View PDF View XML View in Voyant

Senate
23 August 1921

8^th Parliament · 1^st Session

QUESTION
- LEAGUE OF NATIONS CONFERENCE
PAPERS
QUESTION
- BRIGADIER-GENERAL ELLIOTT
QUESTION
- END OF WAR PROCLAMATION’S
SELF-GOVERNMENT FOR IRELAND
CUSTOMS TARIFF BILL

The President (Senator the Hon. T. Givens) took the chair at 3 p.m, and read prayers..

page 11151

QUESTION

LEAGUE OF NATIONS CONFERENCE

Representation of Australia:

Appointment of Mr. M. L. Shepherd

Senator KEATING:
TASMANIA

– I recently put to the Minister representing the Prime Minister two questions relating to Australia’s representation at the forthcoming Con-‘ ference of the League of Nations; and I understand that, since our last meeting, an intimation on the subject has been made to the press. Will the Minister state whether it is correct, as reported in the press, that Mr. M. L. Shepherd has been appointed to represent Australia; and whether he has any information regarding the appointment other than that already given by him to the press?

Senator E D MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

– The information which the honorable senator refers to as being in the press is correct. The Government are advised by the Prime Minister (Mr. Hughes) that Mr. Shepherd has been appointed to represent Australia at the forthcoming meeting of the League of Nations.

Senator GARDINER:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I have some questions relating to the same subject, of which I had intended to give notice. They are as follow : - 1.Has Mr. M. L. Shepherd been appointed to represent Australia as sole Commonwealth delegate at Geneva?

Were there not any office boysor messengers in the High Commissioner’s Office who could have been spared to fill this important position ?
Does the Government consider its action in making this appointment fair to either Australia or the League of Nations ?

Senator LYNCH:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– Regarding the same matter, I wish to ask the Leader of the Senate whether the Government considers it has paid any compliment to the League of Nations, or its members, in appointing Mr. Shepherd - a civil servant, with no parliamentary experience or status - as its representative. Is it fair to this Parliament, the elect of the people, that such an appointment should be made? Conceding that it was necessary to go outside this Parliament in making such an appointment, does not the Government think that it could have made a better selection from, say, the Judiciary of the several States, the leading ranks of the Naval or Military Forces, or the Universities of the several States?

Senator E D MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

– So many questions are contained in the remarks made by Senator Lynch that it would not be possible, offhand, to reply specifically to any of them. I may, however, inform the Senate that the Government, when the question of the appointment was first brought forward for consideration, communicated with the Prime Minister (Mr. Hughes) asking him to consider the possibility of obtaining a suitable representative in London. The time was short, and, as honorable senators know, the distance is long. I have no information as to the reasons which induced the Prime Minister to appoint Mr. Shepherd or as to what inquiries he made in other directions. I am aware only of the mere fact conveyed in his cablegram to the Government that he has appointed Mr. Shepherd. If further information can be obtained in the course of the next day or two, I shall gladly make it available to the Senate.

page 11152

PAPERS

The following papers were presented : -

Defence Act. - Regulations - Statutory Rules 1921, No. 154.

Public Service Act. - Appointments -

Department of Health. - G. Anderson.

Department of Works and Railways. - A. 1. Oakes, H. B. Sturtevant.

War Service Homes Act.- Land acquired-

New South Wales - Albury, East Maitland, Lid combe, Waverley.

Victoria - Bendigo.

page 11152

QUESTION

BRIGADIER-GENERAL ELLIOTT

Divisional Command

Senator PEARCE:
Minister for Defence · Western AustraliaMinister for Defence · NAT

– On the last day of sitting, I promised the Senate that I would make further inquiries in regard to the alleged offer of a Divisional Command to Senator Elliott. I now have certain information, and ask leave to submit it to the Senate.

Leave granted.

Senator PEARCE:

– Following upon the statement that I made in the Senate on Friday last, I gave instructions that an urgent telegram should be sent to General Brand by the Adjutant-General. In accordance with those instructions, the message I will now read was despatched : -

General Brand, Victoria Barracks,Paddington, Sydney.

A3715. Confidential. Elliott stated in Senate last night he received letter from you containing, as far as he can recollect, the following : - (Begins) “ As one of the senior officers of the Australian Imperial Force, your claims to appointment as a Divisional Commander cannot be overlooked. Will you please inform me whether, in the event of your being recommended to the Minister, you would be prepared to carry out the duties.” (ends). The Minister desires to know whether any such communication was sent by you either officially or unofficially; and, if so, by what authority you acted, and whether you did so with the knowledge of any member of the Military Board, and if you communicated Elliott’s reply, if any, to Any member of the Military Board. Elliott also states he ac- tually returned the letter above referred to to you in accordance with regulation 827 with his minute thereon. State if this correct. Minister desires you reply to each above questions by urgent telegram.

Sellheim. 19th August, 1921

The following reply was received by urgent telegram: -

Adjutant-General, Victoria Barracks, Melbourne,

Onediv 10. Your A3715. May have said, “ As one of the senior officers of Australian Imperial Force, your claims to appointment as a Divisional Commander cannot be overlooked.” Certainly did not make any reference to Minister. “Communicated with Elliott without knowledge of Board. Did not communicate Elliott’s reply either verbally or in writing to any member of Board or any one else. His reply, as far as 1 can recollect, was not as a minute, but as a separate letter addressed me, “ Dear General Brand.”

Brand. 19th August, 1921

On that reply beinghanded me, I gave instructions that a further telegram, as follows, should be sent to General Brand : -

W3738. The Minister considers that your reply of 19th instant does not answer Elliott’s main statement, which, excluding reference to the Minister, reads as already quoted in my A3715: - (Begins), “Will you please inform me whether, in the event of your being recommended, you would be prepared to carry out the duties.” (Ends). Did you use these or similar words upon which this construction could be placed? Minister requires definite answer by urgent telegram to-day.

Sellheim. 22nd August, 1921

The following reply, sent from Newcastle, New South Wales, and dated 22nd August, 1921, was received by the AdjutantGeneral : -

Your W3738. Did not use those or similar words.

Brand

I submit that it is clear from these telegrams that General Brand made no offer such as is alleged by Senator Elliott.

Senator PEARCE:
NAT

– I can give no more information than appears in the telegrams. I put to General Brand a specific question, quoting the words used by Senator Elliott in this chamber. In reply to that question, General Brand has given an unequivocal denial to the honorable senator’s statement. There, so far as I am concerned, the matter rests.

page 11153

QUESTION

END OF WAR PROCLAMATION’S

Senator GARDINER:

asked the Leader of the Government in the Senate, upon notice -

Has the Government issued proclamations officially ending the war with all the countries with which we were recently fighting?
If not, why not; and “will the Minister give the names of the countries with which peace has not yet been officially declared?

Senator E D MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

– Action is being taken to proclaim midnight on the 31st August, 1921, as the time of termination of the present war between the Commonwealth and all countries other than the Ottoman Empire, with which the British Empire continues to be at war until ratification of the Treaty of Peace is exchanged or deposited.

page 11153

SELF-GOVERNMENT FOR IRELAND

Notice of motion (by Senator Lynch, vide page 10759), read and discharged.

page 11153

CUSTOMS TARIFF BILL

In Committee (Consideration resumed from 19th August, vide page 11151) :

Schedule - divisionvi. -metalsandmachinery.

Item 161-

Agricultural, horticultural and viticultural machinery and implements, n.e.i., including cane loaders, cane unloaders, and cane harvesters, channel-making graders, garden and field spraying machines, garden and field rollers, garden hose reels, garden syringes, horse road rollers and machines, lawn mowers, sweepers and sprinklers, road scoops and scrapers, scoops, stump extractors, fibre scutching machines, milking machines, potato raisers or diggers, potato sorters, root cutters, pulpers and graters, straw stackers, and subsurface packers, ad val., British. 22 per cent.; intermediate, 30 per cent. ; general, 35 per cent.

On which Senator Wilson had moved -

That the House of Representatives be requested to make the duty, intermediate, 25 per cent.

Senator PEARCE:
Western AustraliaMinister for Defence · NAT

– Undoubtedly, other things being equal. If the British coal-miner were on an equality with the Australian coal-miner in the matter of production, then the wage element in the manufacturing industry would be important; but I have shown that in the older countries of the world the coal seams are deeper and thinner, and consequently it is impossible for the coal-miner there to produce coal so cheaply as in Australia. Therefore, there is nothing whatever in the argument . adduced by Senator Senior and Senator Pratten.

Senator SENIOR:
South Australia

– I quoted from the Melbourne Argus of 1st August a statement made in the British House of Commons by the Secretary to the Ministry for Foodstuffs, who was making a comparison between Great Britain and Germany in the production of steel. The cost of the material was given.

Senator de Largie:

– It was not complete without the price of coal at the pit’s mouth.

Senator SENIOR:

– That has nothing to do with the question. But in reference to the price of coal in Great Britain, let me quote the following from the British Trade Review, as cabled and published in the Argus of 22nd August, 1921 -

The reduction in the cost of bunker coal from about 41s. to’ 26s. for Tyne coal, and to 30s. for South Wales coal has caused a weakening in wheat freights.

