we were defeated. I shall vote against the Minister’s motion.
– I believe that this is a revenue duty which should . not be imposed. It is either too high for a revenue duty, or too low for protective purposes.
– It is too low ; that is the trouble.
– Even the duties of 20 and 15 per cent, proposed by the House of Representatives are not sufficient to give adequate protection to encourage the establishment of an industry. I am opposed to the raising of revenue by such means as this ; and, therefore, i am opposed to the Minister’s motion. It is quite true that the Government may need revenue, but there are other legitimate ways of raising it which, in my opinion, are preferable to this method of Customs taxation, which not only takes the revenue out of the pockets of the taxpayers, but compels them to pay interest and profit on their taxes. I move, by way of modification -
That the words “ not pressed “ be left out, with a view to insert in lieu thereof the words “ modified by making the item free.”
– There is some doubt as to whether Senator Givens’ amendment can be submitted at all, but, apart from that, I point out that, so far as ‘carpets are concerned, the imports from the United Kingdom represent a revenue of , £115,000, and those from other countries a revenue of£9,000. The greater part of the ‘ importations are in respect of floorcloths and linoleums.” Our imports from the United Kingdom amount in value to £304,060, and from other countries to £15,000. As was well argued by Senator McGregor in dealing with this item on the former occasion, there is a most excellent prospect of linoleums being made in this country.
– Who is going to make them ?
– According to my honorable friend’s view, it would be a crime for any one to attempt to make them in this country, or for Parliament to encourage their manufacture. The item must not be regarded as purely revenue producing, though it has a revenue aspect at present. It is, at the ‘Same time, of a protective character.
– I should vote for the higher duty in preference to the lower one, though I want the item to be made free.
– What we are asking the Committee to do is practically to follow the 1902 Tariff. As practically all the imports come from Great Britain, the” operative part of the item is the 15 per cent, duty. I may add that the adoption of our request would mean a. loss of revenue of about . £18.000 per annum.
Question - That the words “ not pressed “ be left out (Senator Givens’ amendment) - put. The Committee divided.
AYES: 14
NOES: 10
Majority … … 4
AYES
NOES
Question so resolved in the affirmative.
Amendment agreed to.
Motion,” as amended, making item 115 free, agreed to.
Item 118. Curtains and Blinds, n.e.i. . . . ad val. (General Tariff), 25 per cent. ; (United Kingdom), 20 per cent.
Senate’s Request. - Make the item free.
House of Representatives’ Message. - Amendment not made.
– Ihope honorable senators will bear in mind that there is no revenue aspect about this item. The duties are essentially protective.
– The Committee did? not think so last time.
– The Committee acted? under. a serious misapprehension, as I think they will find they did in the last’ case. The request to make the item free wasmoved by Senator McColl. Curtains, blinds, and other articles included in theitem are manufactured throughout theCommonwealth. With a view therefore of restoring the protection, I move -
That the request be not pressed.
– In spite of the statement of theVicePresident of the Executive Council, I say that this is purely a revenue item. In no sense can it be said that these articles aremade in Australia. The sewing on of a little bit of fringe or “ frill,” as one honorable senator put it, may be done in Australia, but surely the Committee will not call the sewing of a tassel on to a blind” made elsewhere an industry entitled to a protection of ‘25 per cent. It is absurd: to discuss the item from a protectionist stand-point, because no honest sane protectionist can contend that that is an industry. The Comniittee on a previous occasion decided emphatically that this was merely a revenue duty, and on that ground I ask honorable, senators to join in defeating the motion.
Question put. The Committee divided.
AYES: 12
NOES: 13
Majority … … 1
AYES
NOES
Question so resolved in the negative.
Request pressed.
Item 120. Gloves -
Senate’s Requests. - Leaveout the words Men’s Gloves of all kinds and materials,” and insert in lieu thereof the words “ Gloves, being Harvesting, Driving, Housemaids’, and Gardening.” Make the paragraph free.
House of Representatives’ Message. - Amendment made as regards alteration of wording. Amendment not made as regards alteration of duties.
– In this case we separated the classes of gloves which are made’ here, such as harvesting, driving, housemaids’, and gardening gloves from other kinds. Specimens of those made in Australia were exhibited in the Chamber. The Committee carried a request to make the item free. I have reason to know that a number of honorable senators were absent on a deputation, and unable to be here in time to deal with the matter, and I am certain that the vote then taken did not represent the desire or intention of the Senate. It is well known that these classes- of gloves are made here. Driving gloves, for’ instance, are made of a material called cape, which, is subject to a duty of something like 20 per cent. That material is imported, and cut up, and made into gloves- -
– Where?
– In Melbourne . and Sydney. I move -
That the request be not pressed.
– When the item was last before us, there was some doubt as to whether these kinds of gloves were made in Aus- tralia, but after the matter had been dealt with, definite information was secured that they were actually being made at two or three places in the Commonwealth. ‘ I made that statement at the time, but I had not sufficient evidence to satisfy honorable senators, and my word was doubted. The report of Mr.’ Harrison Ord, the Chief Inspector of Factories for. Victoria, was quoted against me. It was argued that as no factory appeared under the heading of “ Gloves,” the articles were not made here. It was . explained afterwards that cloves sue being made in connexion with other leather articles, and that, consequentlv, the factories did not appear in the register as glove factories. There are, at least, three different factories in Melbourne, where they are made. Specimens were brought into this building, and exhibited in the Queen’s Hall.
– Does the honorable senator mean regular factories, or shops ?
– Regular factories.
– How many - men are employed?
– I have not the figures with me, but I know that gloves are made in this State, and probably in other States. The industry is deserving of a fair amount of protection. As we arrived at our previous decision under a misapprehension, we ought to put the matter right now.
Question put. The Committee divided.
AYES: 14
NOES: 10
Majority … … 4
AYES
NOES
Question so resolved in the affirmative.
Request not pressed.
Item 120. Gloves -
Senate’s Request. - Leave out “October” in both columns and insert “November”; make the paragraph free.
House of Representatives’ Message. - Amend’ ment made as regards alteration of dates. Not made as regards alteration of . duties.
Senator BEST (Victoria - Vice-President case it will be remembered that in the Tariff as at first submitted the Government proposed duties of 30 and 20 per cent. These were subsequently reduced in another place to 15 and 10 per cent., and the Senate requested that the item should be made. free. I urge that the Senate should not press its request.
.- In accordance with the suggestion of the Vice-President of the Executive Council, I move -
That the Senate’s request be modified by making the duties ad val. (General Tariff) 30 per cent., (United Kingdom) 20 per cent.
– That was the original proposal of the Government.
– I shall advance a few reasons why what I propose should be done. Both Houses have finally agreed that harvesting, driving, housemaids’, and gardening gloves ‘used in industrial occupations by the poorer classes of the people shall be dutiable at 30 per cent, and 20 per cent.
– With the aid of the honorable 1senator’s vote.
– That is so ; and the wealthier classes will also have to pay the higher duties on gloves if I can manage it. I do not deny that I voted for the higher duties on gloves used by working people, and I should vote in the same way tomorrow, because I look forward to the time when we shall produce all these gloves here.
– The honorable senator on a .previous occasion said that he thought it desirable to restrict the use of gloves.
– It might be a desirable thing to induce people to take their hands out of gloves and do some useful work. If the honorable senator agrees with me on that point, he will vote for the higher duties I now propose in order to accomplish that desirable object.
– I do not agree with the honorable senator.
– We might be reproached by people outside if we imposed high duties on articles used by the poorer people, whilst we agreed to admit at a lower rate of duty expensive articles of the same class used by richer people.
– Cam the honorable senator not understand that the gloves included in one paragraph of the item are made here, and those included in the other paragraph are not?
– I do not desire to see only the poorer classes of gloves made here. I wish to see all kinds of gloves made here. It would be a poor Australian ambition to produce only the inferior classes of goods.
– The gloves included in the first paragraph and made here are not inferior gloves, but superior gloves of their kind.
– They can be purchased for about one-fourth of the price which is paid for gloves included in the second paragraph. The Tariff as it now stands involves a differentiation disadvantageous” to the people who are least able to bear taxation, and the Senate, representing the democracy of Australia, should not tolerate that for a single moment.
– Honorable senators need pay no attention to anything that Senator Givens has said, when they recollect his attitude and utterances of only a few weeks ago. The honorable senator then insisted that,’ as this was merely a revenue item, these articles should be put on the free list.
– How much help did I get?
– Enough to carry the honorable senator’s proposal, and make the item free. What more does the honorable senator want?
– If I cannot have the item made free, I intend to go for the highest duties I can get.
– The honorable senator can have the item free if he is consistent, and will stand to-day where he stood a fewweeks ago. We have reached an extraordinary position. The Vice-President of the Executive Council has submitted a motion, and now gives way-
– I have not submitted a motion.
– I think the honorable senator did submit a motion.
– -The statement is incorrect.
– If the VicePresident of the Executive Council refers to my statement that he submitted a motion, it is obvious that, if it is incorrect, I should not have made it unless under a misapprehension. I assumed that the honorable senator, following his usual course, moved a motion to the effect that we should not press our request. Now that I recollect the circumstances, reference to them will hardly help the honorable member- He commenced his remarks when he rose in a way which clearly indicated his intention to move that we should not insist on our request.
– As a matter of fact, that would riot have been my motion.
– If the honorable senator desires that I should be so accurate, I shall oblige him.
– I- should nut have moved that motion.
– If his words meant anything, the honorable senator was going to ask the Committee to retreat from the position which was previously taken up. He can deny that if he likes.
– Yes, I can.
SenatorMILLEN. - The honorable senator can, but willnot.
– I do.
– If the honorable senator denies that, I will ask him whether he intended to invite the Committee to persist’ in its request ? What happened was that the honorable senator rose to take certain action, and although he may attempt to conceal what it was beneath; a smile of mystery, it is quite certain that he was not going to ask the Committee to adhere to the course it had taken on a previous occasion.
– The honorable senator is a bit of a thought-reader.
– I did not need to read the thoughts of the Vice-President of the Executive Council; I had only to listen to his remarks. Senator Givens, by interjection, indicated that he was prepared to backslide in the most graceful way possible. The honorable senator was prepared to go one better than the Government, and Senator Best, seeing that there might be a little help from that quarter, retired from the position he had temporarily occupied, in favour of Senator Givens, who said to the Committee, “ Although a few weeks ago I pleaded with honorable senators, as this is purely a revenue item, to put these articles on the free list I want you now to do what I am doing, to swallow all your previous utterances and impose high dutieson these articles.”
– The previous paragraph had not been finally dealt with by both Houses at that time.
– The honorable senator must have been reading the advertisement of a book on logic when he talks likethat. He voted for the higher duties on the articles included in the previous paragraph, and is responsible for his own action.
– My action was takenin view of all the circumstances.
– The honorable senator said that he regarded both these items as covering articles which ought to be on the free list, and to-day he says, “ I desire to invite the attention of the Committee to the fact that honorable senators must never pay any attention to what I have to say, because what I say to-day I shall unsay next week.”
– The honorable senator would suggest that Senator Givens is a variety artist?
– He is, distinctly. The honorable senator is a lightning change artist. As the honorable senator. has indicated so clearly and candidly how unstable he is, and he has admitted to-day that he was wrong three weeks ago, I suggest that it is almost certain that he is wrong again to-day.
– The honorable senator has hislucid moments.
– This certainly is. not one of them. I ask honorable senators not to follow the pernicious exampleset by Senator Givens and stultify themselves - to use the words of the VicePresident of the Executive Council - as Senator Givens indicates that it is his intention, to do, by proposing high duties on articles which, only a few weeks ago, they decided should be admitted duty free.
.- After Senator Millen’s lucid explanation of the item, which consisted almost entirely of a tirade of abuse against myself, I wish to remind the Committee that the circumstances in which I have moved my motion are entirely different from those to which Senator Millen has referred. There are two things which I should like to make clear ; one is that when we were discussing this item before, it was made apparent, from reports of Mr. Ord, Chief
Inspector of Factories in Victoria, that few if any gloves were made in Australia. Since then further light has been thrown on the question, and we find that almost all the gloves required in Australia which come under paragraph a are manufactured here. In view of that information, it has been finally decided by both Houses that those gloves worn in industrial occupations by people of the working class shall be subject to duties of 30 and 20 per cent. Senator Millen now desires that I should consent to an unfair discrimination, compelling the poorer people to pay these high duties, and, at the same time, permitting the’ richer people to escape scot free. I am not taking any of the medicine prescribed by Senator Millen on this occasion, and I hope that the Committee is not taking any either.
– The honorable senator voted to put a duty on the poorer people, and I voted to take it off.
– On item 120 T voted to make gloves free for the working people, because I was guided by the misconception which had arisen owing to Mr. Ord’s report that they were not being made here. In the light of later knowledge, I have voted to impose a higher protective duty.
– Do not the working classes wear the ordinary glov.es?
– Unfortunately the working classes in the Commonwealth, especially in Victoria, are not paid a sufficiently high wage to enable them to wear gloves.
– I wish they were paid as high in Queensland as in Victoria.
– The working classes cannot afford to pav 10s. 6d. for a pair of kid gloves. Undoubtedly, the articles should be made free if there were no prospect of making them in Australia. If we can make one quality of gloves, surely we can make the other. I intend to -persist with my amendment, and I hope that the Committee will assist me to remove this injurious differentiation with which, if made, we could be fairly taxed bv the people.
– On a former occasion I voted in favour of duties of 30 and 20 per cent. On a certain kind of gloves, which were, to my satisfaction, being made in different parts ot Australia. It is a matter of indifference to me whether they are worn by the poor or by the rich. It is sufficient for me to know (hat they are being made locally. I voted for the free admission of other kinds of gloves, whether worn by the rich or by the poor, because they were not made in Australia. Everybody who is in favour of protectionist principles has argued that to impose an excessively high duty on an article which is not being made in Australia is unfair.
– Then there should be no duty at all.
– Exactly ; and the honorable senator voted for no duty on a certain kind of gloves-
– On both kinds of gloves.
– Because., at that time, he was under the impression that housemaids’, driving, and gardening gloves were not being made in Australia; but immediately after the vote was taken on that item, we had produced within the precincts of this building samples showing that the local manufactures were of a very superior kind. I have no feeling other than a desire to do what I conceive to be right. I have no evidence that any kinds of gloves other than the ones which have been made dutiable are being manufactured here. It has been asserted that certain kinds are being manufactured. I have made inquiries, but I cannot find out definitely that they are being manufactured in any part of Australia. Is it right, then, to tax such gloves to the extent of 30 and 20 per cent. ? For a considerable period in Victoria-there was a very high protectionist duty on gloves.