These figures show a reduction even on the price I previously quoted. Austraiian coal cannot be bought at anything like British prices to-day.

Senator de Largie:

– What is the price of Australian coal at the pit’s mouth?

The CHAIRMAN (Senator Bakhap:

– I must ask honorable senators to connect this discussion on the price of coal with the item under consideration.

Senator SENIOR:

– The price of coal has a direct bearing on the price of steel, and the cost of producing steel has relation to the price of agricultural machinery. In answer to Senator de Largie’s argument that coal is cheaper in Australia as compared with Great Britain, I want to show that it is really higher here than it is in Great Britain to-day.

Senator THOMAS:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– What is the cost of production in America?

Senator SENIOR:

– The -honorable senator’s interjection brings me to a point that I wished to avoid, because it might be thought that the figures which I shall quote are used by me as against a certain class in the community. The. following cablegram appeared in the Argus on the 22nd August, 1921:-

The United States Steel Corporation has announced that a further reduction of wages for day labour in the steel industry will become effective from 29th August. The reason stated for the reduction is the prevailing low selling price of steel as compared with the cost of production.

The following table shows the increase in wages paid in the agricultural implement making industry in Australia from early last year until the middle of the present year : -

The average increase is thus about 29 per cent. My purpose is to show how the different factors in the making of an agricultural implement have increased in cost.

Senator de Largie:

– You have merely shown an increase in the cost of wages.

Senator SENIOR:

– The cost of coal ia another factor.

Senator de Largie:

– Once more, what is the price of coal in Australia ?

Senator SENIOR:

– The honorable senator can turn up the figures for himself. He has dug up a lot of ancient history. I invite him to come down to something modern. The value of labour in each £100 worth of implements purchased is at least £36. The increase of 29 per cent, on £36 amounts to £10 10s., so that this 29 per cent, increase in the cost of wages from March of last year means that an article for which £100 would be paid in 1920 could not be purchased now at under £110 10s. The effect of a decrease in the protection given to this industry would be to throw all the trade in agricultural implements to those countries where wages are falling, and this state of affairs would be used as a fulcrum on which the lever for a reduction of wages in Australia would rest. It would mean throwing men out of employment here or depreciating their wages. I give my support to the higher duty in the schedule because the giving of employment to our own people at decent rates of wages would be of general benefit to the Commonwealth, and because the adoption of any other policy would mean employing labour in other lands and compelling our own people to go without work. We would be obliged to pay, not only for the foreign raw material used in making the imported article, but also for all the foreign labour utilized in the making of it, from the mining of the ore to the final painting of the article and making it ready for loading on the railway waggon. I support this duty, not in order to make the article more costly to the person who has to use it, but so that it may be made less costly to him. In any case, I hold that if we do not keep our own market, we shall be advancing the prosperity of manufacturers of other countries, and practically seeking our own doom. I pointed out to Senator Lynch that the basis of his argument had shifted, and Senator de Largie replied by digging into ancient history and talking of what happened before the war, as if the same conditions obtained to-day.

Senator Lynch:

– You are quoting from the British Trade Review. Senator de Largie quoted from the Commonivealth Tear-Booh.

Senator SENIOR:

– He quoted from the CommonwealthYear-Book figures as to 1908. Would he quote from the same authority the price of clothing, and say that he could buy the same article to-day at the price quoted in thatYear-Book Would he say that the pair of boots for which he paid 10s. 6d. in 1908 would not cost him at least £1 to-day?

Senator THOMAS:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– Is that the outcome of Protection?

Senator SENIOR:

– No ; it is the outcome of neither Protection norFree Trade,, but is due entirely to the fact that the world’s conditions have considerably altered. At any rate, it is almost an insult to the intelligence of the Senate for Senator de Largie to quote figures of 1908 against those which relate to present-day conditions.

Senator THOMAS:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– Those who are supporting the higher duty ought to give us some reason for the necessity for it. The Minister (Senator Pearce) has demonstrated that America is sending to Australia . a great deal more of this machinery than is Great Britain, France, or Canada. I take it that in America wages are higher than in Belgium, England, France, and, possibly, even in Canada; yet the big imports are from the country which pays the highest wages. It has been demonstrated here that iron and coal are as cheap in Australia as in either America or England.

Senator de Largie:

– Coal is much cheaper here than in the Old Country.

Senator THOMAS:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– At any rate, there is no question as to that in the case of America. As I say, wages are higher in America than they are here.

Senator PRATTEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– On whose authority?

Senator THOMAS:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– Can the honorable senator give figures to the contrary?

Senator PRATTEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– I am asking you to prove what you say.

Senator THOMAS:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– I have no figures; but it is generally understood that in the industries affected wages are higher in America than here. At any rate, it is obvious that wages are higher here than they are in England.

Senator PRATTEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– Granted.

Senator THOMAS:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– If the honorable senator says that wages are not higher in America than here I shall, of course, accept his statement, or, on the other hand, I am quite prepared to take it that, after many years of Protection, wages are no higher in America than they are in Australia after a few years of Protection.

Senator de Largie:

– I would not say that coal is cheaper in Australia than in the United States of America.

Senator GUTHRIE:
VICTORIA · NAT; UAP from 1931

– America has the cheapest coal in the world.

Senator THOMAS:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– According to Mr. Charlton who represents Hunter in another place, Australia holds its own very well in the matter of coal. I may be heterodox, but I have always held that we ought not to be afraid of cheap labour so much as of highly-skilled and highlypaid labour. It is the labour of men who are well paid, and have time to read and think, that causes the keenest competition.

Senator PRATTEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– “Would you not alao include ‘organized labour?

Senator THOMAS:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– I should certainly say that organization plays a great part in production; and I suppose that in a highly-skilled nation like America the organization of labour is much better than, say, in Japan, though on that point I do not speak with authority. It has been said that the United States of America is about the most highly organized country in the world.

Senator Elliott:

– The volume of output has something to do with the matter.

Senator THOMAS:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– Of course, but we are faced with the fact that the duty in the general column is exactly the same against the highly-paid and highly-skilled labour of America and Canada as against Japan, Belgium, China, or any other country. The United States of America is our greatest competitor, sending more of these particular commodities to Australia than does all the rest of the world. Senator Pratten readily admits that wages are higher in the United States of America than they are. in Great Britain, and yet there is a lower duty as against the Old Country. It may be said that this preference is given as a matter of sentiment, but if the question be regarded strictly from the Protectionist point of view, sentiment cannot be considered. An Australian worker is perfectly justified in saying that if he has to be thrown out of work by foreign competition, it makes very little difference to him whether the competition be that of Englishmen or Americans. Of course, an Australian might naturally say that if he must be thrown out of work he would rather be thrown out by an Englishman; but he does not wish to be thrown out of work by anybody. Duties have been raised, and wages and other costs have gone up in Australia; but that is occurring in other countries also. Senator Senior has told us that wages are dropping in other countries; but he has not shown us how the wages there compare with the wages here. We ought to know what wages are being paid in industries that are not being protected. It is on the agricultural labourer, with the farmer, that, after all, the burden falls; the labourer has to pay his quota towards the cost of the machinery he uses in growing wheat or any other primary product.

Senator Elliott:

– What does the agricultural labourer buy?

Senator THOMAS:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– The agricultural labourer helps the farmer to produce wheat, and the cost of the implements affects him in his wages, for a farmer cannot afford to pay some of the higher rates of wages of which we have been told today. I am not at all in favour of lowering wages; but it seems to be most unfair that a man, just because he is employed in an unprotected industry, should receive lower wages than a man employed in a protected industry. Nearly twenty years ago, when the first Tariff was before the Federal Parliament, Mr. Tudor, the honorable member for Yarra, - whom, we all hope, will shortly be restored to health - showed a party over the Denton Hat Mills, and remarked, when in one of the rooms, that every person employed there was receiving at least 10s. a day, which at that time was considered a very fair wage. Now, I was then representing Broken Hill, and while I expressed my pleasure that the employees in the hat industry were receiving 10s. a,day, in surroundings which were comparatively a paradise, I pointed out that the men working in the open cuts on the Barrier, in surroundings which were a hell, received only 8s. 4d. a day - and that in order that men in theprotected industries should receive 10s. -I am glad to say that wages have increased, all round since then. Senator Senior expressed his desire to see men employed in, Australia, and that is my desire also; but I can remember a time when Broken Hillproduced 110,000 tons of lead per annum ; supplied all the requirements of Australia with 10,000 tons, and exported the balance; otherwise, ten out of every eleven men on the Barrier would have been out of employment. I am in favour of men being employed in making agricultural machinery and implements; but if, in order to employ them, men are thrown out of work at Broken Hill, I do not see that the country gains any particular advantage. However that may be, I think we ought to be given some reason why this additional duty is proposed. I should like the Minister (Senator Pearce) to quote figures showing the production of these commodities in Australia.

Senator Pearce:

– I have not separate figures.

Senator THOMAS:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– I shall vote for the proposed reduction of the duty because it will help, to some small extent, the man on the land, I stand for the primary producer being supplied with his machinery, which is his raw material, as cheaply as possible. Even from a Protectionist stand-point, there has not been given any definite reason for the additional duty. I listened with interest to Senator Earle, who is a whole-hearted Protectionist; he does not come down to details, but, when he speaks of the good he anticipates from the Tariff Board, and so forth, he puts a good deal of poetry into his utterances.

The CHAIRMAN (Senator Bakhap:

– The honorable senator’s time has expired.

Senator PRATTEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– In the course of the discussion it has occurred to me that those who favour a reduction of duties in some direction on agricultural machinery and implements, used almost exclusively by the man on the land, are entitled to be shown, if possible, at all events, some reasons for continuing a, comparatively speaking, high duty. Like Senator Thomas, I wish to deal as fairly as possible with all interests concerned in item 161, and the four or five similar succeeding items; but while doing that, I, as a convinced Protectionist, am not prepared to do anything to smash necessary secondary industries. If we are imposing an undue handicap on the men who are struggling on the land, I would prefer to see some legislation - some national backing for his primary products - in the direction, for example, of a guarantee should the world’s parity be against him. I wish to be a consistent Protectionist, and, at the same time, to endeavour to play fairly by the primary producer. My mind has been searching for some way of solving the difficulty by way of a compromise; something which will not bear unduly harshly on the primary producer, while providing minimum safeguards for our secondary industries. The fact of having industries established in Australia has meant very considerable savings to the producer.It was pointed out in the course of debate last week that, in one direction alone, in New South Wales, some 4,000,000 bushels of rain-beaten wheat had been saved. That total represented the difference between the figures quoted by the State Minister for Agriculture as the possible loss and the loss actually incurred, thanks to the rapid. manufacture and distribution of an invention for the special purpose of saving the raindamaged crops. What reason is there for raising the rates of duty under the present schedule which was not applicable in 1914? I have endeavoured to analyze the importations of implements during 1919-20. In the course of that fiscal period the value of importations was more than £500,000. Those figures have to do with “ churns, cream-separators, chaffcutters, corn-shellers, drills, harvesters, metal parts, mowers, testers, and n.e.i.” - all implements concerned practically with agricultural activities. There has been a very serious diminution, however, in the output of agricultural machinery in Australia, and there has been a serious lack of employment. The Minister (Senator Pearce) said that there were more than 1,000 less workmen employed to-day than a few years ago.

Senator GUTHRIE:
VICTORIA · NAT; UAP from 1931

– The number of those growing wheat to-day is also more; than 1,000 less.

Senator PRATTEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– If that is so, the position is actually worse than I had thought; for, according to figures just supplied to me, the value of the importations of agricultural and horticultural machinery for the year ended 30th June last amounted to no less than £918,000.

Senator Pearce:

– An increase of nearly 100 per cent.

Senator PRATTEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– Yes; but Senator Guthrie says there was a smaller area under cultivation.

Senator GUTHRIE:
VICTORIA · NAT; UAP from 1931

– Not this year ; therewas a big increase during this past year.

Senator PRATTEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– Then, the honorable senator cannot have it both ways. No wonder that many hundreds of men are out of work, and that the output of local factories has diminished as a result of these huge importations. So far as I have been able to analyze the importations for 1919-20, they amounted to 25 per cent. British, 40 per cent. Canadian, 20 per cent. United States of America, 121/2 per cent. Swedish, and 21/2 per cent. from all other countries.

Senator Payne:

– Then the imposition.. of the duties has not affected imports.

Senator PRATTEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– Apparently not, seeing that the duties which, this Committee is now discussing have been in operation since March of last year. What is the National Parliament to do? On the one hand there is the insistent and righteous demand of the man on the land to be able to secure his implements at the lowest possible price; and, on the other, there is definite information that importations last year were twice the value of those for the preceding year, and that the output of Australian factories and the number of hands employed have considerably decreased. The value of the output for 3919-20, as compared with that for 1913, was 20 per cent, less, despite the higher prices charged in 1920 compared with those ruling in the earlier year. The volume of output, therefore, has very considerably shrunken. The Minister for Defence (Senator Pearce) showed, also, that the value of the materials used during 1919-20, as compared with 1913, was more than 25 per cent. less. Some reduction of duty might be made, I think, so far as the British and intermediate rates are concerned. But, in view of the operations of the International Harvester Company, which is practically a huge American Combine seeking to get this continent as well as every other part of the world in its octopus grip; and, in view of the probably early renewal of trade with Germany, I shall not record any vote which may make it easier for the Combine to put its stranglehold on Australia, or for Germany to compete in this country with locally-manufactured goods, or with the products of British factories. Seeing, however, that there is a general consensus of opinion - in which I share - that the man on the land shall receive as fair a deal as Australia can afford, it might be well to reduce the ad valorem rates set out in the preferential and intermediate columns, particularly as Canada may some day enter into reciprocal arrangements with the Commonwealth. But the general Tariff, since it will apply again to Germany, and does, at this moment apply to the United States of America, should not be altered. It should not be forgotten that the Government of the latter Republic is not favorably inclined by word or ‘deed to permit the importation of Australian products. If any Australian fruit is sent to America, the ten dency is at once, to proclaim some mysterious pest or disease, so that our products shall be prohibited from entering. ‘ If Australia desires to export wheat or wool to America, every effort ia made to block the intention. Americans want to sell to us as much as they can, and to buy from us as little as they possibly can. I have no desire to facilitate trade in the interests of the International Harvester Company, or to encourage the resumption of trade with Germany.

Senator BOLTON:
Victoria

.- I am as much concerned about the welfare of the farmer as any other member of this Committee j but I .am “dead” against the proposal to alter the general Tariff. There are 15,000 factories in Australia, employing about 380,000 workmen. These latter provide the best possible market for the Australian farmer. In any case, what will a reduction of 5 per cent, on the general Tariff do for the man on the .land ? Senator Lynch complains that our manufacturers are not in an impoverished condition. Does he not want to see them doing well ? Does Australia wish to see them so hard up that they cannot carry on? Every one desires Australian industries to be and remain prosperous. The Minister for Defence stated that there had been a reduction in activities’. Speaking for the various engineering and foundry works, I am in a position to state that the number of factories increased from 919 in 1913 to more than 1,000 in 1918. Although the number of men employed decreased from 26,000 in 1913 to 23,000 in 19 IS, manufacturers have increased the horse-power in their factories by over 100 per cent., because in 1913 it was 20,000, and in 191S it had increased to 44,000. The output increased from £8,000,000 in 1913 to £13,000,000 in 1918. The industry is one which should be encouraged, because the greater the number of men employed in this and other industries the better will be the market for the commodities the farmers produce.

Senator Lynch:

– All this happened under the old Tariff.

Senator Pearce:

– In war years, when there were no importations.

Senator BOLTON:

– There is an old saying that “ the parson prays for all, the soldier fights for all, and the farmer pays for all.” I think it is time that we began to consider the imposition of duties in a “ give-and-take “ manner, recognising that one section of the community is to a large extent dependent on the other. The interests of the manufacturer and the primary producer are closely allied. I would have supported Senator Wilson in his request to reduce the British preferential rate, in a desire to stimulate the” workers of this community to greater activity, and get them to realize their responsibilities in the strenuous times confronting lis. Who saved France after the Franco-Prussian War? It was the workers of France. And it is the workers of Germany who are assisting that country to become re-established after the recent great war. We should appeal to the workers of Australia to have regard to the great difficulties that are facing us, and if they do that they will increase their efficiency, with the result that our manufactures will increase and prices will be more reasonable to the consumers. Much of the discussion on the Tariff has a more direct connexion with the industrial rather ‘than the fiscal aspect. I am opposed to the proposal to interfere with the general Tariff, but will support a modified request to reduce the British preferential and intermediate duties, because we should encourage trade with those with whom we have been closely associated in the past. The Australian soldiers fought for the Empire alongside the British soldiers, and I am sure Australian workmen are prepared to work in competition with British operatives. It has been said that there have been practically no importations of implements from Great Britain; but I understand that £S,500 worth was imported last year as compared with , £2,999 worth from Canada, and if we made a slight reduction in the British preferential rate, it might be the means of compelling the Australian workers to speed up a little.

Senator LYNCH:
Western Australia

– As a parting word, may I be permitted to say that this part of the schedule concerns the whole of the Commonwealth? It covers every variety of implement required in connexion with agricultural enterprise, from the large wheatgrower in the interior to the smallest agriculturist in the more closely-settled areas. Honorable senators should re member that if they have their minds fixed on altering item after item by making the duties higher and higher, they will produce the same result as they did in the case of wire netting, when, by piling on a little each time - until the good sense of the Committee realized that a halt was necessary - they produced an anomaly which is hard to overcome. I desire to preserve, if possible, some semblance of order in this very ill-ordered and ill-balanced production - the Tariff.