– There was no duty on gloves in Victoria, and that is why “they were not made. They would have been made here long ago if there had been a duty.
– I shall take the honorable senator as an authority ; but I was under the impression - probably I am mistaken - that a.t One period in the history of Victoria there was a duty on gloves, which I considered sufficiently protectionist.
– No; there was a duty on gloves in the drapers’ shops. They cl aimed the Tariff as an excuse for raising the price, but no duty was ever imposed.
– If there is one thing which ought to move those who are strongly protectionist, it is that admission by the honorable senator, because Victoria has always been a high protectionist State.
– The .glove element was too strong. That is why they could not get a duty.
– I can hardly swallow that. I do not think that any influence would have been sufficiently powerful to prevent the honorable senator, if he were convinced that gloves could be made here, from getting a duty imposed. I have no recollection of his ever having made an effort in that direction. I am inclined to vote in the same way as I did on a previous occasion. There is no industry in connexion with the glove business. I do not want to give a vote which might be hurtful to any industry already established or likely to be established. If Senator Best can show me that there is a likelihood of a glove industry being established under the proposed duty in any part of Australia, I should hesitate a long time before voting in opposition to the request.
– That was the reason for the original proposal of the Government to impose duties of 30 and 20 per cent.
– In another place, which .is largely composed of protectionists, those protective duties were made revenue duties, and thf protectionist members of this Committee declined to vote in favour of them.- They wanted either the free admission of gloves or the imposition of protective duties.
– The amendment now proposed is to levy higher duties.
– My honorable friend has now a chance to vote for protective duties.
– I do not know what chance I have.
– I am quite sure that Senator Givens spoke this afternoon under a considerable misapprehension. The gloves which he voted to have made duty free, on the ground that they were worn by the working classes, are mostly bought by the employers for the use of ‘their employes. The duty is paid more by the employers than by the employes, and very little indeed by the working classes. With regard to the ordinary gloves, there is ‘ no doubt that when employes are in the streets they must wear imported gloves. This is, therefore, a tax on the masses,- especially the women, because it must be borne in mind that the men very seldom wear gloves. Honorable senators would do well to recollect that gloves are mainly imported for’ the use of women. The duty which it is now sought to remit is levied solely upon them.
I cannot see any occasion for the Committee to go back upon the decision to which it came a few weeks ago.
– The argument of Senator Findley, if correct, would be sound. If gloves could not be made in Australia, it would be unwise and improper to levy a duty upon them ; but it is quite obvious that they can be made. There was a time when kid boots were not made to any extent in Australia, and it was declared that we could not make the finer kinds of boots which our women desired in order that they might look, as we hope they always will, tastefully and well dressed. It was contended that they must get imported boots, but, in spite of that, we levied a duty, and now it is admitted that in Australia women can get boots equal, price for price, to any boots made in any part of the world. The imposition of the duty enabled our manufacturers to produce the finer lines. It is now declared that our women will be taxed by the imposition of this duty upon gloves : but I have no hesitation in saying that they will be found employment by its imposition. It will be mainly women who will be employed .in the industry, because it is a light delicate kind of employment. Therefore, if we are to consider the women, it will.be wise to impose. a duty on an article which they use, and which, at present, .has to be imported.
.- On the authority of Senator Millen, who tells me that I voted for an increased duty before-
– The honorable senator voted against free gloves.
– I shall do sr. again.
– Of course, he will vote as he is told.
– None of us 3.5 free from inconsistency. Even Senator Givens has had a lecture from Senator Millen on that subject. But I remember that, when I was accused of departing from my fiscal faith a few weeks ago, how heartily I was congratulated by honorable senators opposite.
The. CHAIRMAN.- The honorable senator is departing from the subject before the Chair.
– He is consistent in that, at all events !
– I do not thinkthat Senator Millen is justified in. making such a remark concerning me ; and I object to the way in which he and some of his supporters constantly endeavour to prevent me from saying what I wish to say. I believe in a protective duty in this case, because gloves can be and are being made in Australia. By encouraging their manufacture, we shall afford employment for many women. Even though I voted in a contrary direction last time, with the knowledge that I now possess, I shall not hesitate to change my vote. But I voted conscientiously then, and shall do the same, again.
– I should like to set Senator Trenwith right in a matter concerning which he made an extremely emphatic declaration. 1 never hope to set him wholly right, but if I can set him right to some little extent I shall feel that I have not lived my political life in vain. Speaking with all the assertion” of a great high priest of protection, the honorable senator asserted that there never was a duty on gloves in Victoria. The statement was not made with any hesitancy, but in an absolutely “ cocksure “ fashion, to adopt a word suggested to me by an honorable senator sitting near me. I venture to say that those who listened must have - felt that even Senator Trenwith would not have made the statement with such confidence unless he was absolutely sure of his ground. But I find on referring to the Victorian Customs and Excise Act, No. 1401, that in this State there was a duty of 20 per cent.
– On some gloves.
– “ Kid’ or leather.” There may have been other gloves to which the duty did not apply, but Senator Trenwith’s statement referred to gloves generally.
– I am still under the impression that, while I was in Parliament in Victoria, there was not a duty on gloves. But my remark did refer to gloves generally.
– The Act . from which I am quoting is dated 1895. Whether, at that time, Victoria had the estimable value of Senator, Trenwith’s services in the Legislature, I do not know. But this Act shows that there was great force in Senator Findley’s statement that a duty was in force for some time in Victoria, but failed to produce anv glove manufacturing here. Evidently, Senator Findley was on sound ground when, speakingas a protectionist, he argued that a dutv should not bc put upon this article. There was no local industry, nor anv prospect of one being brought into existence under the Victorian duty.
– There is a glove industry in Australia now.
– Senator Findley has made an unchallengeable differentiation between those gloves which are made in this country and those which are not.
– There is no reason why we should not have them made here.
– Senator Givens might have used that argument three weeks ago when he said that this was a purely revenue duty. Now he says that some gloves are made here, but though some are not, there is no reason why they should not be. He is well aware that this will simply be a high revenue duty. He is pro-, posing a duty of 20 per. cent, against Great Britain. That is exactly the duty that prevailed in Victoria.
– The honorable senator knows that gloves are principally made in France, and other continental countries, and I- am proposing a duty of 30 per cent, against them.
– There is a large importation of gloves from Great Britain, and on those imports the honorable senator is proposing exactly the same duty as obtained in Victoria, although he denounced the Victorian duty as a revenue tax. Senator Givens gave as one justification for his change of front that, having decided to put an impost upon the gloves worn by the poorer people, he was not going to allow the richer class to escape scot free. I was glad to hear, that statement. I wish to say in reply that Senator Givens is actually voting to put a duty on the poorer people. By voting to put what he now admits to be a tax on the wealthier class, the honor-‘ able senator equalizes the tax on the poorer people. He says with regard to the poorer classes of gloves, upon which the dutv is being imposed, that it will not be a tax. But if so. why this equalizing dutv againSt those gloves which are not made here?
– Because I want to preserve our own market for them.
– In this case, Senator Findley has laid down a broad line of demarcation. He says that one kind of glove is made here, whilst the other is not, and that he will vote to protect those who are engaged in making the one class. Senator Givens says, however, on one day that he will not vote for a revenue duty, and on another duty that he will.
– - The misrepresentation of me by Senator Millen requires exposure. He says that what is proposed according to my admission is a tax upon the gloves of the poorer people. I did not say that it is a tax at all. What I did say was that we should impose a duty upon those gloves for the purpose of insuring that they shall be manufactured in Australia. In the same way as the duties imposed on boots have not increased the prices of boots, but have lowered prices, so that the people of Australia are more cheaply shod than are the people of any other country in the world, as a result of the protective policy of the country - just in the same way this duty will be no fax upon the people, because the gloves that they wear will be made in the country, and sold as cheaply as they can be sold in any part of the world. In addition to that, we shall be finding many of our people a means of livelihood in making gloves.
– Why not go for prohibition right out ?
– In the words of Mr. Bent, the Premier of Victoria, I would advise the honorable senator to ‘ teach his grandmother to milk ducks.” Of course, there was a time when we did not manufacture anything in Australia.
– Why did not the honorable senator argue in this fashion three weeks ago?
– Because in the light of information which we then had I was in favour of gloves being admitted duty free-. I considered that we had absolutely no evidence that gloves were being manufactured in Australia. On the contrary, we had strong presumptive evidence that none were manufactured here.
– Senator Gray told the honorable senator that they were not manufactured in Australia, whilst Senator de Largie told him that they were, and he chose to believe Senator Gray.
– I took my facts from the report of Mr. Harrison Ord, the Chief Inspector of Factories in Victoria. Since then, we have had ocular evidence that gloves are manufactured in this country, and that the mistake which arose from reading Mr. Ord’s report was due to the fact that gloves are made in factories where other goods are also made.
– The honorable senator was told that on the last occasion.
– ls Senator McGregor objecting to my present attitude?
– The honorable senator was wrong before, but he is right now.
– Why should Senator McGregor “ barrack “ me when I am right? I am in no respect concerned to explain- what I did through lack of sufficient evidence on a former occasion.
– Has the honorable senator any evidence now that kid gloves are made in any part of Australia?
– I understand that what are called kid gloves of the coarser kind are made in Melbourne and Sydney. As a matter of fact, no so-called kid glove is. made of kid. The finer qualities are made from rat skins. It has been proved that amongst the native fauna of Australia there are creatures which are practically a pest, the skins of which can be used to make gloves of the very finest quality. There is an opening for an industry which wil.l be Australian from root to branch. We shall not only do the manufacturing here, but will have an opportunity of developing what is now a waste product into a high-priced material, and supplying our own people with such necessary articles as gloves. As Parliament has now decided that the coarser classes of gloves shall bear a duty, in order to encourage their manufacture in the Commonwealth, I hope that the same dutv will be imposed on the finer qualities, in order to encourage their manufacture here also. I do not aspire to see Australia manufacturing only the poorer or coarser qualities of goods. I hope we shall produce all qualities, and show the world that we can supply ourselves from our own factories with articles of the finest character. I believe that that result can be achieved by an effective protection. I shall vote to make the item free rather than for the paltry duties of 15 and 10 per cent, originally passed bv another place. They would be purely revenue duties, and, if I were to vote for them, Senator Millen might have an excuse for twitting me with inconsistency. Mv motion is for higher duties. If that is negatived, I shall vote against the revenue duties which were first submitted to us.
Question - That the request (item 120. paragraph b, “ Gloves, n.e.i.”) be modified by making the duties ad val; (General
Tariff), 30 per cent. ; (United Kingdom), 20 per cent. (Senator Givens’ motion) - put. The Committee divided.
AYES: 12
NOES: 10
Majority … … 2
AYES
NOES
Question so resolved in the affirmative.
Motion agreed to.
Request modified.
Item 139. Arms, viz. : -
Senate’s Request. - Insert the following new paragraph : -
House of Representatives’ Message. - Amendment made with the following modification : -
After “ mark” the following words inserted : - “ Or do not prior to 1st October, 1908, pass a test in Australia prescribed by the Minister.”
– We were particularly anxious, when dealing with guns and rifles, that they should be proofed. That idea was fully concurred in as a prim ciple by another place, but they have sought to provide for guns or rifles, ordered, and perhaps on the water, which were not proofed or marked. They therefore inserted the words given in their modification. After full consideration of that provision by the Department, we find that it is impracticable to add it to the item, because we have no proof house’ for proofing arms in Australia; and it. would take till long after the 1st October next to secure the necessary appliances for the purpose of proofing. There are practically two proofs in connexion with arms. One is the test or proof of the barrel after it is constructed by the manufacturer, and the other is applied when the barrel is attached to the action. With the same object in view as another place had, I move-
That the modification be not agreed to, but that the following words be added to the paragraph : - “ Provided that until the 1st October, 1908, Guns and Rifles or Barrels for same, not bearing the marks prescribed in paragraph h above, may be admitted on payment only of theduties applicable to weapons coming within paragraphs a, b, and d, (1) and (2) of this item, if the Minister is satisfied that such Guns, Rifles or Barrels have been efficiently tested by the manufacturers thereof.”
In the best classes of guns, the manufacturer has to apply the test. .
– Would the Department regard the manufacturer’s test as sufficient ?
– If the Department is satisfied that the manufacturer has properly tested the gun, rifle, of barrel, it can be admitted until 1st October next under that proviso. American guns are not proofed, and yet some of them are acknowledged to be amongst the very best. In cases of that character, we give the Minister power until 1 st October next to allow those which are on the water or ordered in the meantime to come in, so long as he is satisfied that they have been tested by the manufacturer. After the 1st October next every gun or rifle which comes ill will have to bear the proof mark.
– I anticipate that the Minister’s ‘remarks will commend themselves to the- Committee, but since I brought the requested amendment before this Chamber, I have learnt that some of the best - certainly the best at a moderate price - of the commercial weapons imported to Australia come from America. I may instance those from the Winchester and Remington companies. I understand that there is no official test mark with regard to their barrels. They test them themselves, and that was the reason why I interjected just now to ask if the Department would regard the mark of the manufacturers as an “ approved test mark.” Of course, the Department would always be at liberty’ to determine whether the manufacturers’ reputation was in itself some guarantee of their mark. I understand that the cheap and inferior guns against which we desire to guard come largely from Belgium, a country which has an official test mark, whereas our best guns are obtained from America, where there is no official test mark. I do not want to shut out the excellent American gun so largely used by our settlers merely because of the obvious necessity of shutting out those cheap continental guns. However, the Minister’s assurance that the Department will regard the test mark of a manufacturing company, of the bona fides of which it is assured, as an approved test mark, sets my mind at rest.
– That is in the Minister’s motion.
SenatorMILLEN.-But that will apply only up to 1 st October next.
– Yes.
– But after that date, . will the words “ or other approved test mark,” in new paragraph h, leave the Departmentopen to approve of the test mark of a manufacturer?
– No doubt. Those words mean that the, article must bear a test mark that is approved.
– That appears to set the matter at rest. I wished to make it clear that they did not refer merely to an official or Government test mark. So long as they include any test mark that the Government can approve of, I am satisfied.