Mention has been made of the necessity of fostering British trade, and I yield to none in that desire. But I want to point out to Senator Bolton that, in maintaining high duties against Canada and the United States of America, and to reducing the impost against British importations by 5 per cent., he would be making the disproportion as between 17£ per cent, and 35 per cent, equal to 100 per cent. Previous Tariffs made no such disparity, as the duties were in the neighbourhood of 15 per cent, and 20 per cent. In this instance, some honorable senators desire to pile up higher and higher duties on British importations, and also on American, without any adequate reason. According to the statement of the Minister (Senator Pearce), it does not matter in this particular item, because one ship will accommodate all the importations from Great Britain. If that is so, we shall be giving a preference that will be of no use whatever. It will be merely a placard. I direct Senator Pratten’s attention particularly to the fact that preference has been given where it is of no consequence.

Senator PRATTEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– Not in the total figures.

Senator LYNCH:

– The importations from Great Britain are less by one-half than those from the United States of America and Canada, and the inescapable position will be that we will increase the price to those using American and Canadian implements to an extraordinarily high degree. We are “ outTariffing “ every previous effort, and are reaching the high-water mark by making a difference of 100 per cent, in the duties on imports from the Old Country as compared with those from the United States of America and Canada.

Senator PRATTEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– According to the figures for 1919-20, Great Britain exported 25 per cent. of the total.

Senator Pearce:

– In connexion with this particular item, the importations from Great Britain were valued at £7,700, and from Canada at £3,200.

Senator LYNCH:

– We have been including harvesters with other agricultural implements, and the Minister has been as big an offender as any one else.

Senator Pearce:

Senator GUTHRIE:
VICTORIA · NAT; UAP from 1931

– I am going to vote for the request for a reduction of the duty.

Senator LYNCH:
Western Australia

Senator Duncan:

– According to the honorable senator’s figures, the agricul tural machinery makers of the United States of America and Canada should be shrieking for protection against imports from this country.

Senator LYNCH:

– So it would seem. I leave these figures in the possession of the Committee. Are we to increase these duties against competitors whose rates of wages and labour conditions are at least as good as, if not better than, those prevailing here ? It is not a fair thing to impose a duty of 35 per cent. plus the natural protection. For the men engaged in the industry here, from Mr. McKay downwards, I have nothing but the highest praise. I want to see them prosper, and hold their own; but I hope that the Minister (Senator Pearce), in reply, will give us Mr. H. V. McKay’s balancesheet. Let the local manufacturers lay all their cards on the table, just as I have laid on the table the cards of these, overseas concerns, so that honorable senators may be guided to a safe and creditable conclusion. Let us hold the scale with equal poise. I ask the Minister to give us further information to warrant the proposed duty of 35 per cent., which, with the natural protection, means anything in the region of from 60 to 70 per cent. protection for the local manufacturers.

Question - That the request (Senator Lynch’s) be agreed to - put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 15

NOES: 11

Ma jority . . . . 4

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Request agreed to.

Senator WILSON:
South Australia

.- I move-

That the House of Representatives be requested to make the duty, intermediate, ad val., 25 per cent.

I have no desire to delay the Committee, as I am satisfied that after the discussion that has taken place on this item no fresh argument can be advanced. Being . a new member of the Senate, I was persuaded on Friday last to amend my original request with regard to the genera] Tariff, leaving it at 35 per cent., in the belief that a good deal of time might be saved and something achieved in connexion with the reduction of the intermediate and British duties.

The CHAIRMAN (Senator Bakhap:

– The honorable senator would be wise not to discuss a matter that has already been dealt with.

Senator WILSON:

– I consider it my duty, Mr. Chairman, to make that statement of the position. I now submit the request for a reduction of the intermediate Tariff, realizing that at an early date the Government, in the interests of our primary producers, may have an opportunity of entering into trade relationships with such countries as Canada by means of this intermediate Tariff.

Senator PEARCE (Western Australia -

Minister for Defence) [6.19]. - Seeing that a full debate has already taken place on the principle involved in it, I have no intention of saying anything upon the honorable senator’s request other’ than that the Government cannot accept the proposal, and will vote against it. In determining the British preferential duty I hope Senator Wilson will take into consideration the aspect of the matter I put forward early this afternoon. I appeal to honorable senators not to go over the whole ground again in connexion with this request.

Request agreed to.

Request (by Senator Pratten) proposed -

That the House of Representatives be requested to make the duty, British, ad val., 171/2 per cent.

Request (by Senator Guthrie) proposed -

That the House of Representatives be requested to make the duty, British, ad val., 15 per cent.

The CHAIRMAN (Senator Bakhap:

– Senator Guthrie’s request will be taken first.

Senator PRATTEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– I accept it, and ask leave to withdraw my request.

The CHAIRMAN:

– As Senator Pratten’s request was not put to the Committee, there is no need for the honorable senator to ask leave to withdraw it.

Request (Senator Guthrie’s) agreed to.

Item agreed to, subject to requests.

Sitting suspended from 6.80 to 8 p.m.

Item 162-

Chaffcutters and horse gears, corn shelters, corn huskers, cultivators n.e.i.,harrows, ploughs other, plough shares, plough mouldboards, scarifiers, ad val., British, 221/2 per cent.; intermediate. 30 per cent.; general, 35 per cent.

Senator LYNCH:

– But in the case of the strippers, the item dealing with the parts follows immediately, and that is quite in sequence and order. What I suggest agrees with what the Minister himself has proposed, and, at the same time, it obviates the necessity of looking to a different part of the Tariff for the duties on parts. A man away in the back country who wishes to find out what the duties on parts are will naturally look at the item dealing with the machines themselves. A machine is no good unless it has spare parts. Some of these will , outlast the natural life of the machine itself, while others will wear out in a season, and less. All attachments should be specified, following in sequence upon the setting out of the rates of duty on the machine itself.

Senator E D MILLEN:
Minister for Repatriation · NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

– I gather that Senator Lynch does not wish to vary the duties on parts, but desires to have it set forth in the schedule that the duties to which they are liable shall be the same as those upon the parent machine. The honorable senator seeks to establish an inconsistency, seeing that, in certain of the later items, the parts are individually set out. For instance, upon strippers there is a preferential duty of £6 each. Then the rates upon metal parts for stripper harvesters and the like are indicated at so much per lb. It would be ridiculous to say, in that instance, that the parts should also pay £6 each. Similarly, with respect to sewing machines, there has been a departure from the ad valorem principle. In the original schedule, the rates were, respectively, free, 5 per cent. and 10 per cent. From the 1st January next, however, the duties are to be £2 10s., £3, and £3 10s. No one would expect the parts of an ordinary sewing machine for each machine to carry such Customs imposts. Senator Lynch has had an assurance, which I am pleased to repeat, that parts, unless provided for elsewhere, shall bear duties similar to those imposed upon the machines to which they belong. The principle is laid down in the Customs Act. Section 140 reads -

Whenever any dutiable goods are composed of two or more separate parts, any part, though imported by itself, shall, if so directed by the Minister, be chargeable with duty at the rate applicable to the complete goods.
When the duty on the complete goods is specific, or both specific and ad valorem, the Minister may fix the proportionate rate of duty with which any part shall be chargeable.

That long-established practice has not aroused any considerable grievance, and I suggest that this Committee should give it its approval.

Senator WILSON:
South Australia

– Item 162, dealing as it does with chaff-cutters and horse gears, cultivators, harrows, ploughs, and scarifiers, is, to all intents and purposes, identical with that which has just been dealt with. I move, therefore -

That the House of Representatives be requested to make the duties, ad val., British, 15 per cent. ; intermediate, 25 per cent. ; general, 30 per cent.

Senator GUTHRIE:
VICTORIA · NAT; UAP from 1931

– I thank Senator Elliott for so clearlyproving the necessity for slightly decreased duties. He has ably shown us the huge rise in the prices of all agricultural machinery compared with those which prevailed in 1914 ; and that is exactly the information we require. We all admit that the Australian agricultural machinery is excellent, and that the men employed in its production are well paid. Our manufacturers and wbrkers in this . industry are very inventive, and, from my experience as a farmer, I can say that they have given us probably the best machinery of the kind in the world. For this they deserve all credit, and we wish to see them able to compete against the imported article, but we also desire to protect the primary producer from being forced to pay too highly for the machinery he requires. The honorable senator has indicated the enormous rise in the cost to the farmer of all his implements of production as compared with the prices ruling in 1914. He has also mentioned the huge increases in wage bills, and I accept his figures; but Knibbs estimates that only 17 per cent., in respect of an increase of 100 per cent, in the price of an article, is due to wages. Most of the proportion of the added cost has to do with the material itself. Senator Elliott further provided particulars concerning the high degree of the protection given to iron and steel, and, in doing so, he merely confirmed my own view that the imposts upon those basic products have been made so heavy that Parliament is now floundering in its efforts to impose proportionate duties. While I am pledged to support decreased duties upon agricultural machinery, I perceive that, owing to the high cost of the raw product, due to excessive duties, manufacturers are being penalized. But there should not be forgotten the further protection afforded by huge freight charges. On principle, . 1 shall support every proposed reduction of duty on tools of trade and agricultural machinery. Every possible encouragement should be given topeople to goout on the land rather than that they should be driven into the cities. Senator Duncan referred to the position of thousands of returned soldiers who have been urged to take up land, but they are now being penalized by the imposition of higher rates of duty upon the implements which they must possess.

Senator BOLTON:
Victoria

.- I have already indicated that I am prepared to support some slight reduction of the British and intermediate Tariffs, but I am opposed on principle to any decrease of the general Tariff. Indeed, I would support its increase. In my view, the arguments of certain honorable senators amount to a deliberate attack upon the manufacturing interests of Australia. Senator Duncan remarked that our factories ought to be well established by now. Is it reasonable to contend that manufacturers, with a homo market of 5,000,000 people, can hope to attain to anything like the same position as manufacturers in other countries where the home market consists of 100,000,000 persons? I know something about returned soldiers and the tasks and responsibilities they are facing in the Mallee and elsewhere. I realize their hardships, but I also remember that they were prepared to risk their lives for the Empire and Australia. It would not be too much to ask them now, therefore, to pay a few shillings more for their implements in order to safeguard the best interests of this country. While we may pander to the farmer by telling him that we are reducing the general Tariff on his implements by 5 per cent., we are at the same time going a long way towards destroying the industries which provide the strength and indicate the progress of the Commonwealth. To-day the manufacturers of the United States of America, and the people of Central Europe, are marshalling their industrial and commercial forces to take possession of the world’s markets; and this inopportune moment is being chosen to throw the Australian market more widely open to them. That policy is absolutely -wrong.

Question - That the request regarding the general rate (SenatorWilson’s) be agreed to - put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 13

NOES: 8

Majority . . . . 5

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Bequest agreed to.

Senator E D MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

– I shall take the vote just recorded as indicating the general views of the Committee, and, therefore, shall not call for a division on the British preferential and intermediate duties; but I desire to announce that the Government do not support the requests.

Bequests for a reduction in the British and intermediate duties agreed to.

Item agreed to, subject to requests.

Item 163 -

Combined corn sheller busker and bag ger; combined corn sheller and husker; disc cultivators; drills (fertilizer seed and grain) n.e.i.; stump-jump ploughs; winnowers (horse and other power); seats, poles, swingle-bars, yokes, and trees for agricultural machines, when imported separately, ad val., British, 27J per cent.; intermediate, 35 per cent.; general, 40 per cent.
Discs for agricultural implements; mould- board plates in the flat, whether cut to shape or not, ad val., British, free; intermediate, 5 per cent.; general, 10 per cent.

Senator LYNCH:
Western Australia

– This is a similar item to the one just disposed of, with a few minor exceptions. Houorable senators will notice that there is rather an extensive increase in the duties; but, considering the character of the implements under discussion, and those in the item which the Committee has just dealt with, there is nothing to warrant the increased rates, particularly as implements to which they apply are used in an industry which is not protected at all. The item includes disc cultivators, fertilizer, seed and grain drills, and stump-jump ploughs, which are always used in new country, but which are dutiable at a higher rate than implements used in protected industries. I do not think it can be shown that higher labour costs are involved in the manufacture of these implements, and if such is the case we should be given some information about it. I move -

That the House of Representatives be requested to make the duty, sub-item (a), general, ad val., 32£ per cent.

Previously, when discussing the manufacture of implements, I pointed out that up to 1918 75 per cent, of the total number used in Australia were made in this country. Senator Pratten disputed that statement; but here is some information from another source which confirms what I have already said. An advertisement appearing in the Australasian of 27th April, 1920, over the name of Mr. H. V.

-Brookman. - Or imagination.

Senator EARLE:

– No; I am afraid that the honorable senator relies on his imagination for most of his facts. My desire is that Australia shall manufacture all its requirements, and not depend on the foreigner, over whom we have no control, and who in certain circumstances may charge the users of his manufactures any prices he please. If honorable senators desire that imagination shall be given some scope, I ask them to imagine their own country manufacturing all these implements. If the prices become too high, we can adopt reasonable methods to curtail the exploitation of the people.

We can control those who are carrying on industries within our own borders, but we cannot control the foreign manufacturers.

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
Western Australia

– This item calls for some explanation on the part of the Minister. I find it difficult to understand why the implements and machinery covered by items 161 and 162 should be dutiable at a lower rate than those covered by item 163a, and I should like to hear the official explanation of this apparent inconsistency. Those things covered by the item now before us are essential to the early pioneer on the land. Throughout this debate I have put up a plea for the Australian pioneer - the man for whom the Committee should have especial consideration. I am glad to bay, by the way, that there are great signs of improvement in that regard on the part of the Committee. Honorable senators, I gratefully acknowledge, are now displaying for the man on the land a consideration of which I rather despaired in the earlier part of the Tariff debate. One of the arch-priests of High Protection is Senator Earle, who has suggested that I rely perhaps a little too much on my imagination.

Senator Earle:

– That was only by way of a mild retort.

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:

– I suggest to that honorable senator that imagination is one of the greatest essentials of statesmanship. A man who doc3 not possess some quality of imagination can never vision what is going to happen in this great Commonwealth.

Senator Earle:

– But it is not wise to rely on one’s imagination for one’s facts.

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:

– If the honorable senator desires a few facts, I invite him, in the first place, to remember the immense load of debt that we have contracted in connexion with the war. How are we going to pay off that immense debt unless we have an increased population and increased production ?

Senator GUTHRIE:
VICTORIA · NAT; UAP from 1931

– We can pay it off only by means of our exports.

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:

– The honorable senator has anticipated me. It can be paid off only by means of our exports. We cannot get away from the fact that our primary industries are our principal source of production. The wealth produced by them amounts, I think, to £223,000,000 per annum., as compared with £75,000,000 of wealth produced by our secondary industries, and I remind the Committee that the greater part of that £75,000,000 is paid for by the primary producers. That point must not be overlooked. Therefore we come back to the wealth created by the primary producers of Australia, who, I contend, should have first consideration in this Tariff, for if we do not get more population into this immense continent, how are we going to face the future? f ask Senator Earle to allow his imagination a little play, instead of presenting us with mundane statements based on false premises. Population is the first essential for the future development of Australia. If we make life easier for our pioneers one-half of our difficulties will be removed. I was led into this debate by Senator Earle’s extraordinary assertion, and I want some explanation from the Minister concerning the remarkable distinction in the duties between the requirements for those producers who may be regarded as comparatively settled on the land and the needs of the real pioneers. I refer particularly to the very heavy duty, 27½ per cent. British, 25 per cent, intermediate, and 40 per cent, general, on the stump-jump plough, which is the first implement to be used by pioneer farmers.

Senator GUTHRIE:
VICTORIA · NAT; UAP from 1931

– Under the old Tariff the duty was much lower.

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · NAT

-BRO CKMAN. - As Senator Guthrie reminds me, the duty on this implement under the old Tariff was 25 per cent. British and 30 per cent, general. What is the explanation for the jump to 40 per cent, in the general Tariff? It is probably based on false reasoning, as is the case Avith regard to so many other items in the schedule. Therefore, I hope my honorable colleague from Western Australia, who has proposed to request a duty of 32-£ per cent, general, will be prepared to move for a reduction, to 30 per cent, to bring the duty into line with other similar items. If not, I feel disposed myself to request further reduction in the intermediate Tariff from 35 per cent, to 25 per cent., and in the British Tariff from 27-i per cent, to 15 per cent., bringing it into line with tlie duties we have imposed under item3 161 ‘ and 162.

Senator E D MILLEN:
Minister for Repatriation · NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

– I am rather surprised that Senator Drake-Brockman, who is usually so logical, should appeal almost pathetically for information, which he seemed to think I might be in a position to supply, when it would appear that his mind was definitely made up, and that he was determined to vote for a reduction of the duty, regardless of the nature of the information given to him.

Senator Drake-Brockman:

– On the contrary, I said that I felt disposed to take a certain course.

Senator E D MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

-The honorable senator upbraided Senator Lynch, his colleague, for not moving for a further reduction, and so convinced was he of the justice of his cause that he himself, although the silent member of this Chamber, as he put it, would be compelled to move a request for lower duties than were outlined in Senator Lynch’s proposal. I think that Senator Drake-Brockman, and, I believe, every other honorable senator, has made up his mind as to his vote on this item. That is one reason why I have not taken a more active part iu the debate, but I shall endeavour to supply the information asked, though I recognise the futility of doing so.

Senator Wilson:

– I am quite open to b’i convinced on this item.

Senator E D MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

– I am satisfied that nothing that may be said is going to alter a single vote on the item. The reason why higher duties are proposed is that the implements in this item are a little more complicated. The process of manufacture calls for a little more skill and labour than is the case with implements included in the previous items. This principle has been observed in all previous Tariffs.

Senator GUTHRIE:
VICTORIA · NAT; UAP from 1931

– The stump-jump plough is one of the easiest to manufacture.

Senator E D MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

– I cannot say that I have ever made a stump-jump plough ; but I have sat behind one, and I know that it is more complicated than the ordinary mouldboard plough.

Senator GUTHRIE:
VICTORIA · NAT; UAP from 1931

– But not compared with other implements in item 161.