Motion . agreed to.
Item 143. Sheet Lead and Lead Piping, per ton, 50s. ; and on and after 15th November, 1907, free.
Senate’s Request. - Make the duty 20s.
House of Representatives’ Message. - Amendment not made.
– The Government originally proposed a duty of 50s. per ton on sheet lead and lead piping. The House of Representatives decided to make the item free. . After full consideration in this Chamber, in view of the fact that the manufacture of sheet lead and lead piping is a recognised and important Australian industry, and, as such, is entitled to at least moderate protection, this Committee decided to request the House of Representatives to impose a duty of 20s. per ton. Honorable members in another place have not agreed to our request, and, in this instance, I move -
That the request be pressed.
– I wish only to repeat a statement made when we previously discussed this item, and not denied, that one of the reasons why it is desirable to put these articles on the free list is that, owing to the action of the Broken Hill companies, those using this commodity in Australia are heavily penalized. The Broken Hill companies, for some reason best known to themselves, decline to sell lead to any one in Australia at a less price than they can realize in London. They make no deduction to purchasers in Australia of the cost of sending the article to the Old Country. It was because we thought this extremely unfair that I and other honorable senators voted to make the item free, and that no effort was made here to impose a higher duty than 20s. per ton. I ask honorable senators to again consider the matter, and to say whether, in view of the evident attempt on the part of a big corporation to take advantage of their unique position to treat Australian consumers unfairly, there is any justification for the imposition of this duty? If we make the item free, those who require sheet lead and lead piping in Australia will be free to purchase from abroad without having to payany duty, or from the Broken Hill companies if they are willing to do what is fair. By imposing the duty, we shall say to every man who requires the articles . that he must pay £1 per ton more for it if he purchases from people abroad, and, to that extent, we shall force him to deal with the Broken Hill companies, who, I say, are taking an unfair advantage of the local consumer.
– There would be a great deal of force in what Senator Millen has said if the statements were practically true, or if it. were to continue to be true for ever. Every one must acknowledge that, although the Broken Hill Proprietary Company are at the present time great producers of lead, they are not going to control the production of lead in Australia for ever. If they are so short-sighted, illiberal, and unjust to the manufacturers who require these materials in . Australia, the laws of Australia, when properly framed and administered, should bring such a monopoly to its bearings. On the other hand, admitting that everything that Senator Millen has stated is actually true, and that the position he describes will , never be altered, would it not be better to have our lead manufactured here, even though it should be a monopoly, than to have to depend on a monopoly established outside of Australia? There are several manufacturers of sheet lead and lead piping in Melbourne and in other parts of Australia, and, although they have to some extent to put up with- the disadvantages referred to by Senator Millen, it is hoped that in the near future we shall be able to overcome the existing difficulty; and we should be prepared to give some assistance to men who have spent almost a life-time, and a very large portion of their fortune, in establishing an industry of this description in Australia. I hope that, for the reasons I have stated, the Committee will press the request. The lead is taken from Australian soil, and manufactured by Australians, and the industry is just as much an Australian industry as is the woollen industry.
– According to Senator McGregor, there are going to be laws in Australia which will prevent the Broken Hill Corporation obtaining more than a due price for lead.
– We could impose an export duty on their lead.
– If that be the case, the local manufacturers of lead piping do not require any duty. The advantage of being able to obtain lead for a good deal less per ton in Australia than it is worth in London would be such a protection to them that they would be masters of the position.
– The freight is nothing. Lead is taken as dead weight.
– It has to be taken to England and brought back from England. If there is no freight on lead to London, it follows that people purchasing it here do not pay any more for it than if they purchased it in London, and Senator McGregor is, therefore, left on the horns of a dilemma. In any case, the makers of lead piping and sheet lead do not need the protection proposed. They are masters of the situation without any duty, and to impose one would be a work of supererogation.
Question - That the request (Sheet Lead and Lead Piping, item 143) be pressed - put. The Committee divided.
AYES: 13
NOES: 10
Majority … … 3
AYES
NOES
Question so resolved in the affirmative
Request pressed.
Item 153. Cutlery,- of all kinds, n.e.i. ; including Plated Cutlery ; Knife -Sharpeners ; Manicure Sets; but not cutlery in part or wholly made up of gold or silver, ad val. (General Tariff), 20 per cent.; (United Kingdom), 15 per cent.
Senate’s Request. - Make the duties ad val. (General Tariff), 15 per cent., (United Kingdom), 10 per cent.
House of Representatives’ Message. - Amendment not made.
– This is one of those items which were very fully discussed, and therefore I need not say anything about it. I move -
That the request be not pressed.
– I point out to the Committee that this is another instance of a revenue duty.
– Oh, yes !
– Does any one mean to say that it is not ?
– I do.
– I only rose to emphasize the fact that in the minds of every one but Senator Best this was regarded as- a revenue item on a previous occasion. It gives an opportunity of pointing out a fact to a number of honorable senators who have professed at any rate to be opposed to revenue duties.
– What revenue did it piqduce last year?
– I have not the figures handy just now, but whether the revenue was large or small, I know my honorable friend’s pronounced objection to high revenue duties.
– Even if our requesthad been accepted, it would still have beena revenue duty.
– I want to give a protectionist duty of 20 per cent.
– Neither the original, duties of 20 and 15 per cent., nor the requested duties of 15 and 10 per cent, would’ be-, protective. Honorable senators must recognise that the manufacture of cutlery is not likely to be started with the duty of 15 per cent., which the Minister is asking us to inflict upon British imports. I only rose because I thought that the item might pass without its true character having been made known to honorable senators. It is a pure, unabashed revenue item. For that reason I . propose to keep the duty as low as possible.
Question put. The Committee divided.
AYES: 11
NOES: 13
Majority … … 2
AYES
NOES
Question so resolved in the negative.
Request pressed.
Item 159. Adding and Computing Machines and all Attachments; Cash Registers; Automatic Weighbridges, and Automatic Weighing Machines except coin-freed Automatic Weighing Machines. On and after 27th November,1907, ad val. (General Tariff), 10 per cent.; (United Kingdom), 5 per cent.
Senate’s Request. - After “ Attachments “ insert “ Time Registers and Detectors “ ; after “ Machines,” line 3, insert “ Combined Bagging, Weighing and Sewing Machines”; and make the item free.
House of Representatives’ Message. - Amendment made, as regards insertion of words, but not made as regards alteration of duties.
. -It will be recollected, that the Government proposed duties of 10 and 5 per cent., but that the Senate requested that in each column the item should be made free. The other House has agreed to make certain alterations in the wording of the item, But not to make it free. I move -
That the request as to duties be not pressed.
.- -Surely the Minister doesnot call this a pro tective item ! I think that the Committee will be quite justified in adhering to its decision and so allowing the articles to come in free. I hope that even the Minister will see that that course is necessary. It cannot be urged on any ground that it is a protectionist duty. It is purely a revenue duty.
Senator Colonel NEILD (New South Wales) [5.19]. -I recognise that the VicePresident of the Executive Council has a kind of divided duty here. He has an obligation to his colleagues in the Ministry, but he should occasionally feel an obligation to the Senate. It is of very little use for a Minister to be here for the purpose of insisting upon Ministerial action contrary to the wish of the majority of the Chamber. I hope that my honorable friend will . recognise, as we all must do,- that he has a divided allegiance; we must respect the difficulties of his position, but we do hope, I imagine, that he will sometimes at least see that the balance of evidence is in favour of the Senate, rather than always in favour of the Ministry. It is very little that he ‘has been willing the Senate should have as the result of its previous decisions. He has shown a very ample sense of obligation to his Ministerial colleagues. I hope that in this instance; and in some future ones at least, he will, by his action, recognise some sense of obligation to this Chamber, that it may not be too frequently placed in the position of simply playing second fiddle to another place.
. -I desire to add a few words to the appeal made by my honorable colleague to the Committee to stand to its previous decision, which, I may mention, was arrived1 at by a majority of no less than 22 to 7. Twenty-two senators were then found willing to request that this item should be made free.
– Let us do the same again.
– I hope so.
– We shall have a big majority this time.
– On that occasion my honorable friend voted with me, and 1 hope that he will do so again.
– I intend to take up exactly the same attitude on this item as I did on a former occasion. T have not pursued that course in connexion with previous items, because I did not regard them as being of sufficient . importance to justify me in attempting to upset the decisions of another place. This, however, is one of two or three verv important items. I cannot torego the opportunity to express my great surprise at the attitude of the other House in respect to the item. Surely they have neither considered it nor attempted to consider the effect of carrying it into operation. I intend to vote against the motion.
Motion negatived.
Request pressed.
On. and after 27th November, 1907 -
Item 160. Motive Power Machinery and Appliances (except Electric), viz. : -
Mechanical Stokers ; Steam Traps ; Steam Turbines; Super-heaters; Water Purifiers, ad val. (General Tariff), 5 per cent. ; (United Kingdom), free.
Senate’s Request. - Leave out “ Gas Producers “ ; after “ Steam Turbines “ insert “ Highspeed Reciprocating Engines, coupled with Generators or Dynamo Electric Machines to be used in mines.”
House of Representatives’ Message. - Amendment made as regards omission of words, and as regards insertion of words, substitute “ Highspeed Reciprocating Steam Engines for direct coupling or directly coupled to Electric Generators or to Pumps.”
– I have no doubt that honorable senators have a clear recollection of the very lengthy debate which took place on this item. The Committee requested the insertion of certain words, and the other House has practically agreed to extend our request. The limitation, instead of being confined to mines, is proposed to be extended to cases where this class of engine is attached to electric generators or to pumps.
– The honorable senator will agree to it ?
– Yes ; but I am sure it is not desired that the Government should be imposed upon. We want to carry out this proposal in its integrity. I am going to propose that the modification be agreed to provided that the words be made a separate sub-item, with the addition of the words “ under departmental by-laws.”
Honorable Senators. - No.
– The Department is satisfied that the duty, which otherwise would be payable, will be evaded unless the introduction of the engines is properly regulated. It is anxious, not only to carry out the law, but also to see that there shall be no evasion of it. I think that our duty is to take every reasonable precaution in order to protect the revenue.
– Why on this item more than on any other ?
– Because of the wide scope of the words. What guarantee should we otherwise have that the engines were to be used for direct coupling to electric generators or to pumps? The obligation is thrown upon the Department . of admit ting high-speed engines, which are to be coupled to generators or pumps. The Department desires, therefore, to protect it- self, and to carry out the wish of Parliament, by making sure that these high-speed engines are imported only for coupling to pumps of generators. The Department must not be placed in the position of being told by an importer, “ Oh, this engine is going to be coupled to a generator, and therefore must come in free.” The Department wants to be satisfied.
– The Department wants to be above Parliament.
– No, it desires to carry out the decision of Parliament, and enforce the law. I appeal to honorable senators, in view of the fact that the item has been extended, since it has left the Senate, in the direction that we desired, to agree to the proposal I have to make. I move -
That the modification be agreed to provided that the words inserted be made a separate subitem and that the words “subject to Departmental by-laws “ be added thereto, with duties of ad val. (General Tariff) 5 per cent., (United Kingdom) free.
Motion agreed to.
And on and after 28th November, 1907 -
Item 162 (a). Pulley Blocks and Travelling - Blocks; Pneumatic Elevators and Conveyors; Steam Turbo-Blowers; Telphers; Apparatus for Liquefaction of Gases; Patent Hoist used for underground mining - ad val. (General Tariff) 5 per cent. ; (United Kingdom), free.
Senate’s Request. - Leave out “ pulley “ and insert “chain”; leave out “steam” and . insert “high-pressure blowers for smelting and”; leave out “ Patent hoist used for underground mining” and insert “ portable hoists for underground use.” Make the item free.
House of Representatives’ Message. - Madeas regards alteration of “ pulley “ to “ chain “ ; made with modifications as regards remaining alteration of wording, namely, instead of the word “ high-pressure “ the word “ rotary “ inserted ; and before the words “ portable hoists “ the word “ patent “ inserted. Not made, as regards alteration of duty.
– The object of the alteration of wording suggested in the message from the House of Representatives is to make clearer the terms of our request, and our intention. The term “ high pressure,” used in connexion with ‘ ‘ blowers for smelting pur- poses,” was very misleading and indefinite, and as it was considered the intention was to apply to all rotary blowers for smelting purposes, the request was altered accordingly. It was pointed out that highpressure blowers for melting purposes in foundries would not come under this item, and as there would be practically no difference between them and any of those for smelting purposes, it was clear that the intention of the Senate’s request was to apply to rotary blowers. The object- of inserting the word ‘ ‘’ patent “ before ‘ 1 portable hoists “ was in order to preserve the intention of the original item as passed by the House of Representatives, and to secure proper protection to.the local manufacturers of other than small patent hoists. The item, if altered in accordance with our request and the House of Representatives’ message, will read as follows -
Chain Blocks and Travelling Blocks; Pneumatic Elevators and Conveyors; Rotary Blowers for smelting and Turbo-Blowers; Telphers; Apparatus for Liquefaction of Gases; Patent Portable Hoists for underground use.
I move -
That the modification as to wording be agreed to.
Motion agreed to.
Motion (by Senator, Best) proposed -
That the request as to duty be not pressed.
– - This is one of the items in which the Senate ought to uphold its original position. The Senate considered that the item should be free, whilst the House of Representatives thought that there should be a duty of s per cent, under the general Tariff making the item- free in regard to goods from the United Kingdom. But a number of these machines are not manufactured in Great Britain at all. If it is desirable to allow them to come in free, it does not matter very much where they come from. They are a necessary aid to carrying on wealth production in our own country. The duty would be purely a revenue tax, and ought not to be imposed for the reasons which I have mentioned. I am opposed to revenue taxes generally, and especially on machinery.
. - This is an opportunity of carrying out a principle which I consider to be a good one, namely, to encourage as far as possible the payment of high -wages. We can signify in this way our preference for goods from Great Britain which amongst European countries pays the highest wages to artisans. The British people. are our own kinsfolk, and this will, be an expression of our appreciation of them. We shall say by this means, “ If we must import something we prefer to import from a country which complies to a great extent with the economic doctrines in which we believe.” Therefore, I urge upon Senator Givens, and those who think with him, the adoption of the preferential policy, which in this instance seems to be sound, patriotic, and economically wise. We do not profess to give Great Britain a preference over our own productions, but we do desire to give to her preference against the rest of the world.