Senator E D MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

– I am giving the Committee the reason which has moved the Department in the framing of previous Tariffs to place a higher range of duties on implements of this description. In the last Tariff the duties, I think, were 5 per cent, higher than on other implements, and as occasionally some respectful attention is paid to the recommendations of the Inter-State Commission, I remind the Committee that that body suggested that the duty should be 25 per dent. British and 35 per cent, general Tariff, with an additional recommendation that if its proposal regarding the iron duties were adopted there should be a further 2i per cent, duty on each of these items. That is exactly what is being done in this Tariff, with the difference that a column for the intermediate Tariff has been included.

Senator Lynch:

– The maximum in that case would be 37£ per cent.

Senator GUTHRIE:
VICTORIA · NAT; UAP from 1931

– Why make the general Tariff 40 per cent.?

Senator E D MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

– The honorable senator, it appears, is taking exception to the policy of the Government of giving preference to British against foreign manufacturers. I am rather surprised, because I remember being very much impressed, prior to the elections, by a fine speech he made in favour of the policy which this Tariff is attempting to give effect to.

Senator GUTHRIE:
VICTORIA · NAT; UAP from 1931

– We want to make the preference 100 per cent.

Senator E D MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

– The honorable senator- wants this to be on a mathematical basis, and becomes captious about the addition of 2i per cent, in favour of the Mother Country aeainst the foreigner.

Senator GUTHRIE:
VICTORIA · NAT; UAP from 1931

– Not at all.

Senator E D MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

– I have endeavoured to show the reason why it has been thought desirable by the past - not by this - Government to impose a slightly higher range of duties upon the implements, mentioned in this item, and I point to the report of the Inter-State Commission’s recommendation of the continuance of this -policy. If this Committee thinks the duties are too high, as, apparently, it does, I suggest that it should still follow the example which has been in practice for so lone, and move for duties a little hieher than those imposed in the previous items.

Senator Keating:

– These same rates of duty appear against a number of items in this division of the Tariff.

Senator E D MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

– That is another factor to be taken into consideration. Honorable senators in seeking the reduction of a particular duty in a somewhat arbitrary fashion overlook the desirability of maintaining some relation, over the range of duties, between one item and another, and thus that harmony which should mark a Tariff is destroyed. I beg honorable senators to maintain the necessity for preserving that relationship of one item to another which the framers of the Tariff have endeavoured to set up.

Senator WILSON:
South Australia

– I am sorry that the honorable senator, in submitting his request, has not kept to the proportion observed in respect to other items where the Committee has requested reductions of duty. I agree with Senator E. D. Millen that it is necessary to have an extra duty on the articles included in this item. There may be certain secrets in the process of manufacture, but it is well known that American makers have copied the patterns of Australian ploughs made here as the result of the application of Australian brains, and have even gone so far as to declare that, in time, they will hold the plough trade of Australia. Although we make the best plough, and although very. few of these implements are likely to be imported, we must not allow big powers overseas any opportunity to crush out an industry which has been brought into existence in Australia much to the advantage of our primary producers. Throughout the consideration of this Tariff, I have takenup the attitude of protecting an industry on its own merits, and I hope that Senator Lynch will alter his request, and seek for a reduction of only 5 per cent, in keeping with the decision of the Committee in regard to the previous item. We are assured that the framers of the Tariff have arranged the duties on these items on a scientific basis, and, in doing so, have given an extra duty upon this item, which covers a class of work entailing the employment of more brain power. A reduction of 5 per cent, will give ample protection, not only to the industry, but also to the consumers.

Senator LYNCH:
Western Australia

.- In 1911, the Bureau of Agriculture of the United States of America sent circulars to wheat farmers all over the Union, and received 5,000 replies showing the cost of planting an acre of wheat, and the value of produce therefrom. From this information, the Bureau struck an average, demonstrating that, in 1911, the cost of working an acre of wheat land in the United States of America was £2 6s. 6d., while the average return was £3 8s. 6d., giving a net return of £1 2s., as against Is. 5d. in Australia, according to the finding of the New South Wales Commission of 1916. I have already shown what the state of the industry was in that normal period. I propose now to show what the farmer received for his wheat during the war period. We hear a great deal about how the wheat-grower was advantaged by a Pool taking over the control of wheat, and I am not prepared to dispute the fact. On scores of occasions I have said that, h!ad it not been for the Pool, the fanners of Asustralia would not have got what they did get. According to the figures quoted by the Minister for Agriculture in Western Australia last week, the average net return to the farmer in the first year after the war started was 4s. 4¼d. per bushel. There is a chance of us getting another¼d. For the succeeding years, the average net return secured was 4s. l½d. in 1916-17; 4s. 9d. in 1917-18; 5b. 2d. in 1918-19; 8s. 6d. in 1919-20; and 6s. 3d. for the harvest just garnered.

Senator Duncan:

– How many million, pounds were obtained for wool in the same period?

Senator LYNCH:

– The people engaged in the wool industry have their own problems. I am speaking of that element in the population’ which outnumbers those engaged in any other industry.

Senator PRATTEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– There are far more people engaged in secondary industries than in wheat-growing.

Senator LYNCH:

– Possibly, in the aggregate; but I am . speaking of a single industry. In that respect, wheatgrowing stands at the top of the list so far a3 Australia is concerned. The New South Wales Commission has shown that for ten years the net return to the wheatgrower has not exceeded 3s. 4d. per bushel. A 50 per cent, increase on 3s. 4d. is 5s., but that 5s. was not received by the farmer until the war was over. Senator

Elliott has told us that the increase in the price of machinery represents from 60 per cent, to 70 per cent., but I know from personal experience that it has been nearer SO per cent., and, in some cases, 100 per cent. That is the balance-sheet of the wheat-growing industry of this country. I could refer to other industries and show the vast increases that the producers of commodities have received, and though the wheat-grower enjoyed no like advantages he is now asked to bear this extra impost. If we pile up these duties we pile them on that section of the community which is least able to bear them. As was well said by Senator Drake-Brockman, if we desire to diversify our industries and broaden the basis of our industrial fabric, we cannot do so by giving unnecessaryand unasked for protection to the manufacturers mentioned, and” thus further burdening the primary producers.

Senator PAYNE:
Tasmania

– I had not made up my mind qs to the extent to which I would support any reductions in these items, and I regret that Senator Lynch moved his request before the explanation by the Minister. I felt there must be some good and sufficient reason for the differentiation between this and the preceding item ; and the Minister’s explanation is confirmed by a reference to preceding Tariffs, which show that for many years there has been such a differentiation. I have to justify any vote I give, and I wish to be as consistent as possible. The majority of honorable senators have to-night voted in the direction of certain reductions in the items that have been before us, and I wish to see those rediictions continued with regard to all commodities that are used in primary production. But I am not in a position to promise my support to any proposition- which would destroy the proportion with which we commenced; that does not appeal to me as a reasonable attitude to adopt. As I have said, I felt sure there must be some good reason for the differentiation, and the Minister’s explanation is a very fair one. If Senator Lynch is not prepared to ask leave to amend his request, I shall have to vote against it, but I give notice that, if that request be defeated, I shall move to re duce the duties on this item in proportion with the reduction made in the duties on the preceding item.

Question - That the request (Senator Lynch’s) be agreed to- put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 10

NOES: 12

Majority . … 2

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Request negatived.

Request (by Senator Payne) proposed -

That the House of Representatives he requested to make the duty, sub-item (a), general, ad val., 35 per cent.

Question put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 13

NOES: 9

Majority . … 4

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Request agreed to.

Request (by Senator Payne) agreed to-

That the House of Representatives be requested to make the duty, sub-item (a), intermediate, ad val., 30 per cent.

Request (by Senator Guthrie) agreed to-

That the House of Representatives be requested to make the duty, sub-item (a), British, ad val., 20 per cent.

Senator THOMAS:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

.- The general Tariff upon the implements designated in sub-item b is only 10 per cent., while British manufactures may be imported free. Obviously, the impost of 10 per cent, is intended purely to- be productive of revenue.

Senator E D MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

– The impdsition is for the purpose of giving preference to British manufactures.

Senator THOMAS:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– Obviously ; but I suggest that discs for agricultural implements and mouldboard plates should be imported free. Are any such attachments manufactured in this country?

Senator E D MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

– It may be taken for granted, in view of the rates set down, that they are not.

Senator THOMAS:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– I understand that these articles are not manufactured here. As it is not a Protective duty it should be removed.

Senator Keating:

– Does the honorable senator think that importations from Germany should be free of duty ?

Senator THOMAS:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– Yes. I am not very strongly in favour of this preference to Great Britain, because it has never been sought. In effect we are telling Great Britain thatbecause we cannot manufacture discs in Australia we are prepared to admit her manufactures free of duty; and in giving preference to Great Britain we are merely considering our own interests. I would rather give an extra 5 per cent, where it may be needed than impose a duty of 5 per cent, where it is for revenue purposes only. These discs are imported from America and Canada, and as we are, therefore, imposing a tax of 10 per cent, on the users of them, I move -

That the House of Representatives be requested to make sub-item (b), general, free.

From sunrise to sunset all the year round.

Mr. Brown, who had been farming for thirteen years on 500 acres of land, and was previously in South Australia, was asked the question, “What hours do you, work?” and his answer was -

Sixteen or seventeen hours a day; some farmers do a bit better than that.

Mr. Pott, who had been farming for nine years, was also questioned. These were all practical men, and I am trying to let honorable senators know what is being done by the men who are holding the fort in the West. If they did not hold it, some of the representatives of eastern States in this Chamber might go over and try their hand at it. If the men who are there now cannot hold the fort they would not have a dog’s show of holding it.

Senator Duncan:

– They could get bettler land in the east.

Senator LYNCH:

– I am speaking of those upon whom an extra impost will be levied as the result of this ill-considered Tariff. I shall look after their interests as long as I have a seat in this Parliament.

Senator Duncan:

– Men on the land have to struggle in the eastern States’ also.

Senator LYNCH:

– I have admitted that. I said I was referring to condi-‘ ti ons that were not singular to Western Australia, and I shall later on be able to quote from a New South Wales Royal Commission a little information about share-fanning in that State. Mr. Pott was asked by the Western Australian Commission : “ Are you satisfied to be on ‘ the land?” His reply was -

If I had known as much as I know now about farming I do not think I should ever have tackled it. I do not think you get a fair return for the capital put into it. The hours are very long - twelve or thirteen hours a day. There is not much in it when all is said and done.’

Mr. Smith, a farmer of eight years’ experience, said -

I reckon that the ordinary man on a farm works on the average tcn hours a day all the year round.

Senator Bolton:

– What has this to do with the item?

Senator LYNCH:

– I do not want men who are working for ten hours a day and more to have to pay 10 per cent, extra in the shape of duty on plough discs. These are not forty-four or forty-eight hours a week men. Their hours are fifty-four and longer per week, and they are farming on dry areas. I want information about imports under this item, and I expect to get it. Mr. Smith gave this evidence -

I reckon that the ordinary man on a farm works on the average ten hours a day all the year round. I could not do it in ten hours when I was working myself some time ago. I was working for twelve hours, reckoning the time taken in feeding the horses.

A Mr. Nichols was asked the question: “Do you think that 9s. per day of fourteen hours is a fair allowance for wages?” His answer was -

No. It should be more like 15s. or 13s. If you compare the energy the farmer puts in with that of the navvy, it should be more like fi per day.

I can give honorable senators a chapter on share-farming, but in the meantime I enter my protest against this iniquitous proposal to impose an extra 10 per cent, duty on these articles which are so necessary in the frontier settlement of this country, without any ‘ compensating advantage to which the Minister in charge of the Bill can point.

– It is well known that there are many items the imports under which are not separated, but bulked, -for the purposes of the Customs Department. The Department cannot tell us what the imports are under this item, because it is a comparatively small one, and the imports are not shown under the heading of “ Countries of origin.” The Inter-State Commission report that fact. They state that there are no statistics, giving the imports or countries of origin of disc or agricultural implements.

All the discs locally used are imported. The figures as to the imports are small, and are bulked with, those relating to other items, but the Customs officials assure me that these implements are imported from England as well as from America, and possibly Canada. So much forthat point. I ask honorable senators to bear in mind that this question of Avhether we shall give Great Britain a preference of 10 per cent, against America, Canada, and possibly Germany - Germany may not make these implements just now, but she soon will be making them if I am any judge of her tendency to revive-

Senator THOMAS:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– Do we not want to sell our wool? Are we not asking Ger-, many to buy it?

Senator E D MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

– I am not now discussing the economic and rival advantages of Free Trade and Protection ; I am trying merely to deal with this item. We are entitled to pay some little regard to the question of whether or not we shall continue this duty of 10 per cent, under the general Tariff with the open and avowed object of giving a preference to the Mother Country. Those who respect the authority of the Inter state Commission will be glad to know that it recommends that such a preference should be given.

Senator PRATTEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– The Inter-State Commission’s reports are quoted only when they suit.

Senator E D MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

– Human nature exists in this Chamber as elsewhere.

Senator THOMAS:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– I understood the honorable senator to say that the InterState Commission reported that it could not get any information as to the imports under this item.

Senator E D MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

Question - That the request (Senator Thomas’) be agreed to- put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 2

NOES: 13

Majority . . . . 11

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Request negatived.

Senator WILSON:
South Australia

.- I ask Senator Millen to agree to report progress. Many of us spent last night in the train, and several of us are not in the best of health. I admit/ that a good deal of time has been occupied in discussing two items, but they were important items. However, I think that progress will be more rapid in future, especially if the Minister will have some regard for those who were compelled to travel through last night. If necessary we could sit later to-morrow night or on Thursday night.

Senator E D MILLEN:
Minister for Repatriation · NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

– I ask the Senate to consider the position in which I am placed. I have no desire for all-night sittings; they are no more acceptable to me than they are to other honorable senators; but I have the responsibility of seeing that some reasonable progress is . made. If any honorable senator can give a different answer from that which Senator Gardiner gave when I asked him if he thought that it was reasonable progress to dispose of two items in two days, I would like to know it.

Senator Wilson:

– They were two very important items.

Senator E D MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

– It is useless for the honorable member to say that, in view of the fact that they were not discussed in detail; the debate ranged generally upon the effect of duties imposed upon articles used by primary producers. Honorable senators can help me and the Government by making a little further progress before the Senate adjourns; at any rate, a little more than has been accomplished during the last two days.

Item agreed to, subject to requests.

Item 164-

Churns of all kinds; cheese presses; dairy coolers; refrigerators other than for household use, ad val., British, 27½ per cent.; intermediate, 35 per cent.; general, 40 per cent.

Senator WILSON:
South Australia

.- I move-

That progress be reported.

Senator de Largie:

– You are taking the business out of the hands of the Government.

Senator WILSON:

– I am not doing so seriously; if any one thinks that I am doing so it is a misunderstanding on his part.

Senator Earle:

– There is no doubt about what you are doing, and you know it perfectly well.’ However, hoe your own row.

Senator WILSON:

– I know what I am doing.

Senator Earle:

– Then do not pretend anv nonsense about it.

Senator WILSON:

– I am not pretending any nonsense. Honorable senators who were in their beds in Melbourne last night ought to have some consideration for those who were travelling all night. I have come here prepared to do my duty; but when I sit until midnight-

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order ! This motion cannot be debated.

Motion negatived.

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
Westtern Australia

– I move -

That the House of Representatives be requested to make the duties ad val., British, 20 per cent. ; intermediate, 30 per cent. ; general, 35 per cent.

I do not propose to make any speech, all that is necessary having already been said.

Senator E D MILLEN:
Minister for Repatriation · NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

posal, in view of the intimation by the Committee of its attitude towards these items, I shall not call for a division.

Request agreed to.

Item agreed to, subject to a request.

Item, 165 -

Reaper threshers and harvesters, n.e.i., ad val., British, 25 per cent. ; intermediate, 35 per cent. ; general, 40 per cent.
Stripper harvesters, each, British, £12; intermediate, £14; general, £15; or ad val., British, 25 per cent. ; intermediate, 35 per cent.; general, 40 per cent.; whichever rate returns the higher duty.

Request (by Senator Guthrie) proposed -

That the House of Representatives be requested to make the duty, sub-item (a), ad val., British, 20 per cent.; intermediate, 30 per cent.; general, 35 per cent.

Senator GARDINER:
New South Wales

– I desire to refer to something that I said on Friday last, notwithstanding that I follow the good old parliamentary axiom, “ Never explain, and never complain,” and when I think I have made a mistake, I let myself down as lightly as possible. On Friday, when Senator Pratten spoke of the extraordinary saving that had been made of 80 per cent, of beaten-down wheat in New South Wales by the use of a harvester invented by a Henty farmer, what he said seemed so much like . a fairy tale, that, without giving the matter much attention, I expressed the opinion that the honorable senator was all wrong. Since then, however, I have received the following letter, written on behalf of Mr. Hugh V. McKay, of the. Sunshine Harvester Works-

Dear Sir,

Last Friday you mentioned in the Senate that you could hardly believe the statement of saving effected to the farmers of New South Wales last year by the use of Australian harvesting machinery and attachments, in handling the crop that was knocked down by hail and rain storms. I have pleasure in sending you a small booklet, showing some photographs of the machine at work; also, I am enclosing some photographs for your information. The machine, used was the Taylor Header Harvester, manufactured in the Sunshine Harvester Works. This machine is totally different from any other . machine for harvesting wheat, and is particularly adapted for the handling of fallen crops. Instead of the reel and canvas used on headers or reaper threshers, this machine has a double spiral, which takes in the crop from the comb and knife, and forces it on to an elevator. From there it is threshed and cleaned for market. Early in October our friends throughout the State had reported the danger of the abundant crop being severely injured by the prevailing rain, and steps were taken to manufacture a very large quantity of crop lifters, which were attached to the front of the machine, and which lift the crop sufficiently to enable it to pass through the comb and enter the spirals. We decided to sacrifice the output of all implements and other machines, and practically the whole of this large factory was occupied in the manufacture of crop lifters and false combs for six weeks. In New South Wales alone over 1,500 machines were equipped with false combs and crop lifters, and instead of the farmers getting very small yields they were able to save practically the whole of the wheat. In many cases over 30 bushels of wheat per acre, in some cases, 40 bushels, were taken off a crop that looked absolutely ruined. Presuming that each of the 1,500 machines referred to were used for taking off 300 acres of the fallen crop, it would amount to 450,000 acres. Assuming the saving of 20 bushels an acre, it would mean 0,000,000 bushels of wheat saved to the farmers. I do not think these figures exaggerate the saving effected last year in New South Wales, and will, I feci sure, appeal to a man like yourself, who is interested in the subject. If you are further interested in the matter, I would be very pleased to show you a number of letters, and also the machine itself which accomplished this work.