– I hope that the Committee will not follow Senator Givens’ advice. The intention is in this case - as in a large number of other cases - to carry out a preference policy. ‘ But let honorable senators turn to item 160, wherein some of the same kinds of machines are mentioned. In that case we have made the duty 5 per cent, under the general Tariff and free in regard to the United Kingdom. No alteration was proposed there. Why should we make a distinction by charging 5 per cent, on one class of machinery, and making another class free, when both classes are made in and imported from the United Kingdom, and imported also from other parts of the world? We should beconsistent, and continue the preference that we have already adopted in the item immediately preceding that before us.
Senate- PULSFORD (New SouthWales) [5.41]. - Senator Trenwith is getting himself into an extraordinary tangle with regard to preference. He says he is in favour of .imposing a duty of 5 per cent, against Germany, and of giving the United Kingdom a preference of 5 per cent., because Germany does not pay as high wages as the United Kingdom does. If it is a matter of wages, those paid in the United States, which do business in these articles, are infinitely higher thanthose paid in the United Kingdom. The honorable senator therefore charges Germany 5 per cent., because it pays low wages, grants free-trade with England, because England pays higher, wages, and’ when he comes to the country which pays the highest wages of all, reverts again to the policy of imposing a duty. What becomes of his argument that we should” recognise the wages conditions under which goods are manufactured? The wholething reeks with inaccuracies and follies..
If honorable members would study the matter of preferential duties, they would be sick and sorry of the whole affair. These proposals for preference are of no value to the United Kingdom, but are rather calculated to cause the United Kingdom a great deal of trouble. Australia is more dependent on foreign countries for the sale of her commodities than upon the United Kingdom.
– Order ! The honorable senator must confine his remarks to the question before the Chair.
– If we will not admit goods coming from the countries to which we sell our goods, those countries must forward their goods to the United Kingdom, and to that extent the preference which we are offering to the United Kingdom must act as a bounty to encourage the direct importation of those goods from foreign countries into the United Kingdom itself.
Question - That the request as to duty (item 162,” Machinery”) benot pressed - put. The Committee divided.
AYES: 8
NOES: 16
Majority … … 8
AYES
NOES
Question so resolved in the negative.
Request pressed.
And on and after 28th November, 1907 -
Item 162 (a). Pulley Blocks, &c…..
Senate’s Request. - Insert the following new, paragraph : - (aa) Log Band Saws with Band Wheels 5 feet and over in diameter, free.
House of Representatives’ Message. - Amendment made with the following modification : - “To take effect on and after 13th December, 1907.”
– I move -
That the modification be agreed to.
The object is to legalize the free admission of these articles prior to the amendment being made.
– When I brought this matter under the notice of the Committee and of the Departmentpreviously, I understood that there was no objection to allowing certain accessories, in addition to the log-band saws themselves, to come in free. Will the Vice-President of the Executive Council agree to an amendment covering the accessories ?
– I agree to it. The honorable senator had better move in that direction.
– Then I move-
That the following words be added to the motion - “provided that the words ‘including accessories for the same ‘ be added to the paragraph.”
Amendment agreed to.
Motion, as amended, agreed to.
Item 170…..
Senate’s Request. - Leave out the word “ entirely “ ; make the item free.
House of Representatives’ Message. - Amendment made as regards omission of word. Amendment not made as regards alteration of duty.
. -I move -
That the request as to duty be not pressed.
This is another of the preference items.
– How much of this class of goods is made in England, and imported here?
– It is impossible to say, as these articles are included with a large number of others under the comprehensive heading of “ Manufactures of Metal.” There are a number of items of this character, and I invite the Committee once more, as they have established the principle of preference in regard to hundreds of items, not to recede from it in this case. It is fair and reasonable that a preference of 5 per cent. should be given to the United Kingdom.
– I shall take up the same attitude as on previous items, and vote for pressing our request. The so-called . preference on this item is a mere sham or bogus preference, because it is a matter of common knowledge that scarcely any - I believe I should be justified in saying none - of this ware is manufactured in England, and that it is practically all manufactured on the Continent of Europe. It is impossible to obtain official figures to verify that statement, because, as the Minister said, the imports are included under “ Manufactures of Metal.” But I have had to buy aluminium ware, and have never yet seen any ot it branded as having been made in England.
– If England had protection, it would be made there.
– Give England 5 per cent, protection now.
– What right have we to force protection on the people of England if they will not protect themselves?
– On the protectionist argument, this duty would cause them to manufacture aluminium ware in England.
– I shall be glad if the people of England do impose protective duties, but it is utter absurdity for us to talk about protecting the people of Great Britain if they will not protect themselves. I notice that on certain items some honorable senators who repudiate protection for Australian industries have been quite prepared to give this bogus protection to Great Britain. This duty on articles of everyday household use is essentially a revenue one. It cannot be said to be a preferential duty, because these articles are not made in the United Kingdom. If honorable senators take a common-sense view of the matter they will adhere to their former decision.
Motion negatived.
Request pressed.
And on and after 29th November, 1907 -
Item 175…..
Senate’s Request. - Make the item free.
House of Representatives’ Message. - Amendment not made.
– The same question as that involved in the last item we dealt with is involved in this case, and also in the requests affecting items 175 and 176. I regret the temper of the
Committee, but, of course, I must bow to it, and shall accept its decision on the voices. I move -
That the request as to duty be not pressed.
Motion negatived.
Request pressed.
And on and after 29th November, 1907 -
Item 176…..
Senate’s Request. - Leave out the words “ Side Plates and Balls for Ball Mills”; make the item free.
House of Representatives’ Message. - Made as regards omission of words; not made as regards alteration of duty.
Motion (by Senator Best) negatived -
That the request as to duty be not pressed.
Request pressed.
And on and after 29th November, 1907 -
Item 176…..
Senate’s Request. - Make the item free.
House of Representatives’ Message. - Amendment not made.
– I hope that my protectionist friends will recognise that a very important protectionist principle is involved in this case. The original proposal of the Government was that rockboring machines n.e.i. should be dutiable at 25 and 20 per cent. The Committee, in dealing with the matter previously, decided, under a misapprehension, to request the House of Representatives to admit these machines duty free. The misapprehension under which honorable senators laboured was that they believed these rock-boring machines applied to mining, and were of the same class of machinery as rotary and percussive rock drills. As a matter of fact, these machines have no special application to mining at all. I hope that honorable senators will realize that to make this item free would be to strike a serious blow at an Australian industry. I urge upon honorable senators who take a special interest in the mining industry that the House of Representatives has already accepted a request from the Senate to admit rotary and percussive rock-drills at a duty of 5 per cent, under the general Tariff, and free if imported from the United Kingdom. That is a very important concession to the mining industry. This item covers only a particular class of machinery, such as diamond drills and artesian-boring machines, and in the circumstances I move -
That the request be not pressed.
– Artesian plant is elsewhere subjected to a specific duty.
Senator Colonel NEILD (New South Wales) [6.3]. - The last sentence uttered by the Minister supplies the best possible reason for making the item free. Water is, perhaps, the one essential factor required for the development of Australia, and the Minister submits an extremely poor argument in support of duties of 25 and 20 per cent, on this item when he says that it covers only machinery required for artesian boring.
– We can find water with Australian machinery as well as . with imported machinery.
– I do not represent a factory in a back lane. I speak on behalf of Australia. If coal-cutting machinery should be admitted duty free, rock-drilling machinery required ‘ by the miner, and also by the man on the soil, should certainly be admitted free. This rock-boring machinery is required for mining development, and for the supply of water to dry country. I suppose that scarcely a year goes round in which, a large portion of the Commonwealth is not stricken for want of water. I claim that no embargo should’ be placed upon machinery necessary for the development of our great pastoral interior or our mineral wealth. The use of coal-cutting machines, which we have decided should be admitted free, might have some tendency to restrict the demand for labour, but the use of the machinery we are dealing with in this item would be likely to very largely increase the opportunities for employment. I hope that the Committee will stand firm on this item. Honorable senators do not represent localities, but the whole of the Commonwealth of Australia; and I sincerely hope that the Committee will insist upon making this item free.
– I have been rather surprised that the Minister should submit this motion, in view of the fact that when this item was previously before the Committee, no one -ventured to say a word in support of the imposition of duties proposed, and there was no call for a division on the request submitted.
– The honorable senator knows that it was because of the temper of the Committee. I knew the numbers were against me, . and the request was agreed to under a misapprehension.
– When Senator Neild moved to make the item free, no one appeared to be so strongly opposed to the request as to feel it to be his duty to call for a division. The Minister’s explanation is that the Committee decided, in dealing with a previous item, to request the House of Representatives to make coal-cutting machines free, and he accepted the decision in that case as an intimation that it would be useless to call for a division on the request made in connexion with this item. If that be so, it is the strongest possible argument that could be advanced against disturbing the Tariff as it now stands. The Committee decided to place machinery required for cutting coal, and machinery required for cutting rock in order to find water, on the same footing, and I hope they will not now disturb that arrangement.
Question put. The Committee divided.
AYES: 13
NOES: 11
Majority … … 2
AYES
NOES
Question so resolved in the affirmative.
Request not pressed.
And on and after 29th November, 1907 -
Item 177. Electrical Machines, Appliances, and parts thereof : -
Senate’s Request. - Leave out “ 500 “ and insert “10”; leave out “including.”
House of Representatives’ Message. - Amendment not made as regards alteration of figures, but made as regards omission of word.
– So far as Australian industries are concerned, this is a very important item. The Senate requested that the horse-power should be reduced from 500 to 10, in order to limit the protection to practically 10 horse-power dynamo electric machines, and, of course, if its request- were adopted, the larger ones would become free under a succeeding item. I appeal to my honorable friends in the corner to remember what has been done in the interests of the mining industry.
– To which corner does the Minister appeal?
– I remind my honorable friends from Western Australia in both corners that we have made the duties on percussive rock drills 5 per cent, and free. We have also treated high-speed reciprocating steam engines in a more liberal way than was asked for by them, by making the duties 5 per cent, and free.
– They only wanted the engines made free for use in mines, but we wanted ‘ them made free for somebody else.
– We have made these particular engines apply not only to generators, but also to pumps. In addition to that we have made the -duty on rotary blowers 5 per cent, and free. All that has been done specifically in the interests of the mining industry. Therefore, I hope that my honorable friends will not accuse the Parliament of having neglected its interests. If the protection were limited to machines of 10 horse-power as the Senate requested, it would place the local manufacturers in a most serious position. This class of machine is held in large stocks by the importers, because of its low value. The local manufacturer! has no reasonable hope of competing against the importations. On a previous occasion, some doubt did exist in the minds of my honorable friends as to whether dynamo-electric machines of 500 horse-; power were made here. As a matter ot fact, electrical motors are made in the Commonwealth, and have been supplied to well-known mines and institutions. The Mount Lyell mine lias been supplied with one 200 horse-power, one 90 horse-power, and two 50 horse-power motors; Jumbunna with one 120 kilowatts - a kilowatt is 1 1/3 horse-power ; Cock’s Pioneer, with one 300 kilowatts, and four 90 horse-power ; Walhalla, with one 200 horse-power, one 90 horse-power, and three . 45 horse-power ; Foy and Gibson, with one 75 kilowatts;, the Proprietary Mine with one 20 horsepower; and Block 10 Mine with one 45 horse-power, one 30 horse-power, and one 20 horse-power. These records of the output -of our own industry can easily be verified. The large mines and firms I have named would not purchase a locallymade electric motor unless it was effective. From time to time, one company has repeated its orders for the locally-made article. I know that my honorable friends from Western Australia are protectionists on principle, and are anxious to do justice to local manufacturers. I have furnished them with evidence which cannot be disputed, and I ask them to consider why our own men should suffer by the abolition of the duty, as requested by the Senate? I hope that they will see fit to support the item in its original form. I move -
That the request as to alteration of figures be not pressed.
– The Minister reiterated a number of alterations made in the Tariff, which he referred ro as concessions to the mining industry! “ These,” said he, “ are concessions that we have made.” I wish to point out that if they are concessions, the Government voted solidly against every one of them.
– Exactly ; and the Government said so. But I wanted to show what has been done in the Tariff.
– I shall take my honorable friend’s words just as he likes. He referred to these concessions as something which the mining industry would be glad to get, but he voted solidly against the granting of them.
– I told them so at the time.
– If the remission of a duty is an assistance and a concession to an industry using the article on which it is levied, obviously the imposition of a duty must be a handicap to it. In spite of what the Minister has said, I venture to say that he has not made out a case for asking the Committee to reverse its decision concerning this item. It is quite possible that some of these smaller machines may be made here. But one has to remember that, do what we will with the factories in the cities, the prosperity of Australia depends upon its great primary industries-
I ask honorable senators to remember that there would hardly be a shop in Melbourne to-day, hardly a factory in any of the big cities, if it were not that beyond them, away in the great outerland, the wealth is produced which gives employment to those who live within the cities. That being so, I ask the Committee certainly not to assent to the proposition, and if it is disposed to disturb the previous arrangement - and I hope that ‘ it will not - to recognise that there is a large field of compromise between 10 horse-power and 500 horse-power.
– The local manufacturers have made machines of over 200 horse-power, I think.
– Over 300 kilowatts.
– That, I believe, was the initial and only effort to make an engine of that sort. I 3b not desire to open up debate or to decry local manufacturers. Not merely have we a big mining enterprise spreading itself throughout Australia, but that enterprise is confronted to-day with a tremendous slump in values. I suppose that during, last year the value of minerals has dropped by from 30 to 50 per cent. As a result of that fall, even in my own State, some well-established and well-equipped mines at Broken Hill have practically ceased to operate. Therefore we ought tn go slowly in framing this Tariff.
– Those mines are buying the locally-made article.
– Those established mines have been forced to close down, and neither the locally-made article nor the imported one is of any good to a mine when it is not able to make a profit. If established mines have to cease operations, it requires no argument to show that, as regards new ventures, every additional pound of expenditure must have a deterrent influence upon those who are invited to invest their capital in that way. For that reason I trust that the Committee will at once reject the proposal of the Minister and adhere to its original decision in favour of the ten horse-power standard.
– I listened very attentively to the eloquent appeal of the Minister to the representatives of Western Australia. One <;ould almost imagine that they would be capable of either making or unmaking the whole of the operations of this Tariff.
– As regards this item, certainly.
– We ‘took up an attitude which we considered absolutely right in the interests of a large body of working-men - a body who number five or six times .more than do the men engaged in the manufacture of this machinery. I intend to adopt the same attitude on this occasion partly for reasons advanced by Senator Millen. Any one who knows anything about mining must recognise that throughout the Commonwealth the industry is down below its normal condition. It is indeed in a very precarious state. It is practically struggling for existence. A large percentage of the mining in Australia to-day is dependent upon the treatment of low-grade ores. I venture to say that if we do anything that will render impossible operations in mines that are working upon low-grade ores we shall do a very serious injury. There are very few high-grade mines in Australia now, and every one of these few is in a position/ to purchase engines which are to be made duty free. It has been decided that 500 horsepower engines shall be free. The Great Boulder in Western Australia, the Great Cobar mine in New South Wales, and the Ivanhoe mine all have motors upon their properties of a higher power than those for which free admission is provided in this Tariff. But their competitors are handicapped by having to pay duties.
– There is no great principle in the difference between five hundred and ten.
– Ten horsepower engines are made in this country, and are bought by pretty well every mine that uses such engines.
Sitting suspended from 6.30 to 7.45 -p.m.
– The mining industry of Australia is far from being in the condition of paying those high dividends that were the rule a few years ago. Nowadays it takes the greatest economy and the exercise of the soundest wisdom to keep the industry moving. It would be most unwise to do anything to hamper the treatment of low-grade ores. In the low-grade mines in Australia there are twenty miners at work for every one employed in the highgrade and easily payable mines. If we consider on the one hand the interests of those who are engaged iri manufacturing machinery, and on the other the large number employed in the mining industry, it must be admitted that those engaged in the manufacture of machinery have had a very fair deal in the construction of this Tariff. We can now afford to give some considera- tion to the mining industry. I agree that there is a great deal of difference between 500 horse-power, the limit proposed by the House of Representatives, and 10 horsepower, as requested by the Senate. I am not prepared to say that I will not support a slight increase beyond 10 horse-power. But if there is to be a question! between 500 horse-power and 10, I shall vote for the 10.
– Would the honorable member vote for 200 horse-power?
– That is altogether out of the question. There are not in Australia to-day more than five or six motors - if so many - exceeding 100 horsepower.
– I gave a list.
– If we came to inquire into the facts, it would probably be found that by far the greater number manufactured in this country do not exceed 10 or 15 horse-power at the outside.
– Senator Henderson has rendered very good service in drawing attention to the somewhat strained condition in which the mining industry is being conducted at the present time. I do not think that there are any large mines in Australia that are being worked with big profits. On the other hand. it is obvious to all of us who know anything about the industry that there are many mines that are being worked with a minimum of profit. There are some in which even a minimum cannot be obtained. It is as well to point out that certain articles are included in this item that are subject to duties of 20 per cent. Such for instance are static transformers, induction coils for all purposes, and electric fans. I am not sufficiently acquainted with mining to enable Trie to. say to what extent those machines are used in mines, but at all events they are connected with mining. No attempt has been made to remove them from the 20 per cent. list. For my own part, I should prefer to remove even 10 horsepower engines from the operation of. the duty. I do not see why the whole of the mining industry of Australia should be bailed up and made to stand and deliver to a certain favoured section of machinery manufacturers.
– If we were to withdraw even 10 horse-power engines from the item, we should make all engines dutiable, from one horse-power upwards.
– I would not make the alteration in that way. I do not propose to interfere with the 10 horse-power engines, although I would rather make all these engines duty free than otherwise.
– The honorable senator would like to make everything duty free.
– I would sink the Customs Houses at the bottom of the sea to-morrow if I could, undoubtedly.
– Then the honorable senator’s argument has no special application to this item.
– It has, inasmuch as the mining industry is important to all Australia ; and, as Senator Henderson has clearly shown,, the number of people interested in mining is legion as compared with the few who are interested in the production of engines. This Chamber cannot, and dare not, in the interests of that limited number, insult the great mining industry of Australia bv laying upon it such heavy duties as the Minister proposes.
– I wish to point out the’ inequality that exists in the Tariff even from the start. There is’ a proposal in the next item that all machines over the capacity of 500 horse-power should bear a duty of 12 J per cent. That is a clear and distinct advantage to companies which employ larger machines as against struggling companies which machines of smaller capacity would suit. The main question, however, is the effect which the passing of the duties as sent from another place would have upon the prospects of mining throughout the Commonwealth. I believe it would have a most injurious effect. In the newer mining centres one cannot fail to notice the increasing degree to which electricity is applied in every department of mining. We should ask ourselves very seriously whether in our present stage of development electrical machines can be produced in Australia at a price which will keep the mining industry going, even at its present rate of development. Mr. Crocker, a gentleman whom I know very well, stated in evidence before the Tariff Commission, that a machine made in Melbourne would cost over £70, as against ,£27 for which he could land a machine of the same capacity made abroad. That is the statement of a man who knows his business from A to Z. It may be thought that I am inconsistent in opposing the higher duty, “ but I am really endeavouring to provide more employment than has been given in the past. The imposition of a 20 per cent, duty will mean wiping out of existence some of those struggling mining propositions that are now, as Senator Pulsford said, travelling on a very narrow margin. In Western Australia a. number of mines, some employing 400 to 500 men, have not paid a cent in dividends for the last seven or eight years. Their managers are at their wits end for some means of cutting down expenses, and keeping them afloat. To increase the duty would simply be to give a direct instruction to those managers to close the mines down for a long time. Even with a 20 per cent, duty it will take year’s to start the industry of manufacturing these machines on a basis that will meet the needs of those mines in the same way as they can be met by machinery from abroad.It may take possibly fifteen or twenty years, but certainly the industry cannot be established in Australia on that scale inside ten years. I am not satisfied to throw the mining industry of Australia into a stagnant condition in the meantime. I agree with Senator Henderson that an alteration.,’ but a very small one, might be made in the capacity as stated in the item. At all the mines at present employing electricity on a large scale, there are a number of motors, ranging in capacity from 40 to 70 or 80 horse-power, scattered about the surface. They are of the common type used in mines, and I presume are similar to those referred to by Mr. Crocker. A difference of,£43 in the price of a 70 horse-power motor is altogether out of the question. In the interests of the mining industry, which is the parent of many others., we have every warrant for pressing our request. Mining in almost every State is not in the same flourishing condition as it was . in earlier days. Probably only in Western Australia does the possibility still exist of finding new and rich fields, so that the prospects of the industry are practically entirely confined to working low-grade propositions that under past conditions were found unpayable. To increase the duty will be to add a further burden to mining, and place another obstacle in the way of working those low-grade propositions. I ask the Committee to press the request in the interests of those seeking employment. Although we might agree to raise the capacity very slightly, we shall be well advised, on this occasion at any rate, in adhering to our decision to give cheap electrical power to the mining industry of Australia.
– I may fairly twit Senator Lynch with inconsistency. -His remarks regarding the ‘mining industry might well have been applied . to other industries regarding which he used entirely different arguments. If it is true, as he urged on those occasions, that duties lower prices, he should be a most strenuous supporter of those now proposed by the Government. I recognise only too well the position of Australian mining, and I am pleased that Senator Lynch and Senator Henderson, who have a practical knowledge of that occupation, have gone so thoroughly into the question. The industry is now in a very acute position. Every detail of expenditure will have to be scrutinized most closely if many of the mines are to be kept open. We know what the results will be if they are closed down. Not only have minerals’ fallen in price, in many cases to half their original value, but in South America and other parts of the world they are being produced at a cost from 25 to 30 per cent, below’ the cost of mining in Australia. We. as practical men, must consider the serious effect of any increase of expenditure, not only on the continuation of existing mines, but on the prospect of developing new. ones. We ought, in a question of this magnitude, to rise superior to any fiscal question, and deal with it from a practical business stand-point, having regard, not only to the interests of shareholders, but much more to the interests of those employed in mines. It will be nothing short of a calamity if we do not seek to insure in every possible way the continuance of the mining industry, which is so essential to the prosperity of Australia.
Question - That the request (item 177, paragraph a, “ Electrical Machines “) be not pressed - put. The Committee divided.
AYES: 9
NOES: 15
Majority … … 6
AYES
NOES
Question so resolved in the negative.
Request pressed.
Item 177. Electrical Machines,&c -
Senate’s Request. - Leave out “500” insert “ 10 “ ; make the paragraph free.
House ‘of Representatives’ Message. - Amendment not made.
– In view of the result of the division just takenI shall accept the decision of the Committee on the voices, but I formally move -
That the request be not pressed.
Motion negatived.
Request pressed.
Item 177. Electrical Machines, &c. -
Senate’s Request. - Leave out “ Switch Boards” and insert “Switchboards”; make the paragraph free.
House of Representatives’ Message. - Amendment made as regards alteration of wording ; not made as regards alteration of duty.
Motion (by Senator Best) proposed -
That the request as to duty be not pressed.
– Paragraph c of this item, when received by the Senate, carried a duty of 20per cent.,, but the Committee, following up a series of requests made in connexion with previous items of practically the same character, decided, by a fairly substantial majority, on the motion of Senator Lynch, to request the House of Representatives to admit these article’s free of duty. I hope that the Committee will not only. refuse to reverse its previous decision, but will keep the item in sympathy with those with which we have just dealt.
Motion negatived.
Request pressed.
Item 177. Electrical Machines, &c. -
Senate’s Request. - Make the paragraph free. House of Representatives’ Message. - Amendment not made.
Motion (by Senator Best) negatived -
That the request be not pressed.
Request pressed.
Item 177. Electrical Machines, “&c. -
Senate’s Request. - Leave out the paragraph.
House of Representatives’ Message. - Amendment not made’.
Motion (by Senator Best) proposed -
That the request be not pressed.
– When dealing with this matter previously, we decided to request the House of Representatives to leave out the item. I find that our request has not been accepted in another place.
– Because honorable members in another place declined to accept a previous request made on the motion of the honorable senator with respect to the horse power of dynamo electric machines. The striking out of this paragraph was conse- quential upon that decision.
– I wish to be sure that paragraph g of item 177 will be left out.
– It will; if the Senate’s request with respect to the horse-power of dynamo electric machines is ultimately agreed to.
Motion negatived.
Request pressed.
And on and after 29th November, 1907 -
Item 17S. Electrical and Gas Appliances, viz. : -
Senate’s Request. - Make the duty ad val. (General Tariff) 25 per cent. ; (United Kingdom) 20 per cent.
House of Representatives’ Message. - Amendment not made.
– The Committee, in dealing with this item when it was last under consideration, decided to request the House of Representatives to make the duties 25 and 20 per cent., because it was recognised that the real work consisted in the assembling of parts here. What the Committee sought to achieve was that the local industry, which employs a great number of men, should be maintained. If completed gas meters were admitted at duty of 5 per cent. under the general Tariff, and free if imported from the United Kingdom, the local industry for the assembling of gas meter parts would be extinguished. I move -
That the request as to duty be not pressed provided the paragraph is amended to read as follows : - “ Gas Meter parts not fitted together or joined in any way.”
If that course were adopted, whilst the parts would be admitted free, completed gas meters would be liable to duties of 25 and 20 per cent. under item 162,paragraph b. If the Senate’s request is submitted in the form which I have suggested, it is likely that another place will see its way to accept it, and so maintain the local industry for the assembling of gas meter parts.
– I do not feel inclined to support the motion. I recognise that compromise is necessary in the framing of a Tariff, but [ think the Vice-President of the Executive Council in this matter proposes to go too far. When the item was previously before the Committee, I submitted a requestfor an increase of the duty under the general Tariff from 5 per cent. to 25 per cent., and for the imposition of a duty of 20 per cent. on imports from the United Kingdom, which it was proposed should be admitted free. I remind honorable senators that the object was to remove a very glaring anomaly in connexion with gas meters. Under item 170 water meters were dutiable at25 and 20per cent., while under item 172 brassware and gunmetal were dutiable at 30 and 25 per cent. I claim that gas meters are in exactly the same category as water meters, brassware, and gunmetal. There can be no separation or differentiation. If it ispossible to make water meters in Australia, it is also possible to makegas meters. As a matter of fact, we are doing so, and the Minister now admits that he has proof to that effect. On a former occasion, it was stated that gas meters were not being made here. I replied that in at least two States they were being made, and to-night I have additional proof, and it is that a firm in South Melbourne has recently accepted a very extensive order. It is now proposed to admit the parts free, and’ to levy a duty on the complete article. I may be wrong, but I think that if adopted it would defeat the object we have in view. If any honorable senator can satisfy me that there is no anomaly in allowing the differential duties to remain on water meters, brassware, and gunmetal, I am prepared to give way.
– A good many think with the honorable senator, but it is not possible just now to get what we want.
– There is nothing like making an attempt, as we have decided to do in connexion with other items.
– It has been made.
– I believe that it would be wise to press our request for duties of 25 and 20 per cent.
– I should like to know whether meters for registering the supply ofelectricity are not admitted free?
– That is so.
– When an electric lighting company comes into competition with a gas lighting company, is not the latter handicapped when its meters are taxed ?
– We propose to allow all parts of meters to come in free.
– That will not remove the anomaly in any way.I think that our duty is to put these commercial companies on the same footing. Otherwise, we shall be legislating in favour of the electric lighting companies, by admitting their meters duty free.
– If my capacity for astonishment had not been exhausted much earlier, I should certainly have taken the liberty of being astonished at Senator Best asking the Committee to reverse it’s previous decision, seeing that in the first instance the Government proposed a duty of 5 per cent. and free-
– No; duties of 25 and 20 per cent.
– This item was brought into the Senate with duties of 5 per cent. and free.
– That is another thing altogether.
– Exactly. When an attempt was made here to raise the duty from 5 to 25 per cent., Senator Best joined with a few righteous men on this side to defeat the motion.
– Is that a fair statement to make ? The honorable senator knows very well the circumstances under which I was bound.
– So far as any compacts were concerned, they were destroyed as frequently as one liked or did not like, and it is rather remarkable that the Minister should ,now turn round and remind us of a compact by which, apparently, he is willing to be bound on some occasions and not on others. According to Hansard, when Senator Needham proposed to multiply the duty by five times, Senator Best joined with those who sat on this side to try to defeat it. By twelve votes to eleven the Minister was defeated.
– Exactly, because of the compact I have referred to.
– Where is that compact now ?
– It has been broken away from elsewhere; that is all.
– My honorable friend did not wait until the item got elsewhere to break the compact. It was smashed to smithereens here. There is the fact that he did vote against the imposition of this high duty. Not only did lie do that, but he abstained from offering any of those forceful arguments which, somehow or other, he has managed to furbish up for this occasion.’ If his present proposal is carried, into what item will gas meters fall ?
– Item 162b at duties of 20 and 25 per cent.
-I am glad to receive that assurance, because it occurred to me that as there are so many of these n.e.i. items, they might fall under heavier, duties. I intend to register another vote in the same direction as I did before, and I only regret that on this occasion I shall not have associated with me the Vice-President of the Executive Council.
.- I hope that Senator Needham will not vote in the direction which he indicated. I feel just as strongly as he does on this item. I know that this is an established industry, and that if it received the protection which we sought to secure by our request, it would become a much more substantial one than it is. Unless we are prepared to modify our request the probability is that the industry, small as it is just now, wil! be very seriously affected. If gas metersare permitted to come in at 5 per cent, and free, it will have a very disastrous effect upon the workmen of every State.
– Yes; in Sydney alone 700 men are employed in one place on thisassembling work.
– In Victoria thereare factories where meters are being madeIn addition to- that, a number of men are; employed by the Metropolitan Gas Company on no other work than the assembling of imported parts of meters. If we permit the parts to come in free, and place a duty on the complete meter, the workers will be much better circumstanced than would be the case if we pressed our request, because the probability is that the one would meet with the same fate as did the other. I well remember that the Government gave as a reason for voting against Senator Needham ‘s motion that a compact had been arrived at in another place in respect of these duties. Probably it was arrived at because it had been pointed out that electric meters were subject to a lower scale of duty than gas meters. Senator Best stood by the compact, but the motion was carried against the Government.
– The Treasurer accepted it under wrong information which was conveyed to him.
– I hope that no protectionist will vote in opposition to the modified request submitted by the Minister, because to allow gas meters to come in at 5 per cent, and free would throw . a largenumber of men out of employment in every State. I have received a petition from meru engaged in the industry in Victoria, and* letters from the Secretary of the New South Wales Amalgamated Tinsmiths, Sheet and Iron Workers and Meter Makers, urging the members of the Labour Party to do all that they possibly can to get the duty as originally carried here agreed to. But, knowing that it is almost impossible to get our request carried elsewhere, I am prepared to accept that’ which is the next best thing. To place a duty on the completed meter, and to allow the parts to come in free, will not displace many, if any men, because the assembling gives employment to a considerable number of men. The slot meter industry will not, I think, be handicapped by this modified request: I hope that Senator Needham, in the interest of those who are particularly affected, will not vote in that direction, considering that his vote may be the means of defeating the modified request.
– Three courses have been suggested to the Committee, and I intend to move an amendment in. order that those who prefer either of those courses may have an opportunity of giving a clear vote. The alternatives before us are : to insist upon our request, which is what Senator Needham wants; to defeat the motion that our request be not persisted in, as I wish ; and to make the parts free, leaving the complete article dutiable, as Senator Best proposes. To enable every honorable senator to give a clear vote in accordance with his views, I move -
That all the words after the word “pressed” be left out.
The effect of carrying my amendment will be that the proposition before the Chair will read, “ That the request be not pressed.” That proposition would then become a substantive motion. Senator Needham, who wishes to press the request, could vote for the proposition that would be made if my amendment were adopted.
Question - That the words proposed to be left out be left out (Senator Millen’s amendment) - put. The Committee divided.
AYES: 11
NOES: 13
Majority … … 2
AYES
NOES
Question so resolved in the negative.
Amendment negatived.
Motion agreed to.
Item 178. Electrical and Gas Appliances, viz. : - ….
Senate’s Request. - Insert new paragraph (bb) Telephones, Telephone Switchboards and Appliances, free.
House of Representatives’ Message. - Amendment not made.
Motion (by Senator Best) proposed -
That the request be not pressed.
– I draw attention to the fact that private telephones are used to an immense extent throughout the pastoral districts. Only the other day Iwas reading a statement in a newspaper . published in Central Queensland, which gave a list of a great number of private telephones used on the sheep stations in that part of the country. I should say that the wire used in connexion with these private telephones must run to thousands of miles. -While the Government get their telephones and appliances in free, it is unlikely that they will be manufactured locally. I see no reason why appliances which are so absolutely necessary in places where industries are spread over vast areas should be taxed. This is a revenue duty pure and simple.
Senator Colonel NEILD (New South Wales) [8.49].- In another place, when a proposition similar to that before us was under consideration, a certain Ministry issued a printed document in which they showed that they intended to agree to a certain request. But when the matter had been properly manipulated they dropped their original proposition, and moved for a duty. I hope that nothing of that kind has occurred in this instance. But I believe that it has occurred, and I very much regret it. I believe that the particular- “ not made” entry in the schedule before us was the result of such a. trick as I have indicated - a dastardly trick.
– The honorable senator must not apply such a term to another place. I ask him to withdraw it.
– I withdraw the term, and will say - an abominable trick.
– Order! The honorable senator must not say that what was clone was a “ trick.”
– I will alter the phrase in accordance with your wish, sir, and say that what I complain about was a despicable proceeding.
– That remark is not in order either.
– Surely I may use my mother tongue in describing a nefarious proceeding?
– That is not a term which should be used concerning another branch of -the Legislature.
– I will content myself with observing that the rules of Parliament forbid my expressing myself in the English language in such a fashion as properly to describe the proceeding in question. This is purely a revenue duty. It is an odd thing for a man who all through his political life has held other, political opinions to be arguing in favour of the reduction of a duty because it is not protective, but it only shows the horrible environment in’ which one may find himself. I put it to honorable senators who are believers in protection, that there is no protection in a duty on telephones. The instruments are all the subjects of patents, and cannot be made in the Commonwealth. To agree to the Minister’s proposition simply means burdening industries with a perfectly useless impost.
Motion negatived.
Request pressed.
Item 180. Rails, Fish-plates, Fish-bolts, Tie Plates and Rods-, Switches, Points, Crossings and Intersections for Railways and Tramways, ad val. (General Tariff), 12^ per cent., and on and after 30th November, 1907, 15 per cent. ; (United Kingdom), 12^ per cent., and on and after 30th November, 1907, 10 per cent.
Senate’s Request. - After the word “ Intersections’” insert the words “also Steel Sleepers.”
House of Representatives’ Message. - Amendment not made.
– In this case it will be remembered that the Senate inserted the words “also steel sleepers.” Another place has not made the amendment requested.’ The reason is that it was found, and we have definite information to the effect, that the proprietors of the Lithgow iron works have erected a plant for the manufacture of steel sleepers. In view of the large expenditure incurred in that connexion, I move -
That the request be not pressed.
The effect of carrying my motion will be to make steel sleepers liable to duties of 25 and 20 per cent, under item 170A.
Senator CHATAWAY (Queensland) [8-55J- - I suggested this amendment when the item was before the Committee previously, and the Vice-President of the
Executive Council at once intimated that he proposed to move it. He did move it, but now he says that the Government have heard that steel sleepers are about to be made at Lithgow. When a division was taken with regard to the duty on rails, it was pointed out that they also were going to be made at Lithgow. If so, why take steel sleepers, which are practically part of the same industry, out of this item, and put them into another item at double the duty? Even assuming that every statement made with regard to the manufacture of rails and steel sleepers at Lithgow is correct, there is no reason why we should treat steel sleepers differently from steel rails. The Minister has not shown any essential difference between the two. If he can explain the difference, I am perfectly open to conviction ; but it was agreed to include steel sleepers in this item, because it was recognised that they had been left out by ah oversight on the part of the Government. That mistake was rectified without a division. Unless the Government can show why the two things should be separated, I shall vote for pressing the request.
– There is a . difference between steel sleepers and steel rails. The New South Wales Government gives enormous contracts to the Lithgow ironworks for rails. The generous aid of the State Government in that direction may be regarded to some extent as a bounty to the industry ; but the Government use wooden sleepers with those rails. If they used steel sleepers, there would be no reason for the distinction, but as wooden sleepers are used, there is but a limited market for steel sleepers.
– They are used in thousands of miles of tramway in Queensland..
– My colleague in another place went fully into the matter, and it was felt necessary to give the additional protection now proposed, in view of the preparations which the Lithgow works had made, and which; we were not fully aware of at the time, for the manufacture of steel sleepers.
– I am in favour of the higher duty on steel sleepers. As one of the representatives of Queensland, a State largely interested in the supply of steel sleepers, I consider that an increase of that duty is best even from the Queensland point of view. A duty to be of any use to an infant industry must be effective. Otherwise, it is merely a revenue duty. As Senator Chataway pointed out, steel sleepers are used to an enormous extent in the sugar’ industry. Those engaged in that industry in Queensland have received a fairly generous measure of protection from this Parliament, and should not grudge an equally generous measure of protection to other industries.
– I did not mention the sugar industry.
– Every new industry that we establish in the Commonwealth means the creation of an additional market for Queensland sugar, and now that we are within measurable distance of producing sufficient sugar to meet the demands of Australia, it is in the interests of the sugar industry to encourage every new industry which will give employment to labour, and lead to an increase of population, so extending the purchasing power of the people, and enabling them to buy more sugar. Even from, the point of view of the sugargrowers of Queensland, who are by far the largest users of steel sleepers; in the Commonwealth, it is wise to impose an effective, and not a mere revenue duty on those articles.
– Why not apply that to rails?
– If I had my way, I would put an effective duty on rails also. The Vice-President of the Executive Council gave a very good reason for the distinction, because the New South Wales Government are largely assisting the iron industry in that State by giving contracts for rails, but cannot give contracts for steel sleepers, as they do not use them. If the manufacture of steel sleepers is to be carried on successfully side by side with the manufacture of steel rails, it will be .necessary for this Parliament to give increased protection on sleepers.- The sugar-growers of Queensland may have to approach this Parliament in the future with a request for increased protection, and they will make a poor show if it is proved that they sought to have all the things that they use subjected to low duties, while demanding high duties on their own products. If the increased duty is imposed, the users of steel sleepers may for a little while have to pay an increased price for them, but when the industry is established, they will probably get them at a cheaper rate than is possible at present.
– -According to the proposal of the Vice-President of the Executive Council, steel rails are to be dutiable at 15 per cent., while steel sleepers will be taxed at 25 per cent. How can that extraordinary anomaly be justified ? Senator Givens has stated that the sugar industry will be principally affected by the duty on steel sleepers, but the railway from Normanton to Croydon could not have been built without them. In the Northern Territory they are used for the railway from Palmerston to Pine Creek. Owing to the climate or the white ants, or both, wooden sleepers cannot be used in those parts. A large portion of North Queensland will have to be developed by the use of steel sleepers. They will be needed for the opening up of our mineral resources in and around the Gulf, which are now beginning to be developed. They are just as essential to the opening up of Northern Queensland and of the Northern Territory as are steel rails in other parts ot Australia. Why, then, do the Government make this extraordinarily anomalous distinction ? It is another illustration of the fact that honorable senators opposite . look at matters from the provincial view-point of Victoria or South Australia, and are not sufficiently conversant with the difficulties and actual requirements of a large portion of tropical and sub-tropical Australia. If a duty of 15 per cent, on steel rails is suk.cient to satisfy the Lithgow industry, the inference is irresistible that 15 per cent, is a quite sufficient duty on steel sleepers, which are necessary for the development not only of the sugar, but of the mining industry of Queensland and the Northern Territory. I do not think that this proposal would have been presented to the Committee if honorable senators opposite thoroughly understood the difficulties in the way of the development of . Northern Queensland and the Northern Territory.
– As this item is again before the Committee, I wish to take advantage of the opportunity to move that the whole of the articles included in it - rails, fish-plates, fish-bolts, tie plates and rods, switches, point’s, crossings, and intersections, and steel sleepers for railways and tramways - be admitted free of duty. Senator Givens just now suggested the importance of looking after some particular industry. I suggest that it is desirable that we should look after the whole of the industries of the Commonwealth, and there is not one that is not more or less interested in the cheap construction of railways.
– That is why we require the duties.
-I therefore suggest that we should take the only true and proper course to obtain cheap railway material, and that is to abolish the duties altogether. From the North of Queensland to the South of Tasmania, and from New South Wales to Western Australia, the railways already constructed are great, and those yet to be built will be still greater. It is very desirable that we should be able to construct our railways at as low a cost as’ possible. I find from the Customs returns that duty to the extent of £40,000 or £50,000 was paid in the year 1906 on imports of these steel goods. No member of the Committee can fail to recognise that the admission of all the articles included in this item duty free would tend to cheapen the construction of railways, nor can any honorable senator contradict my statement that cheap railways are desirable in the interests of every industry carried on in. the Commonwealth. I do not care whether it be the mining, pastoral, manufacturing, dairying or farming industry, all will be benefited by the cheap construction of railways.
– Hear, hear. That is why we require these duties.
– I am not to be played with by Senator Trenwith’s nonsense. The honorable senator told us yesterday that a duty on fodder would make fodder cheap. We have had duties on fodder, and at the same time fodder has been dear. The honorable senator’s Tariff deductions have been upset year after year, but with that robust faith in absurdity which is such a marked trait in the honorable senator’s character, he still repeats the old story, and asks honorable senators to believe it, though we all have sense enough to know that the bottom has been knocked out of his argument repeatedly. I submit my request in all earnestness, and in the belief that it is in the interests of the Commonwealth that it should be agreed to. I therefore move -
That the House of Representatives be requested to make the item free.
– It is not competent for the honorable senator at this stage to move such a request. The motion before the Committee is, “ That the request be not pressed.” It would be competent for the honorable senator to move that the words “not pressed” be left out with a view to inserting the words ‘ ‘ modified by making a new sub-item b - steel sleepers, free.”
– I wish to make the whole of the articles included in the item duty free.
– The honorable senator will see that the Senate made no request for an alteration of the duties. We merely asked that the words, “ also steel sleepers ‘ ‘ should be inserted in the item. The duties have been agreed to by both Houses. The House of Representatives has refused to insert the words which the Senate requested should be inserted, and the Committee can now deal with that refusal by pressing the request for the insertion of the words, or by modifying the request by asking the House . of Representatives to insert the words in another form, or to impose a higher or a lower duty on steel sleepers.
– I submitted my motion, because I was under the impression that you, sir, had this afternoon accepted a motion from Senator Givens, which was precisely on all-fours with the request which I desire should be made.
– The honorable senator is referring to a case in which the Senate requested the House of Representatives to alter the duties on the whole item. Senator Givens’ proposal was as to a different duty. In that case, our request affected the duty; in this case it does not. affect the duty.
– If that be so, I suppose I cannot go any further with my proposal, and I can only express my deep regret that I have not been able to afford the Committee an opportunity to make a very desirable improvement in the Tariff.
Senator Colonel NEILD (New South Wales) [9.20]. - A good deal has been said about the necessity for steel sleepers in Queensland. There is another part of Australia which has not been mentioned, but which is fairly large. I know that I did not see very much of it in the course of three weeks. I think it is known as Western Australia. If any member of the Committee will go there, and look about him, as I did, he will discover that even in connexion with the 18-inch or 2 -feet gauge tramways connectingjetties, many of which ar-i over a mile in length, with the neighbouring ports, steel sleepers are used because of the ravages of the white ant in that State. I mention Western Australia because I think that State has been somewhat overlooked in this discussion. Steel sleepers are required there quite, as much as in Queensland, and are used there as largely.
– I fail to understand why the Government should propose that duties of 25 and 20 per cent, should be imposed on steel sleepers. The climatic conditions of the northern parts of Queensland and the Northern Territory render the use of these steel sleepers necessary.
– They are ,not found to be necessary in the Northern Territory.
– The honorable senator would know that they are if he went there. Owing to the ravages of white ants it is found necessary in some parts of the Commonwealth to renew wooden sleepers almost every month. In referring to the tramways used in connexion with the sugar industry, Senator Givens omitted to mention that two duties must be collected on railway material imported for that industry. The sleepers and rails are imported joined together, and, as a consequence, the Customs authorities would have to collect two different duties on the one article.
– The Croydon line is not built in that way.
– I am not referring to the Croydon line, but to tramways used on sugar plantations. There must be at least 1,000 miles of these portable tramways in use in Northern Queensland. We should deal with this question from the point of view of the interests of the Commonwealth as a whole. I know that inVictoria and Tasmania wooden sleepers will last for years, whereas in North Queensland - and no one knows the fact better than does Senator Givens - wooden sleepers cannot be protected from the ravages of white ants. This greatly increases the cost of maintenance of railways laid on wooden sleepers in that part of the Commonwealth. The Queensland Government are extending railway construction in that portion of the State, and if honorable senators insist upon imposing twice as high a duty on steel sleepers as on. steel rails it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the object is to penalize a particular part of the Commonwealth. I do not see why we should penalize the other States simply to suit an industry in New South Wales. There are thousands of people making a living in the . primary industries in Queensland who will be penalized bv the imposition of this duty. All through the consideration- of this Tariff it has. teen a case of grab on the part of a State which has been chiefly interested inan item ; it has been a game of grab all round, and in every instance the far distant States have been left out in the cold. . We were not sent here to foster an industry in any State at the expense of the State that we were returned to represent. I do not think that that is our duty. 1 was sent here to see that the State which returned Senator Givens got a fair deal.
– It got a fair deal before the honorable senator ever came here.
– I do not think that it did ; nor do I believe that the honorable senator is assisting to see that it gets a fair deal on this occasion. His vote on this item will not help to foster its primary industries. If he wants to increase these duties from 15 and 10 to 25 and 20 per cent., and to penalize the people who are engaged in the primary” industries, how will it assist the State?
– What about bananas?
– I am not at all surprised at a senator representing Victoria trying to prevent the expression of such sentiments. We all know that he is merely a geographical protectionist. To-night hepleaded pathetically with honorable senators to cast their votes as he desired, because he had some information from certain people in Victoria.
– That is not correct, because it is an industry which concerns alt Australia.
– Getting back to the question of steel rails and steel sleepers, I know that the representatives of Victoria will always try to block other States from getting fair justice in the framing of thisTariff.
– Is the honorable senator in order, sir, in accusing the representatives of Victoria of doing all they can to block justice from being meted out to other States?
– That is merely an expression of opinion.
– lt is a manifestly unfair one.
– That is my belief, and I am not afraid to express it either here or outside. We have seen the demeanour of the representatives of Victoria in relation to the Tariff.
– There has not been an item proposed for Queensland that we did not vote for.
-I am sorry if I’have prickedSenator Findley so deeply, but it cannot be helped when he interjects as he does. The Government Whip has made a statement which, if he repeats it, will compel me to insult him on the floor of the Chamber.
– There has never been an item proposed for Queensland that we have; not voted for.
– The honorable senator has been called a phonograph here.
– Order !
– I object to these disorderly interjections, sir.
– If the honorable senator will address the Chair, I will see that no interjections are made, since he objects to them.
– I cannot understand how honorable senators can support the imposition of a duty on steel sleepers, because it is a tax on a primary industry. It will seriously affect one of the largest primaryindustries that we have in Queensland, and one which we all hope will grow. At the present time hundreds of men are out of “work, and if the sugar industry is blocked, it will prevent those men from getting employment as the mining industry is failing to a large extent. There is a number of men who have made a small sum in mining, and’ who are investing it in sugar land. Although those men are trying to open up the country, yet it is deliberately proposed to increase the duties on steel sleepers from 15 and 10 to 25 and 20 per cent. The only argument held out is that as the Governments of various countries are able to use wooden sleepers, we must impose a duty in order to assist the Lithgow iron -works to make steel sleepers. I cannot see why honorable senators on the other side should vote to penalize a great industry. If the proposition affected their own States, they would not listen to it for a moment. I hold that belief very strongly, because throughout the consideration of the Tariff, the desire has been to bolster up the industries of one or. two States. I have no hope of inducing the Committee to adhere to its request. I understand that the numbers are already up, and that the Government will carry their point.
.- I cannot allow the remarks of Senator Sayers to pass without making some reply. He has, in effect, charged the representatives of Victoria with having no desire to do other than impose heavy burdens upon the community, when to do that would be unjust to certain States. I interjected that that statement was incorrect.
– Does the honorable senator really think that it is?
– Senator Sayers said he believed that we had. been guilty of the conduct which he had alleged against us. I challenge him or any other honorable senator to go through the pages of Hansard and point to any vote or speech in my name - and I shall make the statement on behalf of my honorable colleagues - that will prove his statement that we have done anything but what was in the best interests of the Commonwealth from the protectionist stand-point. If there is any section of the Senate which has been geographical so far as protection is concerned, it is that which represents Queensland, and which, of course, does not include any members of the Labour Party.
– Have we not heard about industries languishing in Melbourne ?
– Order ! The honorable senator has answered the statement of Senator Sayers, and I ask him to come to the item now. before the Chair. I stopped Senator Sayers from proceeding any further in that direction.
– I should not have risen at all if it had not been for the remarks of Senator Sayers, which I consider were quite uncalled for, and which, if allowed to go without challenge, would probably lead some readers of Hansard to believe that we were narrow-visioned and parochial in our Federal views. The item now under discussion is of no special advantage to Victoria from a protectionist point of view. But we believe that it affects an industry which ought to be encouraged.
– Since when has the honorable senator believed that steel sleepers ought to be made dutiable at a higher rate?
– Since the information was conveyed to the Senate that in New South Wales there is an industry carried on for the manufacture of steel sleepers.
– The representatives of Victoria were told that six months ago.
– We were not fortified with that information when the duty was placed on steel rails.
– Where is the information ?
– The information comes from a representative of the Government in another place. That the industry is in existence is proved to me by the fact that the other House has suggested that this duty ought to be imposed. It is no more protectionist than is the Senate. I feel sure that it has at heart the interests of Australia as much as has Senator Sayers. In the circumstances, I intend to vote for a protective duty being levied on steel sleepers ; not because this item is of any special significance to Victoria, but because it affects an Australian industry.
– I should not have risen again but for the remarks of Senator Sayers, which were, to a certain extent, pointed against myself.
– I only replied to one interjection.
– I, perhaps, will point a remark or two while the honorable senator is interjecting. I do not think that any one need be either astonished or amazed at his attitude on this question, because it is only in accord with” his freetrade convictions and attitude generally. He pointed out that he is in favour of the same duty being levied on steel sleepers as on steel rails. Senator Best pointed out a very good reason why a higher duty ought to be put on steel sleepers. It is a reason which appeals to me, at any rate, and I cannot understand how any honorable senator can favour a duty which is merely a revenue duty, and will not encourage the establishment of the industry. Every one knows that, no matter how extensive the use of steel sleepers may be, there is only a sufficient quantity used to keep one decently-equipped factory going to supply the demand. If we allow foreign sleepers to be dumped in Australia, any local factory will be wiped out of existence, because there will not be enough work to keep it employed. If we intend to have a duty, by all means let us have an effective one. and that is one of the reasons why I shall vote for a higher duty. With regard to its effect on a primary industry in Queensland - one which I and other representatives Of the State sitting on this side are as deeply interested in as is Senator Sayers, and which, with all respect to him, we have done quite as much to foster and help, because if he had had his way it would have been a black-labour industry to-day, and would not have received a farthing of protection-
– That is untrue, and the honorable gentleman knows that it is.
– Order. Senator Givens is not in order in discussing the sugar industry so far as the black-labour aspect is concerned.
– I shall let it go at that, sir. The fact is that the people engaged in the sugar industry have received a fairly reasonable amount of protection. There was not a single Labour man or protectionist in this Parliament who did not freely vote that protection to it. But what has been the attitude of Senator Sayers since he came here? He has voted freetrade for every other State and the highest possible protection for any industry in Queensland. Yet he has the effrontery to come here and charge the representatives of other States with being engaged in a game of grab. As a matter of fact, even on scientific glassware, because there was one firm engaged in the industry in Brisbane, he voted the highest protection.
– Order. I ask the honorable senator not to bring other items into the discussion. .
– I applaud the honorable senator’s attitude’ in that respect. I want him to adopt the same broad attitude towards every other State. We are sent here to legislate, not for one State, but for all Australia. While looking afterarid safeguarding the interests of our own State, our primary view should be to protect and foster every industry throughout the Commonwealth. That is the surest method by which Ave can advance the interests of the State we represent. The more industries we create, and the more employment we give, the more people there will be in Australia to consume our sugar. As we are almost within measurable distance of having overtaken the consumption, it behoves us to look round and to see that’ we do everything possible to increase profitable employment, so that Australia may carry a much larger population, and be in a position to consume a larger quantity of sugar.
– I ask the honorable senator to connect his remarks with the item of steel sleepers.
– My argument, sir, is that by establishing this industry and fostering it by means of protection, we shall do good to another industry which it is alleged will be injured by the imposition of a higher duty. Again, I would appeal to those honorable senators who have” been asking for effective protection for their own States to be just to the industries of every other State. In that way they will obtain the good will of every State, and insure that a game of grab will not be played.
Senator TRENWITH (Victoria) [9.40I. - As a Victorian I have never felt myself to be limited to looking after the interests of that State. I was elected to legislatefor Australia. That spirit has actuated every vote that I have given, and will control my vote on this occasion.. I believe that the duty which we are now discussing will lead to the development of an important industry. Although the steel industry happens to be located in New South Wales, it will benefit people in the remotest parts of the Commonwealth. When ‘Senator Pulsford made a remark to the effect that we ought to make railway build:ng cheap, I cheered him. America has had a duty on steel rails and other forms of steel production for very many years. Since the duties were imposed the American people have obtained steel products made in America cheaper than was the case before the duties were imposed.
– American steel rails are sold more cheaply outside the United States than inside.
– But they are cheaper in the United States than they were before the duty was imposed. In 1890, there was a discussion between two of the greatest exponents of the respective sides in fiscal matters, namely, the late William Ewart Gladstone and the late Senator Blaine. Their articles are contained in the North American Revieu/ of 8th January, 1890. I propose to quote an extract from Mr. Blaine’s statement on this point. He wrote -
John Edgar Thompson, late President of the Pennsylvania Railroad Company, purchased 100 tons of steel rails in 1862 at a price (freight paid to New York ; duty of 45 per cent., unpaid) of $103.44 gold coin. (By way of illustrating Mr. Gladstone’s claim to superior quality of manufactures under free-trade, the railroad company states that many of the rails broke during the first winters trial.) In 1864 English rails had fallen to $88 per ton in New York, the freight paid and the duty unpaid. English manufacturers held the market for the ensuing six years, though the sales at the high prices were limited.
In 1870 Congress levied a specific duty of $28 per ton on steel rails. From that time the Home market has been held by our own manufacturers, with a steady annual fall in price, as the facilities of production increased, until the past summer and autumn, when steel rails were selling in Pittsburg, Chicago, and London ft substantially the same prices.
Will any person contend that the “United States could have obtained steel rails at the price at which they were obtainable in London, if there had not been a duty ?
– Yes.
– My honorable friend would say “ yes “ to anything.
– It is not often that I say “ yes “ to anything that Senator Trenwith says.
– I have read this extract to show that while the Americans were obtaining steel rails from abroad, and while they had no duty in their own country, they paid high prices. But the imposition of a duty led to the production of steel rails locally, gave employment to their own people, and brought about low prices. That is why I cheered Senator Pulsford when he said that we want to make railway building cheap. I agree with him. Nothing is so important to the people of this or any other country as that their means of interchange should be many and easily accessible. Especially is that the case in this country where we have no great rivers. To make railways cheap, the appurtenances should be obtainable as cheaply as possible. The way to get them cheaply is to secure that they shall be made locally. I contend that the effect of this duty will be to promote local production, and a reduction in price. We cannot be blocked when we want to build a railway because of war in any part of the world. We can make at Lithgow, or elsewhere, steel sleepers and rails cheaper than they can be obtained from abroad, although they may be made elsewhere by ill-paid labour. All experience teaches us that. We are not thinking oi” Victoria or New South Wales, but of Australia, when we determine that the greatest possible facilities for making steel rails arid steel sleepers shall be afforded in our own country.
– -I ask the indulgence of the Committee for a moment or two while I refer to a statement that has been made by Senator Givens. He said in the course of h;s speech that I was in favour of black labour.
– I said that the honorable senator’s party was.
– Senator Givens inferred that I was an advocate of black “labour, and I am certain that honorable senators understood his remarks in that sense. I wish to say that before Senator Givens had anything to do with the labour question in Queensland, I had. declared myself to be opposed to black labour. That was before the name of Tom Givens was even known in Queensland. With this plain denial, I leave the matter to the people of Queensland, who know both of us. They will be able to say whether Senator Givens’ statement or mine is correct.
Question - That the request be not pressed (item 180. “ Steel Sleepers”) - put. The Committee divided.
AYES: 15
NOES: 9
Majority … 6
AYES
NOES
Question so resolved in the affirmative.
Request not pressed.
Item 205. Locks, including Knobs, Keys, Escutcheons, and Transom Catches, ad val. (General Tariff), 5 per cent. ; (United Kingdom), free.
Senate’s Request. - Leave out the words “Locks, including”; insert “(a)” before the word” Knobs “;’ insert after the word “Escutcheons” the word “window”; add the following new paragraph : - “ (b) Locks, ad val. (General Tariff), 20 per cent. ; (United Kingdom), 15 per cent. 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 ; but until the issue of such proclamation - Locks, free.”
House of Representatives’ Message. - Amendmade, with modification leaving out all the words from “ To come “ down to “ free.”
– In this, case, . the House of Representativeshave made the duty on locks 20 and 15 per cent., but they have adopted a modification omitting the proviso requested by the Senate in reference to bringing theduty into operation on the issue of a proclamation. I move -
That the modification be agreed to.
– The message of the House of Representatives contains a very serious departure from the decision arrived at by the Seriate. We inserted a duty on locks, contingent on its being accompanied by the declaration that the duty should be inoperative until both Houses of Parliament, by a joint address, had affirmed that the time had arrived to make lockmaking a protected industry. The other House have accepted the higher duties, but have struck out. the words postponing its operation. But if these words be struck out we “ought to go back to the Tariff as it stood before our request was made’, when the duty was 5 per cent, under the general Tariff, and locks from the United Kingdom were free. Otherwise, the assent of the Senate will have been obtained to this proposal under politically false pretences.
– Another place are at liberty to. qualify any of . our requests as they like.
– Undoubtedly, but honorable senators were led to approve, of the higher duties solely by the consideration that there was attached to the request a notification that it was to be inoperative until-
– The honorable senator has still power to ask the Committee to insist on that.
– I wish to remind honorable senators of the circumstances. I propose to submit an amendment, the effect of which will be “to enable another place either to accept our original request or revert to the duties as they stood when the Tariff was first sent to us. I move -
That the motion - be amended by adding the words, “provided the duties on paragraph b be made ad val. (General Tariff) 5 per cent., and (United Kingdom) free.”
That will give another place the choice of the higher duties plus the proclamation, or the lower duties without the proclamation. Although some excellent samples of locks were shown here, they were of a limited range. They did not represent one per cent, of the kind of locks used in Australia. They were padlocks of a very high class of workmanship, but not the locks that everyhouseholder requires at : some time or other. Senator Mulcahy himself frankly stated that although he spoke on behalf of the Tasmanian lock-maker, he did not venture to ask for the immediate imposition of a duty. All he asked was the assurance that if the industry gave some promise of developing into the great busi ness of lock-making, Parliament would extend protection to it.I ask the Committee to hesitate before it penalizes almost every individual in the community for an industry which it was admitted at the time had not shown any great development, and was not likely to develop for some time to come in certain branches.
– Because it has not been protected.
– According to Senator Findley this afternoon, no sane protectionist would go looking round to levy heavy duties on a hundred and one things which are not being made here, unless there was a reasonable prospect of their being made. In other words, he would not indulge in a mere fishing expedition for high duties.
– The honorable senator says, “ Let the industry develop without protection, and then we can protect it afterwards.”
– The . honorable senator himself has been very consistent in voting for proposals of that kind. The alternative is to place a high duty upon the thousand and one varieties of locks used in Australia., merely because one man in Tasmania happens to be making- one or two special kinds. Our previous request was absolutely fair to every one. It held the balance evenly between all those who use locks and the one man who felt inclined to enter into the industry It gave him an assurance that as soon as he could start the industry, Parliament would give him protection, but that, in the meantime, Parliament declined to tax every householder and every builder and contractor in the community on the offchance that the industry might be developed.
Question - That the words proposed to be added be added (Senator Millen’s amendment) - put. The Committee divided.
AYES: 11
NOES: 13
Majority …2
AYES
NOES
Question so resolved in the negative.
Amendment negatived.
Motion agreed to.
Item 217. Standards, Steel Fencing of all lengths and Pillars, Wedgers, patent, for Droppers and Standards, ad val. (General Tariff), 5 per cent. ; (United Kingdom), free.
Senate’s Request. - Leave out the words “ Steel Fencing of all lengths and Pillars,” and insert in lieu thereof the words “ and Pillars, Steel Fencing of all lengths.” Make the duties ad val. (General Tariff) 17½ per Cent., (United Kingdom) 12½ per cent.
House of Representatives’ Message. - Amendment not . made as regards wording, but wording modified -to read as follows: - “Standards and Pillars of all lengths for fencing; patent Wedgers for Droppers and Standards.” Amendment not made as regards alteration of duties.
– The leader of the Opposition took some exception to the wording of this item, and I promised to consider it. The words’ now adopted by another place are perhaps clearer. I move -
That the modification as to wording be agreed to.
Motion agreed to.
– Our request for the increase of the duties has not been acceded to. Both Houses have already committed themselves to duties of. 17½ and12½ per cent, on item 200, which provides for “ droppers, patent steel of all lengths,” and which is part and parcel of the same industry. By some means, these items became separated, and on the last occasion, I invited the Committee to bring the duties on the two into line. That was done. This industry is essentially an Australian industry. Standards and droppers are not only to a large extent an invention patented in Australia, but a large number of the machines which turn them out at the rate of about. 100 per minute are also Australian inventions, and made in Australia. I move -
That the request as to dutiesbe pressed.
– The Minister has. sought to obtain support for his motion because the duties on a previous item covering droppers are17½ and 12½ per cent. He argues that therefore the duties on standards and pillars ought to be the same. Honorable senators must not run away with . the idea that droppers and standards are the same thing.
– They are within the same industry.
– That may be true, if the honorable senator means that they are used by the same industry or by the same people. But they are quite distinct. Many droppers are used in connexion with wooden fences, subdividing the various panels. A standard or pillar is quite different. It takes the place of the post, and is inserted in the ground. It is a much heavier, more substantial, and more costly article. Many eloquent arguments were addressed to the Committee by Senator Lynch and others when it was proposed to put a duty on something which touched the great primary industry of ‘ mining. Here is a duty which touches the equally, and I venture to say more, important primary industries of farming and grazing.. In every State, with the exception, perhaps, of Tasmania, there are areas of country in which the use of wooden standards is out of the question ; and where it is necessary, ‘as the land is opened up and settled, to use iron standards instead of the ordinary wooden posts.
– An iron standard is a very simple thing to make.
– And cannot be destroyed by fire.
-They are also extremely expensive, and it is only in case of necessity that they are used. No one will use them who can obtain wooden posts. The effect of the proposal would be to increase the handicap of settlers whose natural surroundings, owing to the absence of timber, are such that they are unable to obtain wooden posts.
– Oh, no.
– I suppose that the honorable senator is going to affirm that the imposition of a duty will reduce the price of iron standards?
– Yes ; it will make them much cheaper; just as the duty will make steel rails cheaper.
– I did not vote for a duty on steel rails with any idea that it would make them cheaper.
– Then the honorable senator voted in order to make them dearer ?
– Certainly. I appeal to honorable senators who have consistently voted for the reduction of dutieson mining appliances, in the belief that the duties would increase their price, to extend the same consideration to the small farmer or settler, or it may be the big one, who is doing his best to utilize the waste lands of Australia, and is entitled to every possible encouragement. . This consideration will be extended if there is any sincerity at all in the cry of those who ask for close settlement.
Question- That the request as to dutiesbe pressed - put. The Committee divided.
AYES: 14
NOES: 10
Majority … …. 4
AYES
NOES
Question so resolved in the affirmative.
Request pressed.
Item 222. Steel and Steel-rimmed Wheels of over 18 inches diameter in the tread, for trucks and waggons, and all steel parts for such wheels. On and after 30th November, 1907, ad val. (General Tariff), 5 per cent. ; (United Kingdom), free.
Senate’s Request. - Leave out “ 18 “ and insert “30.”
House of Representatives’ Message. - Amend not made, but the following modification made : - The following added to the item : -
And on and after 6th May, 1908 - 222 (a) Steel Wheels, n.e.i., of over 30 inches diameter in the tread, for trucks and waggons, and all steel parts for such wheels, ad val. (General Tariff), 5 per cent. ; (United Kingdom), free.”
.- Honorable senators will recollect that when this item was dealt with previously there was some doubt as to the particular class of wheel that was made here. I promised that before the item was again considered in the House of Representatives further inquiry would be made. We requested an amendment increasing the size of steel and steel-rimmed wheels from 18 to 30 inches diameter in the tread. The result of the inquiry is embodied in the modification of our request made in another place, and that modification ‘ was unanimously approved of there. The item covers steel and steel-rimmed wheels, and the House of Representatives, in dealing with the Senate’s request, did not accept it in the form suggested, but have suggested that it should be put in this form -
And on and after 6th May, 1908 - 222 (a) Steel Wheels, n.e.i., of over 30 inches diameter in the tread, for trucks and waggons, and all steel parts for such wheels, ad val. (General Tariff), 5 per cent. ; (United Kingdom) free.
We discovered that steel wheels 30 inches diameter in the tread, and under, are made in the Commonwealth, and they will be protected under paragraph g of item 380 by duties of 35 and 30 per cent. Then we come to steel-rimmed wheels, and in connexion with them another place submits this modification-
This indicates that so far as steel-rimmed wheels are concerned, we make them under 18 inches diameter in the tread. I have said that these modifications were approved on all sides in another place, and I therefore move - -
That the request be not pressed, and that the modification be agreed to.
– I move -
That the following words be added to the motion : - “ Provided that each paragraph be made free.”
The House of Representatives has submitted amodification imposing a duty of 5 per cent. under the general Tariff, and admitting imports from the United Kingdom free. We have already argued the matter at length, and it will not be denied that what is proposed is purely a revenue duty.
– I hope that Senator Givens will not press his amendment, because ifwe allow the item to go with the modification proposed by the House of Representatives we shall accomplish all that we desired when we dealt with the matter previously. Our endeavour was to make steel and steel rimmed wheels up to 30 inches diameter in the tread bear a fairly protective duty, because we knew that they were being made in the Commonwealth. We accomplished that desire. When our request was dealt with in another place, our action was confirmed by making wheels over 30 inches diameter in the tread,which it was ascertained are not made in Australia, dutiable at 5 per cent. under the general Tariff, and free if imported from fhe United Kingdom. A further modification was made in connexion with steel rimmed wheels. If Senator Givens’ amendment is carried, the whole thing will again be left open, and when the request is returned to the House of Representatives honorable members might be in a different temper, and as a result we mightlose the protection we have secured on wheels up to 30 inches diameter in the tread. Evens the most bitter opponents of any preference ought, I think, be satisfied with what has been done. I hope that the honorable senator will withdraw his amendment.
Amendment negatived.
.- Would it not be possible to provide for a uniform diameter in the tread in the case of steel wheels and steel rimmed wheels?
– The form of the modification submitted has been very carefully considered after full inquiry, and it was unanimously accepted elsewhere as effective to carry out exactly what is desired.
– What I fear is that under the modification submitted by the House of Representatives 30-inch steel wheels may be imported as 1 8-inch steelrimmed wheels.
– I assure the honorable senator that he need not be afraid of that.
– It is sometimes found very difficult to decide these matters.
– They are made in a different way.
Motion agreed to.
Progress reported.
page 10962
– I move -
That the Senate at its rising adjourn until Wednesday, 20th May, at 2.30 p.m.
We are hopeful that by that date the balance of our requests will have been dealt with by the other House, and that it will be in a position to forward to us a message to that effect. If it has not completed that work by the 19th May, certain honorable senators have been good enough to give me an assurance that they will attend here on the 20th May for the purpose of making a ‘ quorum and enabling the Senate to adjourn for another week. It, however, the other House has finished its consideration of our requests by the 19th May, honorable senators will be expected to assemble here on the following day, and to proceed with business. On the previous Friday they will be able to judge as to what amount of work remains to be done in another place, and to come to a fair conclusion as to the probability of its being completed on the Tuesday.
– The Government will be best able to form an idea on that point.
– Why not send to honorable senators a notification as to the position ?
– So far as I can assist honorable senators in that direction, I shall try to do so. If the work is not finished ori the Tuesday but is nearing completion, then, at the most, it would probably mean an adjournment of the Senate for one day. On the Friday or Saturday, honorable senators will be. able to form a very good idea as to whether the work will be completed on the Tuesday. If it is completed bv that time, on the following day we shall receive a message with regard to the balance of our requests, and honorable senators will be asked to proceed with the consideration of the message at once. I shall be only too pleased to attend to the telegrams of any honorable senators who may be in distant places, and to give them the best advice I can on the Friday or the Saturday.
– Does the honorable senator propose that the Senate shall not meet unless the. business in the other Chamber has positively been completed?
– On the Saturday, honorable senators will be in a fair position to judge as to the probability of the work being completed on Tuesday, the 19th May.
– But we might go on as we have done.
– If it is nearly completed on that day, at the most, it’ would mean an adjournment of the Senate for one day.
– We might go on passing messages.
– I wish to put a point to the Minister in order to set at rest the minds of honorable senators who might not receive the information in time to be able to attend here on Wednesday, the 20th May. If the work were not completed on the Tuesday, but was likely to be completed on the Wednesday, and we could go on with business on the Thursday-
– That is what I have mentioned.
– The honorable senator has mentioned that ; but if on the Wednesday there was work to go on with and any substantial number of honorable senators had not received information in time to attend on that day, they might have an opportunity of being here on the following day. I suggest to the Minister that he should not ask the Senate to deal with business seriously until those honorable senators have had a chance of coming here on the Thursday.
– We would have to consider that on the Wednesday.
Senator Colonel NEILD (New South Wales) [10.32]. - I suggest to the Minister that, even if another place had not quite completed its work, it would have completed a sufficiency of items to send us another batch, and that we need not waste the Wednesday if we are here. Surely there would be enough business to go on with on that day. I did not like what has been done; but, as the example has been set, we might as well continue the mischief until the end.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Senate adjourned at 10.33p.m.
Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 7 May 1908, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1908/19080507_senate_3_46/>.