That letter bears out Senator Pratten’s statement, and what I said on Friday, to some extent, does not hold good. It is quite delightful to realize that, at any rate, this industry does not need any protection. It is clearly not an infant industry, but in the full growth of robust manhood; and from the information we now have, it ie able to turn out these machines in a time which, I candidly admit, I did not think possible. In the light of the particulars contained in the letter, added to Knibbs’ statistics concerning the last year’s bumper crop, which averaged 17 bushels, I must admit the general correctness of Senator Pratten’s statements, and accept as facts the reported performances of this wonderful implement attachment. I am glad to know that Australian manufacturers sosignally rose to the occasion.

Request agreed to.

Request (by Senator Guthrie) agreed to -

That the House of Representatives be ‘requested to make the duties, sub-item (n), British, each, £10, or 20 per cent, ad val.; intermediate, £12, or 30 per cent, ad val.; general, £ 13, or 35 per cent, ad val.

Item agreed to, subject to requests.

Item 166 (Strippers) and item. 167 (Metal parts of reaper-threshers) agreed to,

Item 168-

Machinery, viz. : -

Steam-engine indicators … ad val.,

British, free; intermediate, 5 per cent. ; general, 10 per cent.

Sewing machines, treadle or hand, of the type ordinarily used in the household -
1. Machine heads … ad vol., British, free ; intermediate, 5 per cent. ; general, 10 per cent.

And on and after 1st January, 1922, each, British, £2 10s.; intermediate, £3; general, £3 10s.

Stands, including transmission gear, whether imported separately or forming part of the complete machine ad val.. British, 30 per cent. ; intermediate, 35 per cent. ; general, 40 per cent.

Senator THOMAS:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– I require information concerning the reason for British manufactures being admitted free, and the imposition of a general Tariff of 10 per cent. I take it ithat none of these machines and attachments is produced in Australia; otherwise they would not be imported free.

Senator PRATTEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– But a lot of them are made in Germany.

Senator THOMAS:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– I can sympathize with any ono refusing to have anything to do with Germany - I have no desire to trade with that country - but I cannot appreciate the poiut of view of AustraKans who want Germany to buy our wool but refuse to purchase German machinery. There is no more wrong or harm in buying a machine made in Germany than in selling Australian produce to Germany.

Senator PRATTEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– The difference is that we buy German machines on our own terms. The Tariff sets out our terms.

Senator THOMAS:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– The same thing, may be said of Germany’s purchase of our wool. Australia has been in great straits respecting the disposal of its surplus wool. Many Australians would have been only too glad if Germany had’ seen fit to purchase, at reasonable prices, some of our’ over-production of that staple. It is at least inconsistent to raise the cry of hatred when it comes to a matter of purchasing goods made in Germany if, at the same time, we look to Germany to buy our wool.

Senator Lynch:

– We are not agreeable to taking German goods, but we will accept tainted German money.

Senator THOMAS:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– It amounts to that. I repeat that I desire some information concerning the amount of revenue raised by this general Tariff of 10 per cent. The impost is really nothing but a means of raising revenue. The principle, however, is bad as well as costly.

Senator E D MILLEN:
Minister for Repatriation · NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

Senator PRATTEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– That is very nice from the Minister, in view of the support I have given the Government on the main items of the schedule to date, and especially, in view of the support accorded the Government from other honorable senator?, on the Ministerial benches when badly needed.

Senator E D MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

– I thought you came here as a Ministerial supporter.

Senator PRATTEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– Sewing machines were onee manufactured : on a fairly large scale in New South Wales and Victoria, but owing to the absence of Tariff protection the manufacturers had to give up. I believe the imposition of a duty, as proposed in this schedule, will result in the industry being reestablished, and save the housewives of Australia from the infliction that is imposed on them to-day by the Singer monopoly. I am confident that in spite of the argument of my Free Trade friends, the effect of this duty will be to reduce the price of sewing machines to Australian housewives by probably 50 per cent.

Item agreed to.

Item 169 (Machinery, viz., linotypeand other type composing machines, cash, registers, &e.) agreed to.

Progress reported.

Senate adjourned at 12.50a.m. (Wednesday).

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 23 August 1921, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1921/19210823_senate_8_97/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant

Senate23 August 1921

QUESTION

LEAGUE OF NATIONS CONFERENCE

Senator KEATING:TASMANIA

Senator E D MILLEN:NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

Senator GARDINER:NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator LYNCH:WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator E D MILLEN:NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

PAPERS

QUESTION

BRIGADIER-GENERAL ELLIOTT

Senator PEARCE:Minister for Defence · Western AustraliaMinister for Defence · NAT

Senator PEARCE:

Senator PEARCE:NAT

QUESTION

END OF WAR PROCLAMATION’S

Senator GARDINER:

Senator E D MILLEN:NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

SELF-GOVERNMENT FOR IRELAND

CUSTOMS TARIFF BILL

Senator PEARCE:Western AustraliaMinister for Defence · NAT

Senator Wilson:

Senator PEARCE:

Senator Wilson:

Senator PEARCE:

Senator Wilson:

Senator PEARCE:

Senator Gardiner:

Senator PEARCE:

Senator PRATTEN:NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator PEARCE:

Senator PRATTEN:NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator PEARCE:

Senator THOMAS:NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator PEARCE:

The CHAIRMAN (Senator Bakhap:TASMANIA

Senator THOMAS:NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

The CHAIRMAN:

Senator Lynch:

The CHAIRMAN:

Senator WILSON:South Australia

Senator LYNCH:Western Australia

Senator Pearce:

Senator LYNCH:

Senator Bolton:

Senator LYNCH:

Senator Payne:

Senator LYNCH:

The CHAIRMAN (Senator Bakhap:

Senator LYNCH:

Senator PEARCE:Minister for Defence · Western Australia · NAT

Senator THOMAS:NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator PEARCE:

Senator GUTHRIE:VICTORIA · NAT; UAP from 1931

Senator PEARCE:

Senator SENIOR:South Australia

Senator Lynch:

Senator SENIOR:

Senator THOMAS:NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator SENIOR:

Senator Henderson:

Senator SENIOR:

Senator Henderson:

Senator SENIOR:

Senator THOMAS:NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator Wilson:

Senator THOMAS:NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator PRATTEN:NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator THOMAS:NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator PRATTEN:NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator THOMAS:NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator PRATTEN:NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator THOMAS:NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator PRATTEN:NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator THOMAS:NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator PRATTEN:NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator THOMAS:NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator PRATTEN:NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator THOMAS:NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

The CHAIRMAN (Senator Bakhap:

Senate
23 August 1921

Senator KEATING:
TASMANIA

Senator E D MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

Senator GARDINER:
NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator LYNCH:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator E D MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

Senator PEARCE:
Minister for Defence · Western AustraliaMinister for Defence · NAT

Senator PEARCE:
NAT

Senator E D MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

Senator PEARCE:
Western AustraliaMinister for Defence · NAT

Senator PRATTEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator PRATTEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator THOMAS:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

The CHAIRMAN (Senator Bakhap:
TASMANIA

Senator THOMAS:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator WILSON:
South Australia

Senator LYNCH:
Western Australia

Senator PEARCE:
Minister for Defence · Western Australia · NAT

Senator THOMAS:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator GUTHRIE:
VICTORIA · NAT; UAP from 1931

Senator SENIOR:
South Australia

Senator THOMAS:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator THOMAS:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator THOMAS:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator PRATTEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator THOMAS:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator PRATTEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator THOMAS:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator PRATTEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator THOMAS:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator PRATTEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator THOMAS:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator PRATTEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator THOMAS:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator PRATTEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator THOMAS:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator EARLE:
Tasmania

Senator GUTHRIE:
VICTORIA · NAT; UAP from 1931

Senator THOMAS:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator THOMAS:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator GUTHRIE:
VICTORIA · NAT; UAP from 1931

Senator THOMAS:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator DE LARGIE:
Western Australia

Senator PRATTEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator PRATTEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator PRATTEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator PRATTEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator SENIOR:
South Australia

Senator THOMAS:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator THOMAS:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator THOMAS:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator THOMAS:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT