Senate
10 June 1926

10th Parliament · 1st Session



page 2851

ABSENCE OF THE PRESIDENT

The Clerk having informed the Senate of the unavoidable absence of the President,

The Deputy President (Senator Newlands) took the chair at 3 p.m., and read prayers.

page 2851

PAPER

The following paper was presented : -

Northern Territory - Ordinance No. 13 of 1926- Foreign companies.

page 2851

CUSTOMS TARIFF BILL

In committee (Consideration resumed from 9th June, vide page 2810) :

The Schedule-

Item 237 (Porcelain Ware, n.e.i.).

Senator PAYNE:
Tasmania

.- I should like to know if insulators of various descriptions are covered by this item.

Senator Crawford:

– Yes; but, of course, item 415a will apply to any insulators that are not manufactured in Australia.

Senator PAYNE:

– The manager of the Hydro-Electrical Department of Tasmania has communicated with me, informing me that the experience of his department is that certain insulators of a heavy type, able to withstand the heavy load required to be carried on big transmission lines, must be imported, and that it has been heavily penalized by having to pay duty on them. They are not made in Australia. He has pointed out that duty amounting to over £2,000 has had to be paid on insulators for the transmission line to the north-west coast of the State, and that the Customs Department, while admitting that the articles could not be manufactured in Australia, refused to sanction their admission duty free under item 174.

SenatorCrawford. - That is the reason for having the new item 415a. Those insulators could not be admitted free under item 174, but they will be allowed in free under item 415a.

Senator PAYNE:

– Can the Minister tell me why they could not be admitted free under item 174 1

Senator Crawford:

– Because they were not machines. That was an opinion furnished by the Crown Law Office.

Senator PAYNE:

– Item 174 does not deal solely with machines. It covers “machines, machine tools, and appliances, as prescribed by departmental bylaws.”

Senator Sir Henry Barwell:

– It is a matter of legal interpretation. The word “ appliances,” as used in item 174, really covers appliances relating to the machines referred to in the item.

Senator PAYNE:

– But what will be the position of the Hydro-Electric Department of Tasmania?

Senator Crawford:

– The new item 415a will remove the difficulty.

Senator PAYNE:

– It will remove future difficulty, but I am. interested in whathas actually occurred.

Senator Crawford:

– We cannot cover the past.

Senator PAYNE:

– If by a legal interpretation the word “ appliances “ occurring in item 174 has been held not to apply to appliances such as insulators, surely there should be some way of remedying the grave’ injustice which has been done to the HydroElectric Department of Tasmania, and of removing the penalty imposed on it.

Senator Cox:

– Does the honorable senator want a refund for Tasmania?

Senator PAYNE:

– If it was the intention of Parliament, as I believe it was, that duty should not be paid on these insulators, and if by a legal technicality redress cannot be granted, surely some step should be taken to compensate for the injustice done.

Senator Crawford:

– Steps arc being taken to prevent a recurrence of what the honorable senator terms an injustice.

Senator PAYNE:

– The intention of Parliament was expressed in item 174. The item would appeal to any one as cowering appliances used in connexion with any industries carried on in Australia which could not be furnished by an Australian manufacturer.

Senator Crawford:

– That was the opinion of the Customs Department until the Crown Law Department gave an opinion to the contrary.

Senator PAYNE:

– That is exactly the point I wish to make. The fact that the Customs Department thought that item 174 would apply to these insulators shows that it believed that it was the intention of Parliament to admit them free of duty if they could not be manufactured in Australia. We learn now that the opinion of the Customs Department was overridden by a legal interpretation of the word “ appliances.” It is well to have the facts stated, so that if a wrong has. been perpetrated it may be removed at the earliest possible moment. I accept the explanation of the Minister that special provision has been made in the new schedule to cover present importations.

Item agreed to.

Item 240 agreed to.

Item 242 (Glass)-

By omitting the whole of sub-item (b) and inserting in itsstead the followingsub-item : -

b ) Sheet, viz: - Plain, clear .

And on and after 1st July, 1026, per lb., British,1½dperlb., or ad valorem, 45 per cent. ; intermediate, 1½d. per lb., or ad valorem, 55 per cent.; general, 2d. per lb., or ad valorem, 60 per cent. ; whichever rate returns the higher duty.”

Senator PAYNE:
Tasmania

.- I hope that honorable senators have studied this item. It proposes a considerable alteration in the duty on sheet glass of any size. The new duties proposed to come into force on and after the 1st July, 1926, are as follow: - British, 1½d. per lb., or 45 per cent. ad valorem; intermediate, l¾d. per lb., or 55 per cent. ad valorem; and general, 2d. per lb., or 60 per cent. ad valorem. Prior to the introduction of this item the duty on glass was based on 100 super. “feet, and that on glass of British manufacture was 2s. per 100 super. feet. The duty now proposed is equivalent to an increase of 525 per cent. on the rates hitherto in force. I do not know the attitude the committee intends to adopt in connexion with this item, but 1 am justified in entering a protest against such, a prohibitive duty being levied upon an article of every-day use, and which is absolutely essential to the construction of homes. The Minister (Senator Crawford) will doubtless refer to the necessity of encouraging the Australian glassmanufacturiug industry. I haveno desire whatever to impede the establishment of such an Australian industry, if it is conducted on a reasonable basis..

Senator Reid:

– The Australian industry should be encouraged. “Senator PAYNE.- No doubt; but if the duty proposed was equivalent to an increase of 5,000 per cent., and the honorable senator was told that the industry was likely to be successfully established, he would support such a. duty. I desire to debate this question in a dispassionate and common-sense way. We are considering an essential commodity, and are asked to impose a duty of 12s.6d. per 100 super. feet on glass of British manufacture, as against 2s. per 100 super. feet, which was considered sufficient until the introduction of the present schedule. I understand’ that the

Australian Glass Manufacturing Company, which has been successfully established in Australia, is manufacturing bottles and glassware of various descriptions. I have nothing to say against the industry, which is well managed, and has been doing so well that it has been able to pay handsome dividends. I applaud the suggestion that it should undertake the manufacture of sheet glass.

Senator Millen:

– What is the average value of 16-oz. glass?

Senator PAYNE:

– I shall give that later. The proportion of British glass imported into Australia is comparatively small when compared with the imports from Belgium and other countries.

Senator Reid:

– It used to come from Germany.

Senator PAYNE:

– Yes. It appears, however, that an attempt is now being made to prevent the British glass manufacturers from doing any trade with Australia. That is a policy I cannot support.

Senator Findley:

– Does the honorable senator advocate the British manufacturer knocking out the Australian manufacturer ?

Senator PAYNE:

– No; I have great faith in the Australians, and believe that if the industry is given reasonable protection, and the workmen are left alone, they can hold their own with those in other countries.

Senator Findley:

– What does the honorable senator mean by “ left alone”?

Senator PAYNE:

– The honorable senator knows what I mean.

Senator Findley:

– I do not.

Senator PAYNE:

– I do not wish to be side-tracked, but I repeat that, if the Australian workman is left alone, the industry will require only a reasonable amount of protection.

Senator Grant:

– What does the honorable senator consider a reasonable duty?

Senator PAYNE:

– I intend, later, to move a request in the direction of lowering the rate under the British preferential tariff. The imports of glass from Great Britain over a period of twelve months total approximately 3,000,000 super. feet, as against 12,000,000 super. feet of Belgian glass, so that the importations from

British manufacturers are equivalent to only 25 per cent. of foreign importations.

Senator Reid:

– What is the weight of the British glass?

Senator PAYNE:

– The ordinary glass used for glazing purposes weighs 16 ounces to the square foot, and it is upon that weight of glass, particularly, that I shall base my remarks. The British f.o.b. invoice price of glass 12 x 12 is 15s. a box of 100 super. feet; but the duty proposed is 12s. 6d., as against 2s. which hitherto prevailed.

Senator Findley:

– That is not enough.

Senator PAYNE:

– I do not intend to try to convince the honorable senator. One penny half-penny a lb. on 100 super. feet is 12s. 6d.

Senator Guthrie:

– Does the honorable senator say that the increase in duty is over 500 per cent. ?

Senator PAYNE:

– It is 525 per cent. on the previous tariff. The duty under the 1921 tariff was 2s. per 100 super. feet, and the present duty of1½d. a lb. amounts to 12s. 6d.. per 100 super. feet, or an increase of 525 per cent. The percentage of the duty proposed on the cost price is 83 percent. , and the natural protection in the form of freight, insurance, handling charges, &c, equals 3s. 8d. per box, so that the total protection asked for under this item is 16s. 2d., or 107 per cent. These figures ought to convince any honorable senator that the duty sought is far too high. I do not think that the Australian Glass Manufacturing Company has started manufacturing sheet glass. Probably a deferred duty is proposed.

Senator Crawford:

– Yes.

Senator PAYNE:

– To comeinto operation on 1st July.

Senator Crawford:

– Or later, if necessary.

Senator PAYNE:

– When the Minister is replying, I should like him to state what quantity of sheet glass this company expects to produce when its plant is complete. I understand that the industry will not provide a great deal of employment. This is a point that ought to be borne in mind. Before we penalize the community by the imposition of excessively high protective duties, wo should be certain that the addition to the wages sheet of Australian industries will be such as to justify the action taken from an economic point of view.

Senator Grant:

– That statement is rank heresy on the glorious policy of protection.

Senator PAYNE:

– It would be suicidal if, in order to increase our wages sheet by £100,000 a year, we extracted from the users of a commodity an extra £500,000 annually for the purchase of this necessary commodity.

Senator Foll:

– Can the honorable senator state the number of hands likely to be employed in the three factories ?

Senator PAYNE:

– I understand that only one company is interested, and that it will provide employment for about 230 hands.

Senator Foll:

– But there will be three factories.

Senator Crawford:

– The company will have a factory in every State. It proposes to start with one factory to cost £300,000.

Senator Grant:

– Where?

Senator Crawford:

– In New South Wales.

Senator PAYNE:

– I learn from information supplied to me that when the applicants for this duty gave evidence before the Tariff Board it was submitted that the principal competition would be from manufacturers in Belgium, France, and elsewhere on the Continent. At that time the manufacturers of Great Britain were supplying nearly 20 per cent, of the total Australian imports of this kind of glass. Practically the whole of the balance was divided between a large number of manufacturers in Belgium, France, and Czecho-Slovakia, whereas in Great Britain there were only two manufacturers of sheet glass from whom the whole of the British supplies come. Therefore the incidence of this proposed duty will be more keenly felt by them than by the Continental glass-makers. Whilst on this subject, it is as well to point out that the hours of labour in this industry in England axe no longer, if as long, as those proposed to be worked by the Australian manufacturers. Unskilled workers in England get 8s. a day of eight hours, semi-skilled workers 12s. 2d. a day, and skilled workers 20s. 8d. for eight hours. Therefore, it cannot he argued that the Australian company will be in competition with a low-wage industry in the Old Country.

Senator Grant:

– What is the proportion of skilled labour in this industry?

Senator PAYNE:

– I am not in a position to say. I do not propose to take up the time of the committee further, as I wish to hear what the Minister has to say.

Senator GRANT:
New South Wales

– We have been listening for a long time now in this tariff debate to the same arguments from Senator Payne and other honorable senators with strong protectionist proclivities, and in nearly every instance we have had the same reply from the Minister. It is an utter waste of time to continue the debate, for no matter how Senator Payne, or other honorable senators, may protest against any item, the Government has the numbers and will pass the schedule. I wish to see the business of the Senate proceeded with. I do not believe in this continuous repetition of arguments. We have been assured by the Minister that a fairly large amount of capital will be invested in this proposed new industry; but I should like honorable senators to note that, unlike many other pioneering enterprises, the people who establish industries nowadays come along and .ask for a bonus or a duty.

Senator McLachlan:

– In this case, the company according to Senator Payne is asking for an insurance of over 500 per cent, by way of tariff protection.

Senator GRANT:

– In a matter of this sort the Minister should place the whole of the facts before honorable senators, so that they may gauge the value of the industry and give an intelligent vote.

Senator CRAWFORD:
QueenslandHonorary Minister · NAT

.- The Tariff Board points out how difficult it is to ascertain what rate of duty is necessary in connexion with an article which previously has not been manufactured in Australia. The board made very exhaustive investigations into this subject and obtained a good deal of useful information. It sets out the costs in Australia as compared with costs in Belgium, where, at the present time, most of our importations of sheet glass come from. The board states that the cost of limestone, which is used very largely in the manufacture of sheet glass, is 100 per cent, more in Australia than in Belgium.

Senator Payne:

– I made no reference whatever to costs in Belgium.

Senator CRAWFORD:

– It does not concern me what Senator Payne was talking about. I am putting the facts before the committee, and I tell honorable senators that, according to information furnished by the Tariff Board, Belgium will be the chief competitor of the Australian manufacturers in this particular industry.

Senator Payne:

– Is the Minister ignoring what I said about the British glass?

Senator CRAWFORD:

– I do not propose to deal with that phase of the subject at this stage; I intend to state my case in my own way. Fuel ‘costs are 59 per cent higher -in Australia than in Belgium, silica bricks 92 per cent, higher, timber for cases 50 per cent, higher, and wages 139 per cent, higher in Australia than in Belgium. Those figures, I think, make out a very good case for a substantial duty.

Senator Guthrie:

– How much more, on the average, would the Australian working nian have to pay for the building of a house, owing to the proposed increased duty on sheet glass?

Senator CRAWFORD:

– It would mean about a penny a pane extra. Senator Payne stated that the increase on the present duty would be about 525 per cent. I point out, however, that the present tariff on sheet glass is purely a revenue duty, and will be quite useless as a protective duty. The Tariff Board states that on certain sizes of glass - those most generally used - the proposed impost will be 50 per cent., as against the United Kingdom. As I have already pointed out, Belgium., and not Great Britain, is the principal competitor of the Australian manufacturer. In Belgium not only are materials much cheaper, but the work is cheaply performed by women and girls. I think that the hundreds of thousands of people to whom Senator Payne refers, who will live in houses in the construction of which Australian glass will be used, will much prefer to pay an extra 2s. or 3s. for the glass in each house, because they will have the satisfaction of knowing that Australian workmen have been employed, under Australian rates and hours, and under the conditions prescribed by law and custom in this coun try. I point out, also, that, in addition to the increased labour costs in Australia, factories are more expensive to erect, and the machinery is more costly to provide, than in Belgium. While the capital outlay will be greater here, the output will be less, and while the factories in Australia operate only six days a week, those in Belgium work seven - they never stop. ‘No reasonable person would begrudge the necessary protection to an industry that has to compete against factories operated under such conditions as obtain in Belgium.

Senator Payne:

– I agree with all the Minister has said about Belgium.

Senator CRAWFORD:

– Then of what does the honorable senator complain ?

Senator Payne:

– If the Minister ignores what I have said, I cannot help it.

Senator CRAWFORD:

– I have not done that. Let me read a final word from the report of the Tariff Board: -

In the opinion of the Tariff Board there need be no hesitance, however, in accepting the recommendation of this particular duty, owing to the fact that it is a proposed deferred duty, and the board can, and will, keep in close touch with the industry, if established, and will investigate from time to time the costs of production, and so have a means of discovering whether or not the duty is justifiable, and, further, whether the consuming public of Australia is being fairly treated. Should it be found either that the proposed duty is inadequate, or that excessive prices are being charged to the public, the board will not hesitate to make a recommendation for an alteration in the tariff that will safeguard the situation.

By way of interjection I stated that it was the intention of the company that proposed to be the pioneer in the manufacture of sheet glass in Australia, to confine its activities in the first place to Sydney. But it intends to charge the same price for its products in all the States. When the business grows it will erect similar plant in the other States.

Senator H Hays:

– What about the British manufacturers of glass?

Senator CRAWFORD:

– Only a comparatively small proportion of the glass Used in Australia comes from Great Britain at the present time. Britain, tinder the existing tariff, is receiving a concession of £8,000,000 in preferential duties, and the tariff now before the committee will add another £500,000 to that sum. I think that my sympathies with the British manufacturer are as sincere as those of any other honorable senator; but I cannot help putting Australia first.

Senator Grant:

– The Minister means the Australian manufacturers.

Senator CRAWFORD:

– I also include their employees. I am not on© of those who think that protection benefits only the people who invest their money in protected industries, or those who are employed by them. Protection is good for the community as a whole, and every £1 that we can keep in this country means so much more prosperity to the people generally. I contend that, in all the circumstances, the proposed duties are quite reasonable. If they are found to be too> high they can be reduced. It is far better to give a new industry a higher protection than it requires, knowing that the duty can be reduced, than to give it less than is necessary to enable it to make a fair start.

Senator REID:
Queensland

.- I recently visited the Sydney works of the company that proposes to engage in the manufacture of sheet glass. It is spending £300,000 on the plant, and is engaging a large number of Australian mechanics in the building of the factory with Australian materials. I was astonished to see the great variety of fancy glassware - goods that hitherto have been imported from abroad - being made at these works! I had no idea that such high quality ware could be produced in Australia. The industry has been built up under protection, and the employees now number over 1,600. The wages paid weekly amount to £8,600. The latest machinery has been installed, and some of the work which it does is really marvellous. I advise honorable senators to visit the factory and see for themselves the class of work performed.

Senator Elliott:

– Has the company not been paying good dividends?

Senator REID:

– I do not know; but I was delighted with both the variety and the quality of the goods manufactured.

Senator Sir Henry Barwell:

– The question to be determined is whether an increased duty is necessary.

Senator REID:

– It is not asked for in respect of glass fancy goods; but it is needed in respect of the class of goods coming from Belgium.

Senator Elliott:

– Is increased protection against Britain asked for?

Senator REID:

– That is a question for the Minister. I do not object to British preference ; but where it is a question of giving preference to Britain or of building up an Australian industry, I shall always favour the Australian industry. A good deal has been said of our inefficiency and lack of enterprise. The men in charge of the three departments of the factory to which I have referred are of a very high type; men of indifferent calibre could not have built up such a fine organization. The product of the factory is a credit to Australia. I realize that higher duties on window glass will be reflected in the cost of houses, but the difference will not be ‘ great. Having been engaged in the building trade for some years, I can say that the increased cost of the glass required for the ordinary workman’s home will be about 2s. 6d. It will certainly not be more than 5s.

Senator McLachlan:

– What is the cost per 100 square feet of 16-oz. glass landed in Australia?

Senator Payne:

– The British invoice price is 15s. per 100 square feet.

Senator REID:

– Glass to the value of £34,910 was imported last year from Great Britain. From Belgium our imports of glass during the same period represented £126,395. Belgium is our chief competitor, because factory conditions there make it difficult for us to compete with their product. “Unless higher duties are placed on sheet glass, this country will be flooded with cheap glass from Belgium, to the detriment of this Australian industry. After the factory has established the manufacture of sheet glass on a sound basis, the manufacture of plate glass will be undertaken. In this direction there are great prospects before the industry. It is becoming the custom, not only in our cities, but even in nearly every small country town, to have uptodate plate-glass windows in the shops. The manufacture of glass is an important industry to Australia. -

Senator Kingsmill:

– I understand that it is doing very well.

Senator REID:

– I am pointing out the almost inexhaustible field ahead of this industry. This factory is up to date ; it is making articles of good quality, and it should be encouraged. But unless additional protection is given, as proposed, it will be unable to compete with the product of Belgium glass factories.

Senator LYNCH:
Western Australia

– For the first time there seems to be something in the Minister’s argument. I have searched the records relating to this industry, and the figures I have obtained are sufficient to cause both elation and dejection. It is gratifying to know, on the excellent authority of Senator Reid, that this industry, which has enjoyed such a small measure of protection, has become one of the most flourishing industries of the Commonwealth. Australian importations of sheet glass for 1923-24 were 14,000,000 square feet, valued at £187,000. During the following year 13,000,000 square feet of glass entered Australia, its value being £161,000.

Senator Payne:

– That includes plateglass.

Senator LYNCH:

– Yes. The glass imported from Great Britain represented 2,209,000 square feet, valued at £34,910, on which a duty of 2s. per 100 square feet, or approximately 7 per cent., was imposed. It seems to me that, from the way we have been behaving in the past towards other protected industries, a duty which does not exceed 7 per cent. is far too meagre a rate to encourage any one to embark his capital in the making of sheet glass.

Senator Crawford:

– I understand that the value of sheet glass is about 27s. per 100 square feet.

Senator LYNCH:

– If we give protection amounting to 20 or 40 per cent. for other industries and consider it barely sufficient for them, I think we ought to increase the duty on sheet glass in order to encourage its manufacture in Australia, but we must also ensure that no exorbitant rate is imposed. The new British rate proposed in the schedule is 1½d. per lb., or 45 per cent. ad valorem, whichever is the higher. I think that whichever is the lower rate should prevail, and I give notice of my intention to submit a request in that direction.

Senator PAYNE:
Tasmania

.- Before I continue my remarks, which were interrupted by the limitation imposed by the Standing Orders, I wish to refer to the attitude of the Minister in ignoring what I had said until I, by interjection, towards the close of his speech, called his attention to the fact thatI had been dealing solely with the importation of British-manufactured glass, and had not referred to the importation of Belgian glass. As a matter of fact, I was putting up a case for the British manufacturer, and, although I propose to submit a request for a reduction of duty, it will apply solely to the British preferential rate. I have no intention of seeking for a reduction of the duty on foreign importations. Since I spoke earlier, a great deal has been said about the success of the Australian Glass Manufacturing Company’s operations.I know more about those operations than does Senator Reid, because I am a shareholder in the company.

Senatorfoll. - What dividends have been paid lately by the company?

Senator PAYNE:

– The last dividend was 10 per cent. The industry is a very successful one. It may surprise honorable senators that a shareholder in an Australian glass-manufacturing company should protest against a duty which, if imposed, would materially enhance the profits of his company, but I hope that, as a public man, I have a soul above personal interests. I regard the proposal of the Government to increase the duty on British-made sheet glass as iniquitous and absolutely unnecessary. Senator Reid has gone to great pains to describe the magnificent goods turned out by the Australian Glass Manufacturing Company in the shape of glass utensils and vessels of different kinds. Those articles have been made under a protective duty of 25 per cent. British.

Senator Reid:

– But the fancy stuff does not come from Great Britain.

Senator PAYNE:

– The duty against foreign glass was 35 per cent., and the request I propose to submit will give Australian glass-manufacturing companies a higher ad valorem rate on sheet glass than the 35 per cent. under which they have been successfully manufacturing these various glass utensils. The rates of duties on glassware under the 1921 tariff were - British, 25 per cent.; intermediate, 30 per cent.; and general, 35 per cent. The Australian Glass Manufacturing Company has been able to carry on successfully and extend its operations under those rates of duty because of its efficient management, and I am confident that, with the efficiency it has at its command, it will successfully embark upon the manufacture of sheet glass on a rate of duty considerably less than what is now proposed to be placed on British imports.

Senator McLachlan:

– What is the percentage rate of duty on a hundred square Feet of glass ?

Senator PAYNE:

– Under the proposed tariff, the percentage is as follows: - On 100 square feet of glass, 25 united inches, invoiced at 12s. 6d., 83 per cent.; on 100 square feet of glass of 50 united inches, 69 per cent.; on 100 square feet of glass of 90 united inches, 46 per cent. I move -

That the House of Representatives be requested to make the duty, sub-item (b), per lb., ¾d. British.

My proposal, if adopted, would leave the rates of duty in the intermediate and general columns the same as proposed in the schedule, but would reduce the British preferential duty from l½d. per lb. to¾d. per lb. A duty of¾d. per lb. is equivalent to anad valorem rate of over 40 per cent., which is 15 per cent. more than the protection now afforded to Australian manufacturers, under which they are making various glass articles. I had intended to move for a lower rate, but when I found that the Australian manufacturers could make many varieties of glass under a protective duty of 25 per cent. British, I thought it well to limit my proposal to a rate of duty that would, at any rate, give them over 40 per cent. protection. As I do not desire to have the duties in the other columns altered, Senator Crawford’s remarks about” the conditions in” Belgium do not apply. I think every honorable senator ought to refrain from putting upa prohibition wall over which the British manufacturer cannot climb. It cannot be in our best interests to say to the people of Great Britain, “ We want to trade with you; we want you to buy our primary products, but if you dare to send us your products, we shall put up a wall so high that you cannot climb over it.”

Senator Crawford:

– Let us have a vote.

Senator PAYNE:

– It is all very well for the Minister to say, “Let us have a vote.” I have no desire to delay the passage of the bill, but if I consider that a duty is not necessary in the interests of Australian industries, and that if it is imposed it will not only inflict an injus tice on the community, but also penalize the British manufacturer, I should not be worthy of my place in this Senate if I did not raise my voice in protest.

Senator GUTHRIE:
Victoria

I am not clear about the figures that have been given. As a matter of fact, the information that has been supplied to us in regard to this item is quite insufficient for those who want to give an intelligent vote. I should like to know if the glass manufacturing company referred to has given any guarantee to the Government that it can and will make all the glass required for the people of Australia, and that the price will not be increased if the extra protection is afforded. If the Government has received that guarantee from the company, I shall vote for the increased rates. At the first blush, they seem high, but if they mean nothing more than increasing the cost of a cottage by 5s. or 10s., and will be the means of providing additional employment to Australian workmen, I intend to support the Government. I trust the Minister will give the committee further information, particularly on the two points I have raised.

Senator CRAWFORD (Queensland-

Honorary Minister) [4.6]. - No guarantee has been given by the company as to the price that will be charged for Australian sheet glass, but the Tariff Board has reported that it will keep a very close watch upon the operations of the company, and if the prices charged for sheet glass are unreasonable, it will promptly recommend a reduction in duties.

Senator Guthrie:

– A proposal for the imposition of lower duties would have to come before Parliament.

Senator CRAWFORD:

– Yes.

Senator Guthrie:

– That might necessitate undue delay.

Senator CRAWFORD:

– Not necessarily, as Parliament is in session for about six months in each year. In view of the declaration of the Tariff Board I think we may be certain that the company will keep its prices within reasonable limits. The company has given no formal guarantee that it will be able to meet Australia’s requirements, but it is now spending £300,000 on additional plant.

Senator Guthrie:

– That is beside, the question.

Senator CRAWFORD:

– I do not think it is. The fact that the company contemplates spending £300,000 is a clear indication of its intentions. The company, which is at present erecting a factory in New South Wales, has declared its intention of erecting similar factories in the other States if the business warrants it. In the meantime it will charge the same price for sheet glass in every State.

Senator Guthrie:

– But not the price which now prevails.

Senator CRAWFORD:

– No. But as a set-off against any increase in price a large number of Australian workmen will be given employment, and a considerable quantity of Australian materials will be used as is the case in other protected in- dustries.

Senator McLACHLAN:
South Australia

– I am desirous of obtaining a little more information on this subject. We have to ascertain the price for 100 square feet of plain glass, and then determine the rate of protection this company is seeking.

Senator Payne:

– I gave the prices.

Senator McLACHLAN:

– Yes ; but I could not follow the honorable senator’s calculations. Supposing 100 square feet of glass is worth 20s., a duty of 2s. would be 10 per cent., and the additional duty of 45 per cent. would make the total 55 per cent., which to me does not appear excessive for a company embarking on a new enterprise, and whose actions will be closely watched by the Tariff Board. Senator Payne’s statement that the proposed duty was equivalent to an increase of 525 per cent. was alarming, but I am under the impression that the honorable senator was basing his argument upon false premises.

Senator Payne:

– I said that the duty was 525 per cent. more than the existing rate.

Senator McLACHLAN:

– It may be, but the honorable senator, quite unintentionally I know, misled me if not other honorable senators in putting the position in that way. We have to make a comparison in percentages of the duties imposed on this commodity, and it appears to me that if we take the price of glass at 20s. per 100 square feet we are affording the company a protection, of 55 per cent. Seeing that it is a new industry, the bona fides of which have been vouched for, I intend to support the Government.

Senator HOARE:
South Australia

– In this instance honorable senators have an excellent opportunity of supporting an Australian industry which intends to embark upon the manufacture of a commodity which is at present imported in large quantities from Great Britain and foreign countries. As an Australian, I feel it my duty to give first consideration to Australian industries, and thus assist in providing employment for our own people. When in Sydney recently I visited the works of the Australian Glass Manufacturing Company, and was informed by the manager, who conducted me over the plant, that all the company now required was additional protection to enable it to undertake the manufacture of sheet glass, on which work an additional 227 men would be employed. Senator Guthrie seems to be somewhat doubtful as to the quantity the company is likely to produce, and the price at which it will be made available; but the fact that the company contemplates the expenditure of £300,000 on additional plant is sufficient guarantee of its intention to do its best in the interests of the Australian people. If it does not give the users of sheet glass a fair deal, I am prepared to support the imposition of a lower duty, as has been suggested. Large quantities of cheap glass are now imported from Belgium, where the conditions of labour differ considerably from those in Australia. The basic wage for male adults employed in glass factories in New South Wales is £4 6s. for a 48-hour week. A few youths are employed in the factory, but female and child labour is not permitted. In Belgian factories, however, male and female labour is employed at 4s. 2d. a day of eight hours, or 25s. a week of 48 hours.

Senator Duncan:

– They work seven days a week in Belgium.

Senator HOARE:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– If that is the case, the Australian industry is entitled to high protection.

Senator Payne:

– Who advocated flooding Australia with glass of Belgian manufacture ?

Senator HOARE:

– If the Australian industry is properly protected glass produced at the wages I have mentioned need not be imported. There are some who reflect upon the efficiency of Australian workmen; but those controlling this industry have imported experienced operatives from Belgium in order to instruct the Australian workmen in the manufacture of glass. Moreover, Belgian manufacturers produce their own requirements of soda ash, which is one of the most expensive commodities used in the manufacture of glass, at £5 12s. 6d. a ton, whereas the cost of this product landed in Australia is £10 12s. per ton. I intend to support the proposed duty, and thus enable Australian glass manufacturers to successfully compete with those in other parts of the world.

Senator LYNCH:
Western Australia

– In speaking earlier on this item, I quoted 6 per cent. or 7 per cent. as the duty on British imports for last year, which figures were, in a sense, challenged by some members of the committee. Last year over 2,000,000 square feet of British glass were imported, the value of which, including 10 per cent. added for dutiable purposes, was £34,000. Therefore 2s. per 100 square feet, or 6 per cent. or 7 per cent., is purely a revenue duty. The ordinary channels for reaching honorable senators are available to the Australian manufacturers of glass; but I have not been approached by representatives of the industry. I, therefore, desire to know what justification there re for increasing the duty. A duty of 2s. per 100 square feet, on the basis of last year’s importation, re about 7 per cent., and Senator Payne now proposes to reduce by one-half the duty of1½d. on British importations. That is equivalent to a duty of 21 per cent.

Senator Payne:

– It is more than 21 per cent.

Senator LYNCH:

– Not on the basis of last year’s duty. Am I justified in voting for a. duty of 21 per cent. for an industry that is not yet in being, and which even the Minister cannot promise will be established?

Senator Crawford:

– The company is erecting a factory now, and expects to produce 12,000,000 feet of sheet glass per annum.

Senator LYNCH:

– If what the Minister says is correct - I was otherwise engaged when he made a statement a few moments ago - I feel that I cannot deny to the. industry concerned a protection of 21 per cent. There is, however, the ad valorem duty of 45 per cent. We may be quite sure that, if it rests with the Minister, the higher duty will be levied, because it will bring in more revenue. I do not propose to allow the item to go through in that form. When Senator Payne’s request is disposed of I shall move to leave out the word “higher” with a view to inserting the word “ lower,” thus ensuring that the amount of protection will be in the vicinity of 20 per cent., so that the users of glass in Australia may be able to get it at a reasonable figure.

Senator GRANT:
New South Wales

– I understand that plain, clear sheet glass includes the ordinary 16-oz. glass used for window-glazing. Is it intended to levy the duty of 2s. per 100 square feet on what is known as plate glass ?

Senator Crawford:

– These duties do not apply to plate glass. It is not proposed to manufacture that kind of glass in Australia at present.

Senator GRANT:

– I should like to know from the Minister what is the landed cost of 16-oz. sheet glass, and what the 45 per cent. British duty on that article will amount to. We have been informed that the landed cost is 16s. per 100 square feet. If that is so, the duty should not amount to more than1¾d. a foot. But the retail price, as we know, is frequently1s. a square foot, the cost of distribution being estimated at roughly 50 per cent. of the cost of production.

Senator Lynch:

– Is the honorable senator arguing for a higher duty?

Senator GRANT:

– No; I am supporting the Government. In this respect I am in the same position as the honorable senator. He has been talking night after night on various items in the schedule, and we know very well that whenever he votes with the “faithful seven,” the Government is safe. If, however, the Government is in a tight corner, Senator Lynch votes for the Government.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Ogden:
TASMANIA

– Order! The honorable senator will please discuss the question before the Chair.

Senator GRANT:

– Can the Minister say if it is any part of the Tariff Board’s duty to inquire into and report upon the difference between the landed cost of an article and the retail price? This is a matter which is too often lost sight of in these debates.

Senator FINDLEY:
Victoria

– The protection which the Government proposes to give the industry is justified by the Tariff Board, which inquired into the subject, and, without any hesitation, recommended the imposition of the duties set out in this item. It is a surprise to me that honorable senators who were returned pledged to support the protectionist policy of the Government, as announced by the Prime Minister (Mr. Bruce) at Dandenong, prior to the last election, should be in any doubt as to their position in this debate. Senator Payne has made some extraordinary statements during this discussion. He has told us that there is a duty of 500 per cent, on this item.

Senator Payne:

– I must ask the honorsenator to withdraw that statement. I never said anything of the kind. I said that the duty proposed now is 525 per cent, higher than the duty in the 1921 tariff - a totally different thing.

Senator FINDLEY:

– The honorable senator has made his position worse by his explanation, because there was no protective duty on thi3 item in the 1921 tariff. A revenue duty was imposed, because the industry was not then in existence, and the honorable senator supported that revenue duty. It now appears that he is against a protectionist tariff.

Senator Payne:

– I am not. My requested amendment w111 give 40 per cent, protection to this industry.

Senator FINDLEY:

– Then the honorable senator is opposed to the Tariff Board’s recommendation, which, I remind him, was framed for the purpose of enabling the industry to be established.

Senator Payne:

– I am not against the industry. We are not in the same position as the honorable senator and his party on these tariff items.

Senator FINDLEY:

– If the manufacturers of this country were dependent on protectionists of the Senator Payne type, they would find themselves in a very difficult position. We know the conditions under which glass is manufactured in those continental countries that will be the chief competitors of the Australian industry. Employees in Belgium and elsewhere on the Continent have to’ work seven days a week, and, I understand, that even children are employed.

Senator Crawford:

– Women and children chiefly.

Senator FINDLEY:

– I have been in countries where men and women have to work seven days a week, so I know what it means.

Senator Payne:

– The honorable senator is talking about conditions in Belgium.

Senator FINDLEY:

– Yes, because most of our importations of glass come from that country.

Senator Payne:

– My request does not affect the general tariff at all. The honorable senator, like the Minister, ignores that fact.

Senator FINDLEY:

– And, apparently, the honorable senator desires to see heavier importations from Britain, with a consequent reduction in the output in Australia. I am concerned about the Australian industries, and the welfare of Australian workers, and I say it is absolutely impossible for this industry to compete, without a high protective duty against countries where the employees have to work inordinately long hours and, in some cases, seven days a week.

Senator Payne:

– Employees do not work seven days a week in Great Britain.

Senator FINDLEY:

– I am aware of that; but assuming that 25 per cent, of our importations are from Britain, are we not justified in protecting the Australian manufacturer against acute competition by established industries there to the extent of 25 per cent, of the importations ?

Senator Payne:

– I am in favour of protection.

Senator FINDLEY:

– But the honorable senator does not go far enough. I am guided by the Tariff Board’s recommendation. Members of the committee know where I stand with regard to these protectionist duties. I believe in a fair measure of protection for the establishment of industries that mean so much to Australia. A few moments ago I heard one honorable senator say that the imposition of these duties would probably mean an increase in the retail price of glass used for windows in the homes of work people. Therefore, he argued, we should hesitate about imposing that burden upon the working man. It has been remarked that the extra cost on each house would not be more than 4s. or 5s., and it seems to me that, since a wellbuilt house generally lasts a life-time, the slight extra cost of Australian glass would not be a considerable item. According to a statement I have before me, all the materials required for the local production of sheet glass, with the exception of soda ash. will be essentially Australian. Limestone will cost 100 per cent., fuel coal 59 per cent., silica bricks 92 per cent., case timber 55 per cent., and wages 139 per cent. more than the cost in Belgium.It may be that this industry will become a monopoly. In a measure I am opposed to monopolies; but some of them are helpful in that they lead to economy in production. Although I prefer to have monopolies controlled by the community, private monopolies, provided they do not exploit the people, may serve the community more satisfactorily than four or five establishments that do not march with the times, so far as production is concerned. We have the assurance of the Tariff Board that, if the needs of the community are not properly met, further inquiries will be made into the conditions prevailing in the industry. If the protection recommended by the Tariff Board is inadequate, an opportunity will be afforded later to give the industry sufficient protection. The board says that this is an industry that should be encouraged, that the duty now suggested will be helpful, and that the community will receive a fair deal. The probability is that, while the committee is discussing this sub-item, the importers are actively at work accumulating as much glass as possible under the present tariff.

Senator Payne:

– The Australian Glass Manufacturing Company has been doing the same.

Senator FINDLEY:

– Does the honorable senator mean that those who desire this protection have been importing as much glass as possible under the revenue duty?

Senator Payne:

– What is wrong with that ?

SenatorFINDLE Y . - It does not exactly harmonize with statements made to me to the effect that persons other than those engaged in this Australian industry have been doing all they can to injure it.

Senator Payne:

– When one desires to start a business one naturally collects the material required to enable operations to be put in hand.

SenatorFINDLEY. - I am dealing with the honorable senator’s request, and I intend to oppose it. I hope that the division, if taken, will prove to Senator Payne and other so-called protectionists, that they will receive little or no quarter in their demand for lower duties.

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

AYES: 5

NOES: 22

Majority … 17

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Request negatived.

Item agreed to.

Item 252 (Bottles up to and including a capacity of 8 fluid drams).

Senator DUNCAN:
New South Wales

– Certain Australian industries will be seriously affected by the imposition of the proposed duties of 30 per cent. British, 40 per cent. intermediate, and 50 per cent. general. Bottles up to and including 4 fluid drams are not made in Australia, and there is no proposal for their manufacture.

Senator Barnes:

– They are made in Sydney in any size required.

Senator DUNCAN:

– That is not so. They are made in sizes over a capacity of 4 drams. The smaller bottles are used by perfume manufacturers, as well as by certain proprietary companies, for their preparations. Seeing that it is not at present practicable to manufacture them in Australia, it seems hard that these other industries should be penalized by the imposition of this additional duty. These bottles are necessary for their business. There is provision in the tariff to give the department power, by means of by-laws, to make exemptions in the case of articles that are not produced in Australia, and, if the Minister will give me his assurance that such a by-law would apply in this instance, I shall not press the matter further.

Senator Crawford:

– If not made in Australia, they would come under item 404, British, free; intermediate, 5 per cent.; general, 10 per cent.

Senator DUNCAN:

– I am assured that these bottles are not made in Australia. I wanted to be certain that the rates would not be, British, 30 per cent. ; intermediate, 45 per cent.; and general, 50 per cent. I accept the Minister’s assurance.

Senator Crawford:

– The honorable senator may safely do so.

Item agreed to.

Item 255 agreed to.

Item 262-

By omitting the whole of sub-item (c) and inserting in its stead the following subitem : - “ (c) Slabs, scantlings, or blocks, sawn on one or two faces, ad val., British, 25 per cent. ; intermediate, 30 per cent.; general, 35 per cent.”

By omitting the whole of sub-item (d) and inserting in its stead the following sub-item: - “ (d) Slabs, scantlings, or blocks, sawn on one or more faces and one or more edges or ends, ad val., British, 30 per cent.; intermediate, 35 per cent.; general, 40 per cent.”

By omitting the whole of sub-item (e) and inserting in its stead the following subitem : - “ (e) Wrought, n.e.i., ad val., British, 40 per cent.; intermediate, 45 per cent.; general, 50 per cent.”

Senator THOMPSON:
Queensland

– From the vote taken on the item relating to mining machinery it is evident that the majority of honorable senators are against a reduction of the Government’s proposals. I now desire to ask for an additional duty in respect of this item. At Ulam, in Central Queensland, betweenRockhampton and Gladstone, there are immense deposits of high-class marble, which, if the industry were sufficiently protected, could supply the wants of Australia. Any higher duty now imposed could be reduced later when the industry had become established. There are many difficulties in the way of the successful development of these marble deposits. They are situated 16 miles from a railway station, which, in turn, is 17 miles from a port.

Senator Elliott:

– -How many hours a week are worked in the quarries?

Senator THOMPSON:

– Under existing conditions in Queensland, I suppose that 44 hours would constitute a week’s work. Carriage to the railway station is costly, as is also the freight fromRockhampton to other parts of Australia. The tariff provides for British preference, but not much marble comes here from Great Britain; most of it comes from Italy. I do not ask that the British rate be affected ; but, having regard to the fact that wages in Italy are much lower than in Australia, that the rate of exchange is in favour of importers, inasmuch as the lira is at a considerable discount, and that the freight from Italy to Australia is less than fromRockhampton to Melbourne, I suggest that the duty under the general tariff be increased by 10 per cent. In the quarries to which I have referred there is ample marble to supply Australia’s requirements; but, as it takes time to obtain men skilled in sawing marble slabs, I suggest that the tariff should be deferred until the 1st January next. In making this request I am. not unmindful of the increase which the Government has already granted. Its proposals are a fairly substantial increase on the old duties. But, in order to develop these immense marble deposits, an additional 10 per cent. duty is necessary. I therefore move -

That the House of Representatives be requested to make the duties, sub-item (c) : British, 25 per cent.; intermediate, 40 per cent.: general, 45 per cent.

The decision in respect of this sub-item I am prepared to accept, as applying also to” sub-items d and e.

Senator CRAWFORD:
QueenslandHonorary Minister · NAT

– I regret that I cannot accept the request moved by Senator Thompson. The Tariff Board, having considered this matter carefully, reported in favour of the increased duty provided for in the schedule, which is 10 per cent. above the previously existing rate.

Senator THOMPSON:
Queensland

– I am unaware of the information which the Tariff Board had at its disposal; but, so far as I know, its members did not visit the marble deposits in Central Queensland, nor did they take evidence atRockhampton. I doubt whethersufficient evidence was available to the Board.

SenatorMcHUGH (South Australia) [5.0]. - Senator Thompson has made out a good case. He has referred to the marble deposits in Queensland ; but there are other deposits in different parts of Australia. At Angaston, about 30 miles from Adelaide, and also at Kapunda, in South Australia, there are deposits of very fine marble. Unfortunately, this industry has not developed in Australia to any great extent because of the competition from other countries. I do not pose as a judge of marble, but I can see very little difference between Angaston marble and Italian marble when dressed. As this industry is worth fostering, I hope that the committee will support the request moved by Senator Thompson. There is a big future ahead of this industry if given sufficient protection for its development. The result of granting additional duties now should be to make marble considerably cheaper in the future.

Request negatived.

Item agreed to.

Item 264 agreed to.

Item 269-

By omitting the whole of sub-item (d), and inserting in its stead the following sub-item: - “ (d) Nicotine and Derris Spraying Preparations, British, free; intermemediate, free; general, free.”

Senator CRAWFORD:
Honorary Minister · Queensland · NAT

– I move -

That the House of Representatives be requested to make sub-item (d) read as follows: - “ (d) Nicotine and Derris Spraying Pre parations; Liquid Hydrocyanic Acid Gas, as prescribed by departmental by-laws, British, free; intermediate, free; general, free.”

Liquid hydrocyanic acid gas is imported by the Victorian Department of Agriculture for purposes of scale control on citrus fruit. It has been found that this gas is very effective in scale control, and if the duty be removed, it will be largely used in Australia.

Request agreed to.

Item agreed to, subject to a request.

Item 274 agreed to.

Item 279 (Citric acid, tartaric acid, cream of tartar. . . . and phosphate of soda) -

Senator CRAWFORD:
QueenslandHonorary Minister · NAT

– I move -

That the House of Representatives be requested to amend the item by adding the following new sub-item : -

  1. Argol, British free,intermediate free, general free.

Argol is at present admitted under tariff item 404 British free and general 10 per cent., but as the principal supplies of argol come from France, the local users have to pay a duty of 10per cent. A large industry for the manufacture of cream of tartar, of which argol is the raw material, is about to be started in Australia, and although Australia is a great wine-producing country, the quantity of argol available here is negligible. Cream of tartar is largely manufactured in Great Britain from argol imported from the Continent, and is exported to Australia and admitted at the preferential tariff rate. It is understood that there is no duty on argol imported into England, and it is considered only right that the Australian manufacturer should have the same advantage.

Request agreed to.

Item agreed to, subject to a request.

Item 281 (Sulphate of magnesia, sulphate of soda . . . carbonate of magnesia, n.e.i.) -

Senator CRAWFORD:
QueenslandHonorary Minister · NAT

– I move -

That the House of Representatives be requested to amend the item by adding the following : - “ By omitting the whole of sub-item (J) (three times occurring) and inserting in its stead the following sub-item : -

  1. Drugs, crude, viz. : - Pyrethrum flowers in packages containing not less than 28 lb. net, roots, barks, leaves, seeds, and flowers, ergot, dried vegetable juices, medicinal gums and resins, as prescribed by departmental by-laws, British free, intermediate free, general free.”

The alteration which is being requested in this item., means the addition of dried vegetable juices, medicinal gums, and resins to the item. Their admission will be as prescribed by departmental bylaws, and will be limited to such dried vegetable juices, medicinal gums, and resins as are not produced in Australia or Great Britain. Although the rates of duty on these lines, when imported in bulk, are at present free from Great Britain and 15 per cent. under the general tariff, it has been found that the great majority of them are produced in foreign countries. There does not appear to be any object in increasing the cost of these raw materials, which are for use in the preparation of medicines. I do not think the committee will require any further explanation than this to agree to the request.

Request agreed to.

Senator CRAWFORD:
Honorary Minister · Queensland · NAT

– I move -

That the House of Representatives be requested to amend the item by adding the following: - “ By omitting the whole of sub-item

  1. and inserting in its stead the following sub-item: -
  2. Carbonate of potash; carbonate of potash, as prescribed by departmental by-laws, British, free; intermediate, free; general, free.’”

The request is to add the words “ carbonate of potash as prescribed by departmental by-laws “ to item 281k. Carbonate of potash is used in the production of dried fruits. It is claimed that by its use a better appearance of the fruit is obtained. The quality is not affected, nor is it deleterious to the consumer. From the evidence given at the inquiry before the Tariff Board, it is apparent that, in order to compete on the London market with sultanas from Greece and Smyrna, it is necessary to obtain the lighter colour of fruit desired by the purchaser abroad and supplied by the fruit sent from countries with which Australia is competing. When it is realized that 75 per cent of the sultana crop has to be exported, the importance of the Australian fruit being of the quality and appearance required by overseas purchasers is paramount. The sale of the export surplus is of the utmost importance to Australia, and it is essential that no obstacle should be placed in the way of its further extension. Carbonate of potash is not produced in either Great Britain or Australia.

Bequest agreed to.

Item agreed to, subject to requests.

Items 284, 285, 298, 308, 309, and 310 agreed to.

Item 318-

By omitting the whole item and inserting in its stead the following items: -

And on and after 26th March, 1926 -

  1. (1) Clocks, partly, or wholly of wood, ad val. . . .

    1. Clocks, n.e.i.; Opera, Field, and Marine Glasses; Pedometers; Pocket Counters and the like, ad val. . . .
    2. Watches and Chronometers, n.e.i.; Time Registers and Detectors, ad val. . . .
    3. Watch movements, n.e.i. . . .
Senator CRAWFORD:
Honorary Minister · Queensland · NAT

– I move -

That the House of Representatives be requested to make sub-item (a) read as follows: - “(a) (1) Clocks, partly or wholly of wood, ad val., British, 25 per cent.; intermediate, 30 per cent.; general, 45 per cent.

Clocks, n.e.i.; Opera, Field, and Marine Glasses ; Pedometers ; Pocket Counters and the like, ad val., British, free; intermediate, 15 per cent.; general, 20 per cent.

(a) Wristlet Watches, partly or wholly of precious metals and parts thereof, n.e.i., ad. val., British, 10 per cent. ; intermediate, 20 per cent.; general, 30 per cent.

Watches and Chronometers, n.e.i., Time Registers and Detectors, ad val., British, free; intermediate, 15 per cent., general, 20 per cent.

Watch movements, n.e.i., as prescribed by departmental by-laws, British, free; intermediate, free; general, free.

The object of this request is to restore the 1921 tariff rates on wristlet watches, partly or wholly of precious metals and parts thereof, n.e.i., and to restore the condition of entry of watch movements at concessional rates. Thisis necessary in order that the manufacturers of watch-cases in Australia may not lose the small protectionthey they haveunder the 1921 tariff. This is one of the items where the Government considered that a reduction of duty would be of considerable benefit to the community in general, and would have the effect of a reduction in revenue amounting to approximately £90,000. It was originally proposed that clocks and watches from Great Britain should be free of duty, but as the making of wooden clock-cases in Australia is an industry of some magnitude, after the introduction of the tariff in another place certain modifications were made in respect of clocks partly or wholly of wood. The 1921 tariff rates were restored, and I am now asking that the 1921 rates on wristlet watches partly or wholly of precious metal and parts thereof, n.e.i., be restored. It has transpired, since the introduction of this tariff, that certain Australian firm’s are making wristlet watch-cases out of precious metals, and the Government does not desire to deprive them of the small protection they had under the 1921 tariff. Watch movements were admitted under the 1921 tariff, British free, and general 15 per cent., under departmental by-laws. These by-laws prescribed that the watch movements admitted should be inserted in Australian-made watch-cases in which they were to be sold. However, practically the whole of the movements used in wristlet watches come from foreign countries, and no benefit would be bestowed on Great Britain by retaining the general tariff rate of 15 per cent, which, as a matter of fact, only served to penalize the local manufacturer of watchcases. It is, therefore, proposed that the 1921 tariff rates on wristlet watches partly or wholly of precious metal should be retained subject to the same conditions as to the free entry of watch movements as was prescribed under the 1921 tariff, thus preventing an importer obtaining movements of foreign origin free of duty and inserting them in cases’ other than of Australian manufacture.

Senator PAYNE:
Tasmania

.- I am rather interested in this item, because the amendments proposed in the schedule prove conclusively that I adopted the right attitude in 1921 in opposing the duties then proposed under item 318. Now, after five years’ experience of the operation of the duties under this item, the Government is prepared to admit its folly in imposing them, since they merely served to penalize tho community while benefiting no one. No honorable senator welcomes more than I do the removal of the duties, which are absolutely unjustified. In regard to the request submitted by the Minister, am I to understand that it will place a duty on watch movements?

Senator Crawford:

– If they are to be used in Australian-made cases they will be admitted free, but if placed in foreignmade cases they are to bear the same duty as was provided in the 1921 tariff.

Senator PAYNE:

– I am wondering if this amendment will be effective. What will be the position if the cases in which the parts are to be placed are imported at the same time?

Senator Crawford:

– That will be dealt with under departmental by-laws.

Senator PAYNE:

– If parts of watches are admitted free, the watch cases which come in a different package must also be included.

Senator Crawford:

– The onus of proof that the watch movements, which are admitted free, are to be used in Australianmade cases will rest upon the importer.

Senator PAYNE:

– May not imported watch cases be considered to be parts of watches? I do not wish to stress the point ; I rose particularly to express mv gratification that the Government has at last come to its senses in regard to the duties imposed under this item.

Senator Crawford:

– The departmental view is that a watch case is a part of a watch.

Senator PAYNE:

– If the parts are admitted free, employment will be given to Australians in fitting them into cases which may be imported separately. I presume that is the view taken by the department?

Senator Crawford:

– Yes.

Senator PAYNE:

– I shall accept that explanation, and I welcome a reduction in duties which have been unnecessarily in force for the last five years.

Senator DUNCAN:
New South Wales

– I should like to have some assurance from the Minister (Senator Crawford) that watch cases other than wristlet watch cases are actually being made in Australia.

Senator Crawford:

– This applies only to wristlet watches.

Senator DUNCAN:

– - Did I understand the Minister to say that watch movements are to be admitted free of duty if they are to- be fitted into Australian cases, but if for use in imported cases they are to be dutiable? Representations have been made to me that watch cases, other than wristlet watch cases, are not made in Australia. I understand that watch parts are imported from Switzerland and watch cases from Great Britain; and, as Senator Payne stated, employment is given here in fitting the imported movements into watch cases obtained from Great Britain. That was possible under the 1921 tariff, but under the new proposals this work, which gives employment to a number of Australian people, will not now be available, because the rate of duty to be levied upon watch cases will be so high that there will be little possibility of competing with complete watches imported from Great Britain.

Senator Crawford:

– British cases, other than wristlet watch cases, are admitted free.

Senator DUNCAN:

– In view of the Minister’s assurance, it would appear that the difficulty has been overcome.

Request agreed to.

Item agreed to, subject to a request.

Item 320-

By omitting the whole of sub-item (c) (twice occurring) and inserting in its stead the following sub-item: - “ (c) (1) Sensitized Films, and Films n.e.i., British free, intermediate free, general free.

Exposed or developed Films representing dramatic or Australian subjects -

Suitable for use only with home kinematographs, per lineal foot, British free, intermediate½d., general id.

Other, per lineal foot, British free, intermediate1d., general l½d.

Provided that any such films printed from a negative which was not the produce or manufacture of the United Kingdom shall not be entitled to entry at the rate of the British preferential tariff under this sub-item.”

Senator GRANT:
New South Wales

– I move-

That the House of Representatives be requested to add the following new paragraph to sub-item (c) : -

  1. Films for public exhibition, per lineal foot, British free, intermediate1d., general 3d.

I desire to give tangible security and encouragement to the production and exhibition of Australian pictures. I am sure that the Minister (Senator Crawford) and the supporters of the Government will agree that action should be taken as early as possible to encourage what has become in other countries a large and important industry. During the last twelve months approximately 20,000,000 feet of films were imported into the Commonwealth, of which no less than 19,000,000 feet came from the United States of America. I have nothing whatever to say against the quality of the American productions, but it is the duty of the Australian people to realize that ever since the moving picture industry was established we have had more than a fair share of American films. It is practically impossible to see Australian films exhibited in the Commonwealth. There are about 1,074 picture theatres in the Commonwealth, which are visited by no less than 100,000,000 persons every year. As American pictures, some of which are of a high standard, introduce American propaganda to the detriment of Australian sentiment, the question arises as to the best way in which to substantially increase the number of Australian pictures and decrease the number of American pictures exhibited. I am informed by the picture-show proprietors that they are obliged tomake contracts with the film corporations at least twelve months in advance, and that, if they show Australian pictures, they are. debited, not only with the cost of the time occupied in showing them, but also with the costof showing an American production which is not actually exhibited. The combine has taken advantage of the position to discourage the efforts of Australian producers to exhibit Australian pictures.

Senator Reid:

– That is nonsense!

Senator GRANT:

– That is the opinion of those engaged in the business.

Senator Reid:

– They can exhibit any pictures they wish.

Senator GRANT:

– The honorable senator may be an authority on nonsense, but I admit that I am not. It may be all right to have New York sky-scrapers brought under our notice, but, personally, I am dog-tired of them. We have seen pictures of the Niagara Falls so often that we are utterly sick of them. As the scenic beauties of Australia cannot be excelled in any part of the world, it would be a relief to see on the screen photographic reproductions of such beauty spots as Russel Falls in Tasmania, and the Barron Falls in Queensland. . Probably there is no agency in existence to-day which provides such an excellent means of educating the people as picture-shows. Australia is so large that there are few who can say that they have visited every part of the Continent. It is only by attending picture shows depicting Australian scenes that many of our people can gain any knowledge of this country. How many members of this Parliament, notwithstanding the facilities placed at their disposal, have visited the Northern Territory? How many have gone to New Guinea? Very few. Many have never been to Tasmania or Western Australia, and the first-hand knowledge which some members have of Queensland is nil. If members of Parliament have not availed themselves of the opportunity to travel, the average citizen certainly cannot afford the time or find the means to do so. We are not doing our duty by this country in allowing the 1,074 picture shows to be monopolized practically by foreign-made films. I do not object to an occasional foreignmade film. It may be all very well in its way, but if we wish to see pictures of pastoral life in Australia or learn something of life on our mining fields, or in our great industrial concerns, we shall have to organize the film industry in Australia. The necessary talent can be secured, and, provided we give sufficient protection against the American combine, it should be possible to produce up-to-date films in this country. This may be done most effectively by increasing the general tariff. Possibly it would not be good policy to exclude foreign films altogether, but I am sure that, if the proper steps were taken, Australian film producers would rise to the occasion in a way that would surprise us. Since the Commonwealth is pledged to a policy of protection, our film producers should receive the same amount of encouragement that is given to other industries. I hope that the committee will send a request to the House of Representatives for a substantial measure of protection for Australian film producers against foreign combines. I do not know if the Commonwealth Government has power to make a regulation - I doubt if it has - insisting upon a certain proportion of Australian films being shown at every picture theatre throughout Australia.

Senator Duncan:

– If the people agree to the referendum we shall be able to do that.

Senator GRANT:

– Those amendments of the Constitution have not yet come before the people. But if the Government had the power, and if it insisted upon, say, 25 per cent, of Australian pictures being included in the programme at every picture theatre in the first year, 50 per cent, in the following year, 75 per cent, for the next year, and finally on all Austraiian films being shown, it would be doing something to build up an important industry. All that is required is proper organization and the development of an Australian sentiment that will insist upon Australian films dealing with Australian subjects. In recent years we have seen everywhere the slogan, “ See your own country first.” It is a good idea. The people of Victoria should see that State first; then if they turned their attention to other parts of the Commonwealth they would be profitably occupied for many years in learning all they could about this great Commonwealth. If the committee agrees to an increase in the import duty on foreign films the revenue will benefit very substantially, but I am not interested in that so much as I am in the encouragement of a great Australian industry.

Senator Crawford:

– The honorable senator will better achieve his purpose if he moves a request to amend paragraph b, under which the general tariff is lid a foot. He can move to leave out “ lid.” and insert “3d.”

Senator GRANT:

– If the Minister can give me an assurance that the word “Other” includes films for public exhibition, I shall do that.

Senator Crawford:

– That is so.

Request, by leave, withdrawn.

Request (by Senator Grant) proposed -

That the House of Representatives be requested to make the duty sub-item (c), paragraph 2 (6) per lineal foot, 3d. general tariff.

Senator CRAWFORD (QueenslandHonorary Minister) [5.45 j. - I cannot accept Senator Grant’s requested amendment, much as I would like to encourage the importation of British films, and, still more, the production of Australian films. The proposed increase in the general tariff is not likely to have that effect, because very little has been done in the way of producing films in Australia, and Great Britain is not in a position to supply anything like the requirements of our picture theatres. Instead of leading to an increase in British or Australian films, Senator Grant’s request, if agreed to, will probably be made an excuse for an increase in the charges for admission to our picture theatres. American films, I understand, are invoiced at a very low price - only a. few pence a foot - the producers relying chiefly upon royalties for their revenue. Some pictures are very costly to produce, so I am afraid that Senator Grant’s amendment will not lead to the establishment of a new industry in Australia. I agree with him as to the scenic beauties of Australia and the Mandated Territory, as well as other parts of the Southern Hemisphere, and I should very much rather see films depicting Australian scenes than many of the pictures that are shown. The Tariff Board, however, went exhaustively into the subject, and the duties imposed are in accordance with the recommendations of that body.

Senator GUTHRIE:
Victoria

– I intend, for many reasons, to support Senator Grant’s requested amendment.

Senator Payne:

– Will the honorable senator- vote for it?

Senator GUTHRIE:

– Certainly. We should encourage the production of films in Australia and within the British. Empire. For many years Australia has been flooded with American films, cleverly produced, no doubt, but, nevertheless, in many cases undesirable and. in questionable taste. They appear to have been produced for propaganda purposes.Not infrequently the fool of the picture is a Britisher, while the “square-jawed, cleanlimbed American “ is always the hero. The scenes generally are American. I agree with Senator Grant that the British Empire is capable of producing splendid films. There is wonderful scenery in Great Britain and her dominions. Very few of the 6,000,000 people in Australia know very much about their own country. I admit that it is a difficult country to know, because of its great distances. It is a wonderful land, with a great variety of magnificent scenery, though not infrequently one has to suffer considerable discomfort to see it. We should, by means of Australian films, give the people living in our cities an opportunity to learn something of this wonderful island continent. I do not think that the people of this country prefer American to British or Australian films. A large section of the public is sick and tired of the insidious American propaganda that is being carried out throughout Australia by means of the cinematograph. The American picture producers are clever, no doubt, but many of their pictures are not desirable from an educational, moral, or any other point of view. I should like to see a much stricter censorship exercised over them, I understand that some of the films that have been censored would shock any decent citizen, because they are the most immoral trash imaginable.

Senator Millen:

– That is true.

Senator GUTHRIE:

– It cannot be denied. These pictures are presented to hundreds of thousands of Australian children night after night, and they can only havea detrimental influence on the rising, generation. They are the cause of most of the crimes in this country. At the usual picture show the smart criminal is screened as a hero. I would not allow my children to attend these shows. On looking at the advertisements regarding them in the Melbourne Herald to-night, one sees page after page of sensational trash about divorce cases and worse things. There are “blood and thunder” yarns, and every conceivable sort of immoral rubbish. If the majority of these pictures were of an educational value, as some, but very few, are, I should be inclined to let them in. duty free. Films that are not highly immoral, are, to put is mildly, very suggestive. They very often glorify men of the criminal type, and provide a popular form of amusement calculated to lower the whole tone of the community. I grant that the Americans, who talk of “how we won the war,” are pastmasters in the production of films. They have flooded the Empire with their propaganda, and it is reasonableto charge them a duty of 3d. a foot on their films. I support the request up to the hilt. I have no desire, however, to increase the cost of amusement to the masses, provided the entertainment is healthy.

Senator Lynch:

– Is not a censorship exercised over the films before they are exhibited?

Senator GUTHRIE:

– Yes, and the censors have excised thousands of feet of films that no decent man or woman would care to see.

Senator Thompson:

– The report of the Tariff Board does not say so.

Senator GUTHRIE:

– My informant has been employed as a censor. The

Minister stated that a duty of 3d. a foot might increase the cost of this popular form of amusement; but I remind honorable senators that the Federal Government proposes to abandon the entertainments tax.

Senator Needham:

– It has not yet been removed.

Senator GUTHRIE:

– No, but I hope that it will be. A company with a huge capital should be formed within the British Empire for the production of pictures in Australia and other parts of the Empire. The committee should encourage the exhibition of films depicting the scenery, the industries, and the happenings in the British Empire, and particularly in Australia. Although I have travelled over Australia as much as most people, I probably have not seen one-tenth of it. In Australia and New Zealand there is scenery equal to the finest in the world. I hope that honorable senators will support the request, thus showing their loyalty to their Empire, and particularly to their own country.

Question - That the request be agreed to - put. The committee divided.

AYES: 13

NOES: 13

AYES

NOES

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Kingsmill:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– The voting being equal, question therefore passes in the negative.

Request negatived.

Senator GUTHRIE:
Victoria

.- I move -

That the House of Representatives be requested to make the duty, sub-item c, paragraph 2 (b), per lineal foot, 2½d. general tariff.

I merely emphasize what I have already said. I desire to give the manufacturers of British and Australian films a chance of showing wholesome pictures relating to their own Empire, in preference to the trash that is largely American propaganda.

Senator GRANT:
New South Wales

– I realize that it is difficult to defeat the Government. Although the committee was not prepared to go to the extent which I desired - and I thought that I was extremely moderate - the request moved by Senator Guthrie is a step in the same direction. It should appeal to the two or three honorable senators who were not prepared to go to the length which I desired. I point out that, apart from the Minister’s remarks, no arguments were advanced in opposition to my arguments or those of Senator Guthrie. Having regard to the great importance of this industry, the committee would be wise to agree to Senator Guthrie’s suggestion.

Question - That the request be agreed to - put. The committee divided.

AYES: 15

NOES: 13

Majority …2

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Request agreed to.

Item agreed to, subject to a request.

Items 321, 334, and 336 agreed to.

Item 359 -

By omitting the whole of sub-item (d) (4) (twice occurring) and inserting in its stead the following sub-item : - “ (d) (4) Chassis, but not including rubber tires -

Unassembled, ad val., British, free; intermediate, 7½ per cent.; general, 12½ per cent.

Assembled, ad val., British, 5 per cent.; intermediate,12½ per cent. ; general, 17½ per cent.

Senator DUNCAN:
New South Wales

.- I move-

That the House of Representatives be requested to amend sub-item (u) (4) ‘by inserting after the word “ Tyres “ the words “ or storage batteries.”

Under the Government’s proposals the duty on batteries, which come here as part of car chassis, will be 7£ per cent. British and 12^ per cent, general, whereas batteries imported to replace those supplied as part of the original car equipment bear a duty of 27-J per cent. British and 40 per cent, general. I desire that the duty on all batteries shall be 27£ per cent. British, and 40 per cent, general. In the interests of. Australian tire manufacturers, tires imported as part of a chassis bear the same duty as tire.-: imported separately; but batteries imported as part of car equipment are admitted at a lower rate than are the batteries imported to replace them. Parliament has refused to accept tires as part of the chassis. The same rule should apply to batteries. Batteries for replacement purposes are now not being imported; they are manufactured locally by the United States Light and Heat Corporation of Australia Limited, and the Clyde Engineering Company Limited, both of Sydney. The former is a purely Australian company, which took over the rights of the United States Light and Heat Corporation of America, and is producing batteries which are identical with those made by the parent company. I am informed that its factory in Sydney ‘ is capable of manufacturing 120,000 batteries per annum. That number is sufficient to supply almost the whole of the battery requirements of the Commonwealth. The Clyde Engineering Company Limited, of Clyde,’ Sydney, is also making a high-class battery. In its battery department 47 persons are employed, and £27,000 invested. Its present output is 27,000 batteries per annum., and I am informed that in 60 days that could be increased to 100,000 batteries per annum. Thus we have two companies in Australia either of which could supply practically the whole of the Australian battery requirements. Their product is giving entire satisfaction to Australian users. I invite honorable senators to see, in the Senate Club Room, some of the batteries made by these companies. Their finish is superior to that of the batteries which are imported as part of car equipment, and which are permitted to enter at a lower rate.

Senator Findley:

– What is the value of a battery?

Senator DUNCAN:

– I have not that information with me, but I can assure the honorable senator that Australian batteries are not only better, but also cheaper than imported batteries. The question of price, therefore, does not arise. I seek only that all batteries entering Australia shall pay the same duty as that now imposed on batteries imported for replacement purposes. I am informed that if the batteries in imported chassis are charged a duty at the rate applying to batteries unattached it will mean the manufacture in Australia of over 250,000 storage batteries. If my request is agreed to I shall then ask the committee to request a reduction of the duties on chassis unassembled.

Senator CRAWFORD:
QueenslandHonorary Minister · NAT

– I should like to hear the committee discuss Senator Duncan’s proposal. If there is a general feeling that the request he is making should be acceded to, I shall be prepared to accept it.

Senator Duncan:

– The merit of the request is so obvious that it does not need discussion.

Senator CRAWFORD:

– There has so far been no indication of the general feeling of the committee.

Senator FINDLEY:
Victoria

– I am surprised at the attitude of the Minister (Senator Crawford). The committee is entitled to an indication from the Government as to how it intends to treat a request for the amendment of an item, and as he is in charge of the bill we look to him for information that mav be of help to us in coming to a determination.

Senator Lynch:

– What does Senator Findley think of the proposal?

Senator FINDLEY:

– On the evidence put forward by Senator Duncan, the request seems to be a very reasonable one. There seems to be an anomaly in the schedule which ought to be rectified. Protective duties are imposed on batteries if they are not imported attached to chassis, but if they are imported attached to chassis they are admitted free from

Great Britain and pay 1 per cent, under the intermediate tariff and per cent, under the general tariff . Senator Duncan’s proposal to treat all batteries, whether associated with or separate from chassis in the same way, is reasonable, and in view of the fact that the Minister seems disposed to accept the request there ought not to be much division of opinion in the committee in regard to it.

Senator PLAIN:
Victoria

.- The request submitted by Senator Duncan is the most reasonable suggestion that has been brought forward in this committee for an alteration of the schedule before us. The manufacture of batteries m Australia means a great deal to the motor car trade. We have people here who are anxious to push on with the manufacture of these batteries, and during the short period in which they have been operating they have made considerable progress. Furthermore, they have reduced the price of a battery in some instances from £11 to £6. I am sure Senator Crawford views the request as a reasonable one. If the alteration is made, it will be of considerable benefit to an Australian industry which is producing an article that meets the requirements of trade generally in competition with other countries. I hope to see this industry prosper to such an extent that in the near future every motor car in Australia will be fitted with an Australian-made battery.

Senator ELLIOTT:
Victoria

.- I also regard Senator Duncan’s request as a reasonable one. The development of the industry of battery making will prove of value, not only to the motor car industry, but also to those interested in wireless and in aeroplane engines. There should be no reduction of duty on a battery that is imported attached to a chassis. In view of what Senator Duncan has said, particularly about the decrease in price which has been brought about by the local manuacture of batteries, I am sure the Minister will .see his way to accept the request.

Senator Crawford:

– I intimated that I would be prepared to accept the request if it was the general feeling of the committee that I should do so.

Bequest agreed to.

Senator DUNCAN:
New South Wales

– When moving a previous request in connexion with this item, I indicated that I intended to draw the attention of the Minister (Senator Crawford) to what appears to me to be an -anomaly. The Government proposals are, in effect, a reflection upon Australian enterprise, and are detrimental to the investment of capital and the employment of Australian labour. I refer to the question of chassis, assembled and unassembled, but particularly ,to the latter. Under the 1921 tariff, the duties on unassembled chassis were, British preferential, 5 per cent. ; intermediate, 1 per cent. ; and general, 10 per cent. That gave the importer of British unassembled chassis a preference of 5 per cent, over his foreign competitors. The rates of duty on assembled chassis were, British preferential, 1 per cent. ; intermediate, 10 per cent.; and general, 12£ per cent., which maintained the margin of 5 per cent, in favour of British manufacturers. Under the item now before the committee, the proposed duties on unassembled chassis are, British preferential, free; intermediate, 1 per cent. ; and general, 1 per cent., which increases the preference to Great Britain, on unassembled chassis from 5 per cent, to 12£ per cent. It increases the duty under the general tariff against the importers of other than British motor cars unassembled, but the British preferential rate on assembled chassis has been decreased to 5 per cent., as against 1 per cent, under the old tariff. I have no objection whatever to maintaining the preference to Great Britain so far as is possible. I should prefer to see - British cars running on our roads instead of those of American manufacture, provided they are equally suitable for the work, but, unfortunately, in 6he past, that has not been the experience of motor car users. The British manufacturers have been concerned not so much with supplying what we consider we should have, as with sending out what they think we should have.

Senator McLachlan:

– They are now changing their policy.

Senator DUNCAN:

– Yes, but I am setting out the position as it exists to-day. British manufacturers have been endeavouring to force Australian buyers to purchase cars of a type which they think desirable, and have refused to make cars suited to Australian conditions. Several firms have been importing unassembled chassis into Australia, some of which were of British and others of American manufacture. In the assembling of the chassis considerable employment is given to Australian workmen , and a good deal of capita] has been invested in the industry. Under the 1921 tariff the position was bad enough. They could import assembled British cars under a 7½ per cent. duty, whereas if they imported unassembled cars, they had to pay a duty of 10 per cent., showing an advantage of2½ per cent. in favour of the car assembled by British workmen. It is now proposed to allow assembled cars, of British manufacture, to be imported under a duty of 5 per cent., bub, if the assemblers import American or Continental chassis and employ Australian labour in assembling them, they will have to pay a duty of12½ per cent., as against 5 per cent. for the assembled car of British origin. There is a margin of7½ per cent. against the Australian assemblers in favour of British workmen. It appears to me that it ought to be possible to in some way maintain the British preference over the foreign manufacturers, without penalizing those engaged here in assembling chassis, irrespective of the country from which they are imported. I do not know whether it is necessary to maintain the present large margin, but it appears to me that the duties on unassembled chassis should be - British preferential, free; intermediate, 5 per cent.; and general, 10 per cent. Such rates would, perhaps, suit those engaged in the assembling industry in Australia. Under my proposal British manufacturers would have a 10 per cent. margin on unassembled chassis, and on the assembled chassis 12½ per cent., which is a fair margin of preference.

Senator CRAWFORD:
QueenslandHonorary Minister · NAT

– I am afraid I cannot assist Senator Duncan in achieving his object. There is a special reason why Great Britain should be given substantial preference in connexion with motor cars, more so than in regard to other manufactures. The manufacture of motors was not carried on in Great Britain to any extent during the war, I understand, the motor factories being engaged in producing war equipment. There was practically no export of cars, and consequently British manufacturers lost a good deal of the trade with Australia and other countries which they had previously carried on. There is also the further point that, for the reason I have mentioned,. British manufacturers had not the opportunities possessed by their competitors of . producing new models, and, at the termination of hostilities, were severely handicapped. Senator Duncan referred to the business which had developed in the assembling of motor chassis, but that development was possible on a margin of2½ per cent. Under the present proposal a margin of 5 per cent. is provided, and, if an industry of considerable proportion could be built up on 2½ per cent., it should continue to flourish on one of 5 per cent.

Senator Payne:

– Under the 1921 tariff they had a preference of 5 per cent. on unassembled chassis.

Senator CRAWFORD:

– On assembled chassis the British preferential duty was 5 per cent., and on the unassembled 7½. per cent., or a difference of 2½ per cent. Under the rates proposed in this item, there is a. margin of 5 per cent. , in addition to which there is, of course, the natural protection. The freight on one assembled car is equal to that on three unassembled chassis. Chassis are bulky, and, consequently, cars, instead of being assembled in Melbourne and shipped to, say, Perth or North Queensland, are assembled in the State in which they are sold. We must have some regard for our reciprocal tariff agreement with Canada, under which preference is given to that dominion, and which, to some extent, we would be removing if these duties were reduced, as Senator Duncan proposes.

Senator FINDLEY:
Victoria

– The Minister’s statement was, no doubt, interesting, but, like the flowers that bloom in the spring, it had nothing to do with the case. This schedule has been framed for the purpose of encouraging Australian industries, and to ensure more and more employment for Australian work people. Let us see whether the proposed duty will have that effect. As Senator Duncan has pointed out, the 1921 tariff on these items was lower than the duties now proposed, and encouragement was given to those engaged in the assembling of chassis in Australia. If there is to be any preference Australians should receive first consideration.

Senator Crawford:

– They do.

Senator FINDLEY:

– Not at all, as I shall endeavour to show the Minister. Under this schedule, assembled chassis from Great Britain are dutiable at 5 per cent. They provide no work for Australians. If, however, chassis are imported unassembled from countries other than Britain or Canada, they pay a duty of 12½ per cent., or 7½ per cent. above the British rate for assembled chassis. It seems to me that this is a reversal of the principle of protection, because it gives protection to British workmen and British manufacturers against those engaged in the industry in Australia.

Senator Crawford:

– Britishunassembled chassis are free.

Senator FINDLEY:

– Yes, but whilst assembled chassis from Britain pay 5 per cent., unassembled chassis from other countries pay 12½ per cent. The committee ought to understand clearly that (he importation of assembled chassis provides no work for Australian employees in the industry other than perhaps in body building, whereas the importation of unassembled chassis, which under this schedule have to pay a duty of 12½ per cent. under the general tariff, will provide work for Australians. My contention is that the more assembly work that is done in Australia the better for the industry here. Moreover, when the work is done in this country the motor vehicles are usually fitted with Australian tires. Why should the industry be handicapped ? I ask the Minister to look carefully into the duties and see if something cannot be done to rectify what appears to me to be an anomaly, for, whilst I am anxious, as no doubt other honorable senators are also, to give preference to Britain, my chief desire is to see that Australian industry is not handicapped in any way.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Sir Thomas Glasgow:
QUEENSLAND

– If there are no requests, I shall declare the item agreed to.

Item agreed to subject to a request.

Senator Lynch:

Mr. Chairman-

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

– I have declared the item passed.

Senator Needham:

– I understand, Mr. Chairman, that Senator Duncan has moved a request.

Senator Duncan:

– No; I wished to hear what the Minister had to say concerning the points I had raised.

Senator Payne:

– I take it, Mr. Chair- man, that before any item is declared to have been passed, the voice of the committee must be taken on the question.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN.No honorable senator was on his feet when I declared the item agreed to.

Senator Lynch:

– I clearly understood that Senator Duncan had suggested a reduction in the duties of 2½ per cent.

Senator Duncan:

– I did not submit a request; I wanted first to hear the discussion.

Senator Lynch:

– Then I wish the honorable senator had left the subject alone.

Senator Payne:

– I desire your ruling, Mr. Chairman, whether it is not the practice, before any item is passed, for the Chairman to put it to the committee?

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN.The practice has been for the Chairman to ask if there is any request, and, if there is no request, to declare the item passed.

Senator Lynch:

– I was on my feet when you put the item.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

– That is not so.

Senator Cox:

– You were not.

Senator Lynch:

– I was. However, if the incident is closed, I shall move for a recommittal of the item.

Item 366 -

By omitting the whole item and inserting in its stead the following item: -

  1. Carillons and bells as described by departmental by-laws, ad val., free, British; 10 per cent., intermediate;20 per cent., general tariff.
Senator GRANT:
New South Wales

.- I move-

That the House of Representatives be requested to make sub-item (b) read -

  1. Carillons and bells, including fittings therefor, but not including structural iron or steel, as described by departmental by-laws, ad val., free, British; 10 per cent., intermediate; 20 per cent., general.
Senator Crawford:

– I am prepared to accept the request.

Request agreed to.

Item agreed to, subject to a request.

Items 380 and 381 agreed to.

Item 388 (Metal Cordage).

Senator LYNCH:
Western Australia

– I should like to know what is included in paragraph b, n.e.i.

Senator CRAWFORD:
Honorary Minister · Queensland · NAT

.- The deferred duties on metal cordage have been partially deferred from time to time, but now operate in regard to all metal cordage except lock coil rope, as used in mines for hauling up heavy loads, and cable having a circumference of 4 inches and over for cable tramways. The manufacture of wire rope in Australia is now firmly established at Newcastle, but there are certain types which are still not being made here, and probably will not be produced for some considerable time. In order that these special types, namely, lock coil rope for mines, may be admitted free from the United Kingdom and 10 per cent, under the general tariff, a new subitem, providing for admission under departmental by-laws, has been provided for such ropes as are not commercially manufactured in Australia. What is now proposed is that the manufacturers of wire ropes in Australia shall receive the protection under the tariff, but provision is made for the free admission of the types of metal cordage which the Australian manufacturer is unable to commercially produce. This will ensure the cost of wire ropes being kept down to the minimum, and that users will not be needlessly burdened with the extra duty where no benefit can arise to the local industry. Before any ropes are admitted under sub-item b of this item, the Australian manufacturers will be consulted as to their ability to produce them.

Senator Lynch:

– Then I understand that ropes used for mining purposes will be exempt?

Senator CRAWFORD:

– Yes ; this subitem practically gives what is needed for mines.

Item agreed to.

Item 392 (Yarns).

Senator GUTHRIE:
Victoria

– I direct attention to the duties in subitem d, on yarns, silk, or silk in admixture with artificial silk, but not including yarns composed wholly of artificial silk. I should like to see the duties reduced by 5 per cent. There is no such material as artificial silk. It is technically known as rayon, and is an imitation silk made from wood pulp provided by Scandinavia at 2d. per lb. Courlands Limited have a monopoly of the manufacture of this material in Britain, and last year they made a profit of close on £5,000,000. It is really a rubbishy material got up very attractively, but its use is prejudicial to the great woollen industry of Australia. This so-called artificial silk is a vegetable matter. It is a conductor of both heat and cold, and it is very inflammable. It is also very unhealthy. Yet it is relatively dear on account of the brilliant dyes that it takes and which appear to fascinate women folk. Last year this rubbish known as “ rayon “ displaced 500,000 bales of Australian merino wool in the manufacturing industries of the world. In England, at any rate, its manufacture is the monopoly of a big combine that has a capital of £20,000,000 - which, I understand, is to be increased to £80,000,000- and made a net profit last year of nearly £5,000,000. I do not see any necessity for the importation of this so-called artificial silk into Australia. It competes with real silk, and with cotton stockings made by Bond’s and other Australian firms, and with the whole of the knitting industries of this country, particularly in the manufacture of ladies’ stockings, dresses, and underwear of all descriptions.

Senator Payne:

– Is not artificial silk used in Australia?

Senator GUTHRIE:

– I do not think it is largely used. I do not object to lowering the duty on the yarn ; but I am now dealing with the fabric.

Senator Crawford:

– I think that the honorable senator’s observations apply really to item 105, consideration of which was postponed. The item under consideration deals wholly with yarns.

Senator Drake-Brockman:

– I have already given notice of a request on that item which will meet Senator Guthrie’s objections.

Senator GUTHRIE:

– Very well.

Senator DUNCAN:
New South Wales

– This matter was inquired into by the Tariff Board on an application from Messrs. Bond and Company for a bounty on cotton yarn. This firm asked for a bounty of 6d. per lb. on cotton lint produced in Australia, and for a deferred duty at the same rate as on cotton and woollen yarns. The application was based on the ground that the assistance was necessary to establish the industry of spinning cotton yarn. The firm asked for a deferred duty on cotton piece goods, duck, and other yarns as well.

Senator Pearce:

– This will he a deferred duty.

Senator DUNCAN:

– Yes; but I point out that this firm, at the present time, can only manufacture 50 per cent. of its own requirements in cotton yarns, and on that portion of its requirements that it has to import it will have to pay the duty.

Senator Pearce:

– Not till the 1st January next.

Senator Crawford:

– And then it can be further deferred, if necessary.

Senator DUNCAN:

– What the firm suggests is that, until such time as the Australian industry is in a position to supply the whole of the local requirements of cotton yarns, it should be encouraged, not by a duty, but by a bounty.

Senator Crawford:

– That matter is under consideration, hut it is not dealt with in this bill.

Senator DUNCAN:

– We cannot assist the manufacture of cotton yarn by making the firms who use it pay more than they would otherwise do but for the imposition in the duty.

Senator REID:
Queensland

.- In reference to sub-item a, “ Cotton, including mercerized cotton yarn, ad val., free, free, 5 per cent.”, I should like to know if any application has been made by the makers of this yarn for an increase in the duty.

Senator CRAWFORD:
Honorary Minister · Queensland · NAT

– The deferred duties of 20 per cent., 30 cent., and 35 per cent. were inserted in the schedule after the bill had been introduced in the other branch of the Legislature, and after a request had been made for a bounty. As honorable senators have already observed, this is a deferred duty, to come into operation on the 1st January next, or at such later time as may Joe decided upon. But, in the meantime, the Government is considering the granting of a bounty.

Senator REID:
Queensland

.- I have a complaint from manufacturers of silk yarn that they experience serious competition from the United States of America and other parts of the world. The Tariff Board made an inquiry in Sydney, and only one gentleman appeared on behalf of the importers.

Senator Pearce:

– Silk goods are under sub-itemd.

Senator REID:

– Sub-item d reads - “ Silk or silk in admixture with artificial silk, but not including yarns composed wholly of artificial silk.” The manufacturers say that this material is landed in Australia at a lower price than that at which it can be made locally.

Senator Pearce:

– But the deferred duties are to be 20 per cent., 30 per cent., and 35 per cent.

Senator REID:

– Have those duties been fixed since the Tariff Board took evidence in Sydney?

Senator Pearce:

– Yes.

Senator THOMPSON:
Queensland

– We find ourselves in the position of granting very high duties on cotton textiles. We are proposing to pay a bounty shortly on locally-grown cotton, and yet we are proposing in this schedule to make cotton yarn “ free, free, 5 per cent.” I yield to none in my desire to establish the cotton industry in this country

Senator Pearce:

– There are also the deferred duties.

Senator THOMPSON:
QUEENSLAND · NAT

– A little more information on the subject would be useful. I understand that Bond’s are using Australian-grown cotton, and I have an idea that a good deal of their product is of a class for which the Queenslandgrown cotton is of too fine a quality. If that is the case, we shall always have to import cotton from overseas, because the intention in Australia is to grow only cotton of the highest grade. At present the Australian product is worth something more than average American middling cotton, and, if such firms as Bond’s are not able to use it, what is the use of growing it here?

Senator PEARCE:
Minister for Home and Territories · Western Australia · NAT

– I know something about this matter, because I have had to deal with it on behalf of the Commonwealth Government for some time. If, as Senator Thompson seems to think, cotton-growers in Australia produced crops consisting entirely of first-grade cotton, the future of the industry would be assured, and no bounty would be needed. But, unfortunately, no matter how well the ground is cultivated, what seed is used, or how careful the grower may be, a certain proportion of lower-grade cotton is unavoidable. Therefore, as the industry progresses, there will be a certain quantity of low-grade cotton from Queensland which will be suitable for the purpose of manufacturing cotton yarn.

Senator Thompson:

– Then why admit it free from overseas?

Senator PEARCE:

– Duties of 20 per cent., 30 per cent., and 35 per cent. are to come into operation with respect to cotton yarn on the 1st January next if the manufacturers can produce sufficient for local requirements, and, if not, the duties will be further deferred. This article is free, free, and 5 per cent. at present for the reason that the Australian manufacturers can only supply 50 per cent. of our own requirements. The higher duties at’ the present time would be only revenue-producing.

Item agreed to.

Items 393, 410, 415a, and 419 agreed to.

Item 424-

And on and after 1st July, 1926 - “ (b) Vessels, n.e.i., trading intra-state or interstate, or otherwise employed in Australian waters for any continuous period of three months, excepting vessels exceeding 500 tons gross register ordered before the date on which the deferred duty comes into operation, ad valorem; British, 25 per cent. ; intermediate, 30 per cent. ; general, 35 per cent.

By adding a new sub-item (g) as follows : - (c) Whaling and other vessels not commercially built; in Australia, as prescribed by departmental by-laws;

British, free; intermediate, free; general, free.”

Senator CRAWFORD:
QUEENSLAND · NAT; UAP from 1931

– I move -

That the House of Representatives be requested to make sub-item (b) (second occurring) read as follows: -

And on and after 1st July, 1926 - “ (b) Vessels, n.e.i., trading intra-state or interstate, or otherwise employed in Australian waters for any continuous period of three months, excepting vessels exceeding 500 tons gross register in respect of which firm orders were placed with oversea suppliers before the date on which the deferred duty comes into operation, and which are actually entered at an Australian port within fifteen months from such date, ad valorem; British, 25 per cent. ; intermediate, 30 per cent.; general 35 per cent.”

The purpose of this request is to place a time limit within which large vessels ordered before the date on which the deferred duty comes into operation, must actually arrive in Australia to obtain free entry. As the item now reads, “ On and after 1st July, 1926,” the rates of duty will be, British, 25 per cent. ; intermediate, 30 per cent. ; and general, 35 per cent., unless further deferred. The request for an amendment of the item is to prevent a company from ordering a ship between now and the 1st July next, for delivery, say, two or three years hence. The operation of the deferred duty will mean that the Australian industry has been established on a firm basis, capable of turning out vessels of larger sizes. It would then be detrimental to the Australian industry if the free entry of vessels were permitted for a considerable time thereafter. A period of fifteen months is regarded as a reasonable time for all vessels ordered prior to the date on which the deferred duty comes into operation to be imported free of duty.

Senator Grant:

– Can the Minister inform the committee how many vessels of less than 500 tons burthen have been imported during recent years?

Senator CRAWFORD:
NAT

– Last year four vessels of under 500 tons each, and eleven vessels of over 500 tons, were brought to Australia.

Request agreed to.

Senator KINGSMILL:
Western Australia

– I should like to move that the House of Representatives be requested to insert after the word “ Whaling “ in sub-item g the word “ trawling.”’ There is great need for reformand development in connexion with our fishing industries.

Senator Crawford:

-Would not the words “ and other vessels “ include trawlers ?

Senator KINGSMILL:

– Then why has the word “ whaling “ been specifically mentioned? Would not the words “ vessels not commercially built in Austtralia “ meet the case ?

Senator Crawford:

– The whole question arose in connexion with whaling.

Senator KINGSMILL:

– The fishing industry has been neglected. Our methods are 100 years behind the times.

For that reason the price of fish in Melbourne is high compared with the price ruling in cities supplied by trawlers. Honorable members will recollect the disastrous experiment in connexion with State fishing in New South Wales. The enterprise resulted in a loss of £300,000; but on its ruins a trawling industry has arisen which, although still in its infancy, has made a greatdifference to the fish supply of Sydney.

Senator Grant:

– The difference is not yet perceptible.

Senator KINGSMILL:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · NAT

– Fish is much cheaper in Sydney than in Melbourne or any other Australian capital city, with the possible exceptions of Perth and Hobart. The demand in those cities is, however, not so great as in the larger cities. The item includes the words “not commercially built in Australia.” We should know by this time that no vessel bigger than a pearling lugger can be built in Australia.

Senator Reid:

– That is not so.

Senator KINGSMILL:

– If the honorable senator will call to mind what has been done at Cockatoo Island-

Senator Reid:

– Private yards can build them.

Senator Crawford:

– If the honorale senator will move for the inclusion of the word “ trawling “ after the word “ Whaling “ I shall accept it.

Senator KINGSMILL:

– I move-

That the House of Representatives be requested to insert after the word “ Whaling “ in sub-item (g) the word “ trawling,”

Sub-itemg would then read -

Whaling, trawling, and other vessels not commercially built in Australia, as prescribed by departmental by-laws. 1 should like to know the effect of the words “ as prescribed by departmental by-laws.”I always look with suspicion on departmental by-laws?

Senator Crawford:

– There must be some guarantee that the vessels will be bona fide whaling or trawling vessels.

Senator KINGSMILL:

– I do not deny the necessity for by-laws but I ask what provision is being made?

Request agreed to.

Item agreed to, subject to requests.

Postponed item (vide page 2502).

Senator CRAWFORD:
QueenslandHonorary Minister · NAT

– I move -

That the House- of Representatives be re quested to make sub-item (aa) read as follows - “ (aa) Piece goods, cotton, silk or containing silk, artificial silk or containing artificial silk, but not containing wool, knitted, in tubular form or otherwise -

For the manufacture of goods other than apparel, as prescribed by departmental by-laws, ad val. British, free; intermediate, 5 per cent.; general, 15 per cent.

Other, ad val.; British, 20 per cent. ; intermediate, 30 per cent.; general, 35 per cent.

This alteration is solely for the purpose of inserting the words “ artificial silk or containing artificial silk.”

Senator GUTHRIE:
Victoria

– I cannot understand sub-item aa 1, which reads “ for the manufacture of goods other than apparel, as prescribed by departmental by-laws.”

Senator Crawford:

– It refers to meat wraps.

Senator GUTHRIE:

– But they are Dot made of silk. Under this sub-item material made of artificial silk or containing artificial silk in a manufactured form can come into this country free.

Senator Crawford:

– Has the honorable senator noticed the word “knitted “ ?

Senator GUTHRIE:

– It could be knitted into stockings or underclothing.

Senator Crawford:

– Then it would not be piece goods.

Senator GUTHRIE:

– I am afraid that it could be. I am afraid, also, that under this portion of the schedule it may be possible for artificial silk manufactured into some form of apparel to be admitted free, or at low rates of duty and compete with goods manufactured from Australian wool.

Senator Drake-Brockman:

– I have given notice of a request which will put that possibility beyond all doubt.

Senator GUTHRIE:

-That will satisfy me.

Request agreed to.

Senator PAYNE:
Tasmania

.- I wish to move a request to paragraph b of sub-item a.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Sir Thomas Glasgow:

– The committee has already agreed to the whole of sub-item a, and also to subitem aa.

Senator PAYNE:

-I naturally thought that sub-item aa would come before sub-item abon which I had a request to submit.

Senator Pearce:

– As the honorable senator has unwittingly missed his opportunity to submit his request, the Government will not oppose him if he seeks to have the schedule recommitted for the further consideration of item 105, subitem ab.

Senator PAYNE:

– I thank the Minister for his courtesy. I shall avail myself of the opportunity he suggests.

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
Western Australia

– I move -

That the House of Representatives be requested to make sub-item (d) read as follows : -

  1. (1) Artificial silk or containing artifi cial silk, or having artificial silk worked thereon, except piece goods enumerated in sub-items (aa) and (f), ad valorem, British 15 per cent., intermediate 15 per cent., general 20 per cent.

    1. Silk, or containing silk, or having silk worked thereon, except piece goods enumerated insub-items (aa), (d) (1), and (f), ad valorem, British 10 per cent., intermediate 12½ per cent., general 20 per cent.

In the original schedule the Government submitted in another place, it proposed that the rates of duty on silk piece goods in the 1921 tariff, which were ad valorem British 15 per cent., intermediate 15 per cent., and general 20 per cent., should be reduced to ad valorem British 10 per cent., intermediate 12½ per cent., general 17½ per cent; but another place having in its wisdom increased the 17½ per cent. general rate to 20 per cent., I do not now propose to ask that it be restored to17½ per cent., as I had at first intended to do. The proposal of the Government was that the British preferential rate in the 1921 tariff should be reduced by 5 per cent., and that the general rate should be reduced by2½ per cent., thus increasing the margin of preference from 5 per cent. to7½ per cent. Another place, by making the general rate on silk piece goods 20 per cent., has increased that margin to 10 per cent. Included under this item are piece goods known generally as artificial silks. I do not think that the duties on these articles should have been reduced. I think that the rates in the 1921 tariff should have been retained.

Senator Guthrie:

– They should have been doubled.

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:

– I do not propose that we should do that, but it is a suggestion that might be considered in the future. Artificial silk is produced to a considerable extent in Great Britain, but its manufacture is mostly in the hands of one company whose capital is £20,000,000, and whose modest annual profit is about £5,000,00. Last year it made over £4,500,000 profit, and as its profit has increased during each of the last few years at the rate of several hundreds of thousands of pounds, it should amount to at least £5,000,000, if not this, at any rate next year.

Senator McLachlan:

– Another company has just commenced the manufacture of artificial silk in Great Britain.

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:

– But the company to which I am referring has a monopoly of the processes which produce the most attractive article.

Senator Thompson:

– There must be a big demand for artificial silk piece goods.

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:

– There is a considerable demand, and I regret to say that in Australia there is an increasing demand for them. Artificial silk goods come into competition with our own woollen goods. They have no value as clothing, artificial silk being a conductor of heat and a conductor of cold. Artificial silk piece goods are sold in the shops as art silk, and many people, incapable of discriminating, buy them as if they were made from real silk.

Senator Kingsmill:

– It is not “ art “ silk, it is really “ craft “ silk.

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:

– In America it is not allowed to be called artificial silk. I have made representations to our Customs Department on this subject, but it appears that no action can be taken by them in the matter until the law is altered to enable the necessary regulations to be issued. I understand that steps have recently been taken in Great Britain to distinguish between artificial silk and real silk, although it has not yet been determined whether the term “ rayon,” which is used in America, or some other name should be adopted. I believe that our Customs Department also contemplates taking steps to prevent the imposition to which the public is now subjected. However, I think I have said sufficient to induce honorable senators to ask the House of Representatives to restore the duties on artificial silk that applied in the 1921 tariff.

Senator Crawford:

– I shall accept the request.

Senator PAYNE:
Tasmania

.- I shall oppose the request, because I do not think a case has been made out from the community point of view by the honorable senator who has submitted it. If acceded to, it would mean a higher rate of duty on artificial silk fabrics than on silk fabric. “Whatever may be said about artificial silk, it has come into popular favour all over the world, and I would not try to put back the hands of the clock. If artificial silk is giving satisfaction to the wearers, and is being produced in an attractive form at a price which is within the reach of the poorest section of the community, I should be the last in the world to impose on it higher duties than are payable on pure silk, which only the wealthy can purchase.

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · NAT

– Brockman. - They would not have that result at all. The profits are simply enormous.

Senator PAYNE:

– There are no manufacturers of this textile material in Australia, and I know nothing concerning the profits made in the country where it is manufactured. There are, however, some ‘excellent artificial silk materials, manufactured in Great Britain, which are offered for sale throughout Australia. A good, useful commodity, which is not directly competing with a similar article produced in Australia, is being sold at reasonable prices, and, consequently, we should not impose an unduly high burden upon the people. People must have light material during certain periods of the year, and, in some parts of Australia, throughout the whole year. Why should Mrs. Brown, whose husband receives only £5 a week, have to pay a higher duty on material suitable for herself and her children, than Mrs. Jones, whose husband has an income of perhaps £2,000 a year, and can afford to buy silk, which can be imported into Australia at a lower rate of duty. I do not think that anything has occurred to justify the imposition of this penalty upon the users of artificial silk. If Australian manufacturers were producing a similar article, I should be in favour of giving them reasonable protection, but Senator Drake-Brockman has not endeavoured to prove that such is the case. He simply referred to the enormous profits being made by the manufacturers of artificial silk in Great Britain and other countries.

Senator Andrew:

– Does it come into competition with materials produced by the woollen factories?

Senator PAYNE:

– No, artificial silk does not in any way affect the sale of woollen textiles, and the same can be said of silk. Every one knows what woollen textiles are. Does the fact that artificial silk is on the market prevent any one from buying Australian tweed ? Any one visiting the large emporia throughout Australia must have noticed the wonderful display and range of colours of goods manufactured from artificial silk, which are offered to the public at a reasonable price, and which do not in any way enter into competition with the woollen textiles manufactured in Australia.

Senator Lynch:

– How does it compare in price with silk ?

Senator PAYNE:

– It is sold . at less than pure silk. I believe artificial silk blouse material is sold at about 2s. lid. a yard, whereas 4&. or 4s. 6d. a yard is charged for silk which would not give anything like the same wear.

Senator Guthrie:

– Rubbish !

Senator PAYNE:

– I happen to be wearing a necktie made of artificial silk.

Senator Reid:

– Shame !

Senator PAYNE:

– There is no shame about it.

Senator Guthrie:

– The honorable senator should be ashamed to admit it.

Senator PAYNE:

Senator Reid is wearing one, and so also is Senator Guthrie. I challenge Senator Guthrie to deny that the necktie he is wearing is not made of artificial silk.

Senator Guthrie:

– That shows how we can be deceived by rubbish.

Senator PAYNE:

– Anything that gives satisfactory wear is not rubbish. Articles made from artificial silk do not only wear well, but will stand frequent washing without being affected. In fact, they stand washing much better than many articles made of pure silk ; they appear fresher and look better. Our Australian womenfolk like wearing something that is attractive.

Senator Lynch:

– What is artificial silk made of ?

Senator Guthrie:

– Wood pulp.

Senator PAYNE:

– It may be.

Senator Drake-Brockman:

– It is made only from wood pulp.

Senator PAYNE:

– I do not care what it is made from.

Senator Guthrie:

– I do.

Senator PAYNE:

– Why?

Senator Guthrie:

– Because it is rubbish.

Senator PAYNE:

– It is ridiculous for Senator Guthrie to make such a statement. On one occasion he said that if he had his way he would compel every person in Australia to wear only woollen overwear and underwear garments. And that regardless of climatic conditions! To adopt such an attitude is to become a read autocrat. The honorable senator has no consideration for the masses of the people. As I believe that Senator Drake-Brockman ‘s request, if adopted, will be the means of inflicting considerable hardship upon the Australian people, I intend to oppose it.

Senator GUTHRIE:
Victoria

– I was amazed to hear Senator Payne say that this so-called artificial silk does not enter into competition with woollen or cotton goods manufactured in Australia. Of course it does. Statistics show that the artificial silk, which, of course, is not silk, but rayon, is manufactured from wood pulp purchased at about 2d. per lb. in the raw state. It is made principally by a firm in Great Britain with a capital of £20,000,000. I understand the firm made a net profit of just about £5,000,000 last year, and has just announced its intention of watering its stock in order to hide its exorbitant profits. Its capital is to be increased to £80,000,000.

Senator Payne:

– Does artificial silk resemble woollen material in appearance ?

Senator GUTHRIE:

– I do not think it does.

Senator Payne:

– Then how can the poeple be deceived ?

Senator GUTHRIE:

– It is manufactured from wood pulp obtained from Scandinavia at 2d. per lb. It has a lustre which makes it attractive in appearance and it will take dyes readily, but as it is a vegetable product it is also a conductor of heat and cold. It is exceptionally inflammable.

Senator Payne:

– The honorable senator made the same comment concerning flannelette.

Senator GUTHRIE:

– Flannelette is also highly inflammable. Garments made of rayon are unhealthy, and do not give the same wear as those made of cotton and wool, silk and cotton mixtures, or silk and wool mixtures. If I had my way, I would prohibit its importation. Sometimes it is exhibited for sale in the shops as silk, and as it has the appearance of silk many who are not experts are deceived.

Senator Payne:

– I have never seen it ticketed up as silk.

Senator GUTHRIE:

– I am astounded at the assertion of Senator Payne that rayon does not enter into competition with products of Australian industries. Does the honorable senator think that artificial silk does not enter into competition with the silk and cotton hosiery manufactured by Bonds ?

Senator Payne:

– The Lincoln Knitting Mills make thousands of dozens of pairs of artificial silk hose. Does the honorable senator object to that ?

Senator GUTHRIE:

– I do. In comparison with other duties in the schedule, the proposed rates are far too low, and I trust honorable senators will do everything in their power to protect the manufacturers of Australia, and also the people, by discouraging the use of this unwholesome and highly inflammable material.

Senator KINGSMILL:
Western Australia

– The speech just delivered by Senator Guthrie gives one furiously to think, as the French say, and brings into prominent relief the fact that many honorable senators consider these articles solely from the view-point of Melbourne and its climate. They apparently overlook the fact that in one of the most important parts of Australia, the north, the people must have light clothing, and arrogate to themselves the right to say what others shall or shall not wear. A noted character in Biblical history once excused himself from certain proceedings by asking. “ Am I my brother’s keeper ?” I do not know whether he was or not, but we are certainly aspiring to the position of being, not only our brother’s keeper, but what is more important, and I venture to say more dangerous, our sister’s keeper. I do not wish to interfere with the liberty of the subject. Moreover, the Australian people are as good a judge of what they require as we are. They who wear this stuff know as much about it as we do, and will not be guided by the opinions - I was about to say prejudices - of any member of this committee. They are not going to be dictated to, and I do not blame them. This discussion brings into prominence the point that, apparently, those who are supporting the proposition have regard to only two classes in the community - the employer and the employee. They forget the great bulk of the people of Australia who are not in either of these capacities. In these circumstances, I cannot see my way to support the request proposed by my colleague from Western Australia, Senator Drake-Brockman.

Question - That the request be agreed to - put. The committee divided.

AYES: 21

NOES: 4

Majority . . . . 17

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Request agreed to.

Senator PAYNE:
Tasmania

.- Sub-item f 1 deals with piece goods, woollen, or containing wool, but not including flannel ordinarily used in the manufacture of outer garments for human wear and weighing not more than 6£ ounces to the square yard, the invoice selling price of which does not exceed the equivalent of 3s. 4d. a square yard. The tariff proposed is ls. a square yard and 30 per cent. British; ls. 6d. a square yard and 40 per cent, intermediate; and 2s. a square yard and 45 per cent, general These duties are considerably in advance of the tariff of 1921 ; let us see what they will mean. I have here a number of samples of what is known as a low-priced textile dress material, containing wool, of British manufacture of the kind worn as a winter outer garment by women-folk and children of the working class people. One sample, a 40-inch material, prior to the introduction of this tariff was retailed at 2s. lid. a yard; another was retailed at 3s. 6d. ; and a third at 4s. 6d. As the result of the imposition of these new duties the lowest-priced material formerly retailed at 2s. lid. a yard is now 4s. lid.; the 3s. 6d. material is now sold at 5s. lid. ; and the 4s. 6d. material at 7s. 9d. Why should the general community be penalized in this way? No material of this character is produced in Australia. I have nothing to say against the quality of Australian tweed, but up to the present Australian manufacturers have not produced this class of material.

Senator Guthrie:

– Is not that because they have not been sufficiently protected?

Senator PAYNE:

– That is not the reason.

Senator Guthrie:

– I think it is.

Senator PAYNE:

– Does the honorable senator believe that the Australian woollen textile manufacturers were not amply protected under the 1921 tariff?

Senator Guthrie:

– At that time probably they were, but conditions have entirely changed since then.

Senator PAYNE:

– Is it not a fact that in 1921 the duties were increased from 20 to 30 per cent. ?

Senator Guthrie:

– Does the honorable senator say that the manufacturers of this class of goods are not worth protecting ?

Senator PAYNE:

– I am not saying anything against the manufacturers. Senator Guthrie has said on other occasions that they were able to carry on and expand their businesses under the 1921 tariff.

Senator Guthrie:

– Why, then, have they not been making the class of goods mentioned by the honorable senator? Is it not because they have not been sufficiently protected ?

Senator PAYNE:

– The honorable senator’s interjection reminds me of the debate on the 1921 tariff. On that occasion he supported me when I was endeavouring to prevent what I considered was an attempt to impose unduly heavy duties on woollen textiles. This is what he said. It is to be found on page 10911 of Hansard : -

The rates proposed on woollen goods are so stupid as to cause one to lose faith in the whole tariff. . . . Without any protection we could make a profit out of the manufacture, and a rattling good profit with a duty of 25 per cent. . . . Why increase the duties and add to the cost of living? … To do so is unnecessary, and enrages the public. I believe in reasonable protection; not in the fattening, ut the expense of thu people, of those who are already fat, which is what will take place if wc pass the duties here proposed.

Senator Crawford:

– Whom is the honorable senator quoting ?

Senator PAYNE:

– I am quoting Senator Guthrie in 1921. That honorable senator said further - his remarks are reported on page 1091S of Hansard -

I wish success to every mill in Australia. I want mills to flourish all over the place; but, in view of the irrefutable evidence from the Age, Mr. Ambrose Pratt, the Bureau of Commerce and Industry, and the Interstate Commission, and in view of the extraordinary natural protection we have, and the huge profits made by our manufacturers under the old tariff, is not the duty now sought to be imposed protection running stark, staring mad?

That was Senator Guthrie’s opinion in 1921.

Senator Crawford:

– Much water has run under the bridge since then.

Senator PAYNE:

– On that occasion the Government sought to increase the duties. Now we are asked to give further increases by an addition of ls. per square yard to the 30 per cent. British tariff.

Senator Crawford:

– There was no increase in the British duty in the 1921 tariff. It was 30 per cent, in 1914.

Senator PAYNE:

– If there was no proposal to increase the tariff on this item in 1921, why did Senator Guthrie protest against proposed increases 1 It is probable that we were successful in defeating an effort to unduly harass the people, and succeeded in reducing the duty to 30 per cent. Now it is proposed to further penalize the working class people by an additional ls. a square yard British duty, with corresponding heavier increases i» the intermediate and general tariffs. The people will be forced to buy Australian tweeds or else pay higher prices for the imported material. We are proud of the fact that the price of these commodities has been within the reach of the masses of the people. It is our boast that the wives and children of the working men of Australia are the best dressed in the world. I move -

That the House of Representatives be requested to amend sub-item f (1), by leaving out ls., British.

Senator CRAWFORD:
QueenslandHonorary Minister · NAT

– I need scarcely inform the committee that I do not intend to accept the request. I am sure that honorable senators are amused at the manner in which Senator Payne has proclaimed himself to be the sole champion of the workers of Australia and their wives. Judging by his remarks, one would think that the first consideration in the minds of working people in the matter of dress was cheapness. I claim that the greatest importance is attached to employment, at fair wages, and under reasonable conditions. That is what the tariff, and particularly the sub-item of which Senator Payne complains, has been designed to accomplish. The purpose of this composite duty is to prevent the admission of shoddy, which has proved a serious competitor against the great woollen industry of Australia. Mills that were practically idle some months ago are now humming with activity, and employing thousands of operatives who were previously out of work. Senator Payne has exhibited a number of samples of cheap cloth, and has endeavoured to per.suade us that the wearing of the shoddy material has given visitors to this country the impression that Australians are particularly well dressed. It is hardly necessary to point out that cheap clothing is not necessarily the most economical. I wear a suit of clothes for years; but my suits are not made from such lowquality material as that displayed tonight by the honorable senator from Tasmania, who would have us believe that the wife of the average working man uses it. If the sub-item has the effect of keeping out of this country shoddy that has been coming in in large quantities, it will prove a blessing to the masses of the people, because, instead of using shoddy, they will buy good Australian tweed, which, although a little more expensive to buy, will prove the cheapest in the end. I am confident that the committee desires to protect our woollen mills against competition from manufacturers of material made from the cast-off rags of Great Britain.

Senator GUTHRIE:
Victoria

– I am sure that the committee will adopt the sub-item as printed; but, since my name has been mentioned in connexion with the 1921 tariff, I wish to repeat what I said in my second-reading speech in explaining the reason why I opposed an increase in the duty on woollen goods at that time. It was shown by a commission that inquired into the matter that, during and after the war years, the average profit made by “the manufacturers of woollen goods in Australia was 33 per cent., and at that time I did not think that they required any more protection. Subsequent to the war Australia has been importing woollens from certain European nations, and wages in Great Britain were then as high as, and in fact higher than, those in Australia. Since that time, however, wages have materially decreased in Great Britain, and greatly increased in Australia, while the hours of work here have been reduced. During the last three or four years the woollen manufacturing industry of Australia has experienced hard times. Some mills have been closed, and few have been paying dividends. Very few, in fact, that have been equipped with machinery since the war have yet paid a dividend. Therefore, there is every justification for giving protection for ladies’ light-weight woollen goods. Although Senator Payne has asserted that this class of material is not made in Australia, I have samples before me of material of this very weight. It is similar in appearance to that exhibited by Senator Payne, but it is infinitely superior in quality, because it is made of better wool. Material 56 inches wide is sold at 4s. 6d. a yard, and since the average length of material required for a lady’s dress would be not more than 3 yards, it is useless for the honorable senator to talk about the hardship that would be inflicted on the women-folk of Australia by the imposition of the proposed duty. This splendid material is available in a variety of colours to suit all tastes. I feel confident that women-folk would not mind paying an extra ls. a yard for material made by Australians working tinder the best industrial conditions.

Senator Payne:

– The honorable senator has quoted the factory price, whereas I have given retail prices. That cloth would be retailed at about 8s. 6d. a yard.

Senator GUTHRIE:

– The industry is well worth protecting, and it is idle for Senator Payne to harp about injustice being done to the women-folk of Australia.

Senator GRAHAM:
Western Australia

– I was surprised at the statement by Senator Payne that lightweight tweed had not been made in Australia. I have seen hundreds of samples of this material from factories in Victoria, and even in Tasmania, and it is superior to any goods that can be imported from the Old Country at a similar price. I support the sub-item as it stands, because the duty will assist to keep money in the country, instead of favouring industries abroad, where the conditions of labour are not equal to those obtaining in Australia. The samples of light tweeds made by Messrs. Foy and Gibson, from pure Australian wool, are unsurpassed in quality.

Senator Payne:

– Quite so; but that firm cannot supply the whole community.

Senator GRAHAM:

– Perhaps, not; but the firms manufacturing this betterclass material keep Australians in constant employment.

Senator Elliott:

– What is the price of the material.

Senator GRAHAM:

– From 3s. 9d. a yard upwards, and the heavy-weight tweed, 54 inches wide, is sold at 5s. 6d. a yard. The samples produced by Senator Payne are not to be compared with this cloth, which is available in all patterns, widths, and colours. We have no need to go outside Australia to get the material required by the Australian working man’s wife, who must wear cheap tweed costumes. I desire to read an extract from the Melbourne Age, of Tuesday, the 1st June, 1926:-.

Kelsall and Kemp (Tasmania) Limited, manufacturers of woollen goods, disclose for the year to 31st .March last a loss of £13,164, as against a loss of i:3,962 for 1024-25. The directors in their report state that the loss sustained for 1925-26 was largely due to depreciation of stocks of raw material and of finished goods made in the previous period of slack trade.

That shows that, because of importations from abroad, employees of Australian woollen mills have been thrown out of employment. I ask the Senate not to agree to the request, but to vote for the Government’s proposals.

Senator REID:
Queensland

.- While clothing made from material similar to the samples submitted by Senator Payne may be suitable for Melbourne and Hobart, it would certainly not be suited to the warmer districts of Australia. I have here some samples of Australian-made material which is suitable for wear in any portion of Australia, including Queensland. The back of these tweeds is as good as the face, proving the high quality of the Australian-made article. Moreover, this material is obtainable in a variety of colours, patterns, and weights. . I am surprised that Senator Payne should have brought such rubbish into the chamber. The material which he exhibited would not stand a shower of rain. I trust that the Senate will agree to give a reasonable measure of protection to an Australian industry which can produce such satisfactory material as I have exhibited.

Senator McHUGH:
South Australia

– I hope that Senator Payne will not insist on dividing the committee on this item. If he does, he will receive no support. The material which he has exhibited may be all right for Australian aborigines, but it is an insult to the fair women of Australia to ask them to wear such shoddy rags. They will not wear such material unless forced to do so. The purpose of this tariff is to build up in this country a strong community, under conditions which will enable them to maintain their reputation for wearing clothing made of good materials and chosen in excellent taste.

Request negatived.

Item agreed to, subject to requests.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported with requests.

Motion (by Senator Crawford) proposed -

That the report be adopted.

Motion (by Senator Payne) proposed -

That the bill be recommitted for the purpose of reconsidering item 105, sub-item A (1), paragraphs (b) and (c).

Amendment (by Senator Lynch) agreed to -

That the motion be amended by adding the words “and item 350.”

Motion, as amended, agreed to.

In committee (Recommittal) :

Item 105 (a 1) -

By omitting the whole of sub-item (a) (1) and inserting in its stead the following subitem: - “ (a) (1) (a) Cotton, linen, and other piece goods, n.e.i.; oil baize not containing wool, ad val., British, free; intermediate, 5 per cent.; general, 15 per cent.

Cotton piece goods ordinarily used for manufacture into outer clothing for human wear which in pattern, design or appearance resemble woollen piece goods used for the same purpose, and which weigh more than 6 oz. per square yard - the invoice selling price of which does not exceed the equivalent of 3s. 4d. per square yard - per square yard, British,1s.; intermediate,1s.6d. ; general, 2s.; and ad val., British, 30 per cent.; intermediate, 40 percent.; general, 45 per cent.

Cotton piece goods ordinarily used for manufacture into outer clothing for human wear which in pattern, design, or appearance resemble woollen piece goods used for the same purpose, and which weigh more than . 6 oz. per square yard - the invoice selling price of which exceeds the equivalent of 3s.4d. per square yard, ad val., British, 35 per cent.; intermediate, 45 per cent.; general, 50 per cent.”

Senator PAYNE:
Tasmania

– This item came under item 105 a of the 1921 tariff, when the materials referred to were admitted under the British preferential tariff, British, free, intermediate 5 per cent., general 15 per cent. Only one item - cotton tweeds - is referred to. As honorable senators are aware, trousers made of cotton tweeds have been in general use in Australia for a considerable time, they having superseded the moleskin trousers previously largely worn by working men. Trousers of cotton tweeds are lighter in weight, and smarter in appearance, than the moleskin trousers previously worn, and, when of reasonably good quality, give equally satisfactory wear.

Senator Elliott:

– Some splendid trousers made of this material are now manufactured in Australia.

Senator PAYNE:

– Yes; I have some here. Nine out of every ten working men in Australia wear cotton tweed trousers at their work. It is estimated that the quantity of tweed required for Australian use is 4,500,000 yards per annum. The duty on imported British material is ‘ ls. per square yard, to which is added 30 per cent. That, on the average cotton tweed, is equivalent to at least 85 per cent.

Senator Findley:

– How many yards of material are required to make a pair of trousers f

Senator PAYNE:

– It takes 1 yards of material, 27 or 28 inches wide. The patterns which I shall submit to the Senate are of that width. I have with me a full range of the cotton tweeds manufactured in Australia. This industry has just commenced here, and, up to a certain point, a good cotton tweed is being manufactured. My point is, that although this industry will employ a certain number of people, the addition to the Australian wages-sheet will not be commensurate with the increased price which this duty will force the Australian working man to pay for garments made of this material. I base that statement on the figures submitted to me by Australian mills showing the prices they are asking for cotton tweed comparable in quality with imported Englishmade cotton tweed. I have selected a. few samples of Australian-made and Englishmade ; they are equal in quality. The Australian samples I have are from Vicar’s, Bond’s, and the Tweedside mills. The sample from Vicar’s mill is what is known as a “ Palmer “ tweed, with a nap to the back. It is 27 inches wide, and is sold at the mill at 2s. 3d. a yard. One sample of Bond’s is 28 inches wide; it is a plain cotton striped tweed, with no nap to the back, and is sold at 2s. 6d. a yard. Two other samples of Bond’s are sold at 2s. 6d. a yard. The sample from the Tweedside mill is sold at 2s. 5d. a yard. The English tweeds of the same finish, and of equal quality to the Australian tweeds, could be landed here under the old tariff at prices ranging from ls. 3-Jd. to ls. 5fd. a yard; but the tweed at ls. 5fd. a yard is slightly superior to the Australian article at 2s. 6d. A plain tweed without any nap, which I was told the other day would shrink in washing, but which I have proved by actual test will not do so, could be landed here at is. m.

Senator Sampson:

– Does the honorable senator wish to destroy the Australian industry?

Senator PAYNE:

- No. I agree with those who say that the Australian manufacturer can produce in certain grades tweed equal to the imported; but I have taken the trouble to get all the information I could as to the extra cost which will be entailed on the community if the proposed rates of duty are maintained. It is estimated that 4,500,000 yards of cotton tweed are used annually in Australia. From reliable sources, I have ascertained that 50 automatic looms in England, requiring the attention of six girls, produce 5,000 yards of cotton tweed each week. Therefore, 108 girls should be able to attend to the looms that would produce the 4,500,000 yards required to meet the Australian demand for cotton tweed. Allowing these girls a weekly wage of £2 10s., the annual wages-sheet of Australia would be increased by £14,000; but, in order to make allowance for the inexperience of the Australian employees in this particular line of manufacture, I have based my figures on the Australian looms requiring the attention of twice the number of girls deemed necessary in England. That would bring the annual increase in the wages-sheet of Australia to £28,000. But I want to be fair. T have erred on the side of liberality in making my calculation, and on the other hand I have tried to be conservative, so that I may not be charged with having overstated the case. In addition to the girls employed in supervising the looms, there are others who attend to the spinning of the cotton. Men are also employed pressing the tweed after it is manufactured, folding it and packing it for distribution. To make allowance for this additional labour, I have doubled the £28,000 representing the wages of the girls engaged on the looms, and have arrived at this fact, that on the most liberal basis, the manufacture of the whole of Australia’s cotton tweed requirements would add £56,000 to the wages-sheet of the people of Australia. Allowing 2$ yards of cotton tweed to make a pair of trousers, the requirement of Australia in this respect is 1,800,000 pairs. Taking into consideration the difference between the price of the. British article under the old tariff and the prices submitted bv the Australian mills, on the lowest basis I can arrive at, the cost of the average pair of trousers worn by a working man would be increased by 3s. 9d. a pair.

Senator Guthrie:

– What price is the honorable senator allowing for Australian tweeds?

Senator PAYNE:

– The prices I have already mentioned - 2s. 3d. and 2s. 6d.

Senator Guthrie:

– Some Australian tweeds have been sold at1s. 9d.

Senator PAYNE:

– I could produce a sample of English cotton tweed which could be landed at 10½d. a yard, but I am taking the average quality used. For instance, I would not use for my garments the material produced in Australia and sold at1s. 9d. a yard. I am taking the general average quality used by the average working man in Australia. One could not work on a fairer basis. It was suggested to me that the additional cost to the purchasers of these cotton tweeds would be as much as 7s. a pair of trousers, but that was in regard to cotton tweed of the very highest quality. 1 did not think it would be fair to work out a comparison on that basis. In my calculations, which are based on the lowest prices of Australianmade cotton tweeds of average quality, I am fortified by quotations I have received from the manufacturers of the garments. These show that I am below the mark in my estimate that 3s. 9d. a pair of trousers is the increase that has been brought about by the increase in duties. On 1,800,000 pairs of trousers, which represents the annual demand in Australia, the total additional cost is £337,500. I contend that an industry which will add only £56,000 to the wages sheet of Australia is not worth consideration if the community is to pay £337,500 for it. I think I have put the matter fairly. English cotton tweed, which can be landed at1s. 5d. a yard, will cost 3s. 8d. a yard. I have learned from the clothing manufacturers of Australia that, after consultation between employers and employees, the price for making a pair of cotton tweed trousers is fixed at 2s. 3¾d.

Senator Guthrie:

– Is it not a fact that more than half the cotton tweeds imported into Australia come from Japan?

Senator PAYNE:

– I do not propose to interfere with the prohibitive tariff placed upon Japanese or other foreign tweeds. I am dealing solely with British tweeds. Throughout this debate I have made it clear that I am not concerned with giving assistance to foreign manufacturers, but I say without hesitation that it is quite opposed to economics, and likewise suicidal, to ask one section of the people of Australia to contribute annually £337,500 in order to add £56,000 to the wages sheet of Australia.

Senator Sampson:

– Is not the Australian article equal to the imported ?

Senator PAYNE:

– All the comparisons I have made are between articles of similar qualities, imported and locally made.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Sir Thomas Glasgow:

– The honorable senator has exhausted his time. Senator PAYNE.- I move-

That the House of Representatives be requested to amend sub-item a (1) (b) by leaving out the duty “1s. ‘’. British preferential tariff.

Senator CRAWFORD:
Honorary Minister · Queensland · NAT

– I shall not follow the example of Senator Payne and exhaust my time in discussing his request, because practically everything I have said in regard to shoddy goods applies with equal force to imported cotton tweeds. The honorable senator has based the whole of his argument upon the entirely erroneous assumption that the amount of duty will be added to the cost of every pair of trousers made from Australian cotton tweed.

Senator Needham:

– Is the honorable senator suggesting that the imported cotton tweeds are shoddy ?

Senator CRAWFORD:

– I have not applied the term “ shoddy “ to cotton tweeds, although I understand that a big proportion of those which were imported before these duties were imposed was of a decidedly inferior quality, and came from some of the cheap labour countries of the world. The Customs Department has an assurance from the manufacturers that the additional cost of a pair of trousers made from Australian cotton tweed under the protection afforded in this schedule will not amount to more than 6d. Surely no one would begrudge paying an extra 6d. a pair for these trousers when the cotton used in them is grown by Australian farmers, and the yarn spun and cloth woven by Australian operatives.

Senator Payne:

– The manufacturers will have to reduce their price by at least one-third to carry out their undertaking to the department.

Senator Graham:

– They have not reduced the quality of their tweeds.

Senator CRAWFORD:

– The quality is in the goods they turn out.

Senator Payne:

– Every sample of English cotton tweeds I have submitted is of equal quality to the Australian.

Senator CRAWFORD:

– On examining a number of samples of Australian cotton tweeds I was surprised to notice their splendid quality, and the very reasonable price at which they were being sold. Before the increased tariff came into operation large quantities of cotton tweeds were imported and were coming into serious competition with the woollen goods manufactured in Australia. A large quantity of cotton tweeds will still be used for men’s clothing ; but I understand that the Australian mills are prepared to produce whatever quantity may be required. Two mills have each undertaken to supply 1,000,000 yards annually. Australian cotton tweeds will come into competition with denims, dungarees and khaki, which are admitted free. In the northern parts of Queensland, khaki is extensively used for cotton trousers, and this material, which is admitted free of duty, will always come into strong competition with cotton tweed produced in Australia. I feel confident that on this item honorable senators will vote as they did on Senator Payne’s amendment relating to duties on cheap woollens.

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

AYES: 7

NOES: 22

Majority … … 15

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Request negatived.

Item agreed to, without further request.

Item 359-

By omitting the whole of sub-item (d) (4) (twice occurring) and inserting in its stead the following sub-item : - “ (d) (4) Chassis,…

Unassembled, ad val.. British, free; intermediate, 7) per cent.; general, 12½ per cent.

Assembled, ad val., British, 5 per cent.; intermediate, 12½ per cent.; general, 17) per cent.”

Senator LYNCH:
Western Australia

– I direct the attention of the committee to what appears to me the unfinished form of this item. As honorable senators are aware, a chassis, under the terms of the tariff, is all that portion of a car except the body, the tires, and the battery. Under the 1921 tariff assembled chassis were admitted at 7½per cent. British, 10 per cent. intermediate, and 12½ per cent. general, giving a clear advantage of 5 per cent. to the chassis of British manufacture. The rates for unassembled cars were 5 per cent. British, 7½ per cent. intermediate, and 10 per cent. general, showing again an advantage of 5 per cent. Under the new proposals unassembled chassis are British, free ; intermediate,7½ per cent. ; general, 12½ per cent.; and assembled British, 5 per cent.; intermediate, 12½ per cent.; and general, 17½ per cent., making a difference in each case of 12½ per cent. as against 5 per cent. under the 1921 tariff. My proposal is something in the nature of splitting the difference by making the rates in the case of unassembled chassis, British, free; intermediate,2½ per cent. ; and general,7½ per cent., which will give the British product an advantage of7½ per cent. It is my desire to reconcile the two interests by giving the British manufactures a reasonable degree of protection, and at the same time conserving the interests of chassis assemblers in Australia. That is, I think, the first step in the direction of manufacturing complete motor cars in Australia. As the schedule stands at present there is not that advantage which we should like to see, except in the case of British chassis. Under the present proposal the assembled British chassis can come into Australia at a duty of 5 per cent., so that there is only a difference of 7½ per cent. net protecting the industry of assembling chassis in Australia. I propose to submit a request under which these parts could be imported at a duty of7½ per cent. instead of 12½ per cent. In other words, the object is to enable the raw material - a term which has frequently been mentioned during the debate - of the assemblers of chassis in Australia to be imported under a duty of 5 per cent. less than that for which, the item provides, and thus encourage the industry already established here. Under my proposal they would have a beter opportunity of carrying on their business than in the past, and at the same time we should be retaining the advantage to the British exporters. Senator Pearce. - Is not that similar to the request which Senator Duncan proposed ?

Senator LYNCH:

– No. Senator Duncan suggested an alteration in the existing rates, but he did not submit a concrete proposal. My proposal will give Britain a preference of7½ per cent., and at the same time will give those engaged in the industry of assembling chassis in Australia an opportunity of continuing their business. I appeal in all earnestness for the favorable consideration of my request. I move -

That the House of Representatives be requested to make the duties on sub-item (d) (4) (a) intermediate, 2½ per cent. ; general, 7½ per cent.

Senator CRAWFORD:
QueenslandHonorary Minister · NAT

– There is nothing more commendable in the requested amendment moved by Senator Lynch than that suggested by Senator Duncan. Everything I said in opposition to Senator Duncan’s suggestion applies with equal, if not greater, force to the proposal of Senator Lynch. I, therefore, trust the committee will allow the duties to remain as they appear in the schedule.

Senator NEEDHAM:
Western Australia

– I ask the Minister (Senator Crawford) to give this matter further consideration. I do not like to assist in reducing the British preferential rates, but when they may seriously affect the employment of Australian workmen, I have to consider my position. I understand a request has been moved for a reduction of 5 per cent. in the British preferential rate which, in my opinion, is not an attack upon the principle of preference to Britain, but the effect of it may be of great assistance to Australian workmen. In the 1921 tariff the duty on unassembled chassis was 5 per cent. British, per cent. intermediate, and 10 per cent. general, and on assembled chassis7½ per cent. British, 10 per cent. intermediate, and12½ per cent. general. In this schedule the proposal is to make unassembled chassis free British,7½ per cent. intermediate, and 12½ per cent. general. Senator Lynch’s request is to reduce the intermediate tariff to 2½ per cent., and the general tariff to7½ per cent. In this matter we must have regard to the position of America. It is not so much a matter of preference to Britain as to the American business. The assembling of chassis here will give employment to a large number of Australian mechanics.

Senator J B Hayes:

– They will get just as much employment in the assembling of British as of American chassis.

Senator NEEDHAM:

– I doubt it, because many more cars of American manufacture are being imported.

Senator Pearce:

– There are more unassembled chassis coming from Great Britain than from America.

Senator NEEDHAM:

– I have no objection to preference being given to Great Britain; but when it is a question of preference to Great Britain as against employment to Australian workmen I must consider my position. We are all anxious to give preference to the Mother Country whenever that is possible, but it is obvious that the duties in this item will work to the disadvantage of the Australian industry.

Senator FINDLEY:
Victoria

– The principle involved in Senator Lynch’s request is whether we are to give preference to Britain as against the interests of the Australian industry.

Senator J B Hayes:

– No; preference to Britain as against America.

Senator FINDLEY:

– The importation of assembled chassis does not provide employment for Australian workmen. I wish again to point out that assembled chassis can be imported from Britain at 5 per cent., whilst unassembled chassis from countries other than Britain or Canada are dutiable at 12½ per cent. - a difference of 7½ per cent. against the Australian industry. To whom should we give preference?

Senator J B Hayes:

– To Britain as against America.

Senator FINDLEY:

– Cannot the honorable senator see that in these duties we are giving a preference to Britain by allowing assembled chassis to come in at 5 per cent., and unassembled chassis from countries other than Britain or Canada at 12½ per cent.? It is said that nearly nine-tenths of the motor cars sold in Australia come from countries other than Britain.

Senator Pearce:

– There is a greater proportion of British chassis assembled in Australia than of chassis from other countries.

Senator FINDLEY:

– We should agree to the request of Senator Lynch, because it will mean more employment for more Australian workmen, and later, we hope, will lead to the building of the complete car in Australia.

Senator Crawford:

– The Governmentis strongly opposed to any whittling-down of the British preference.

Senator FINDLEY:

– I believe that if the request is agreed to it will mean the beginning of a big industry in Australia, and that as our mechanics gain experience, we shall have the motor car industry established in this country.

Senator CRAWFORD:
QueenslandHonorary Minister · NAT

– I hope that the request will not be agreed to. The Government is strongly opposed to any reduction in the preference given under this item to British manufacturers. We get a good deal in return from Great Britain, and we are hoping to get more preferential treatment, especially in connexion with our primary products. I submit that the protection given to the Australian workmen in the assembling of motor chassis is ample. Senator Duncan, who first directed attention to these duties, said that the chassis assembling industry in Australia was prosperous and giving employment to a large number of men. Any proposal to cut down the British preference as against America from 12½ per cent. to 7½ per cent is, to say the least, a very unfriendly gesture towards Britain, and I hope that the commi t tee will not be a party to it.

Senator NEEDHAM:
Western Australia

– I think the. Minister is rather spoiling his case when he says that honorable senators who intend to support the request of Senator Lynch are making an unfriendly gesture towards Great Britain. That is abuse; not argument. Honorable senators have, by their votes, shown that they are anxious to give preference to Great Britain, so the Minister’s statement is pure nonsense. What we are asking for is a reduction of 5 per cent. in the general tariff on unassembled chassis. In whose favour?

Senator Reid:

– America, of course.

Senator NEEDHAM:

– No ; in favour of the Australian workmen and an Australian industry. I hope we shall hear no more of these allegations’ of unfriendliness towards Great Britain simply because of our attitude on this item. Our purpose is to help Australian workmen and to foster an Australian industry.

Senator GRANT:
New South Wales

– In view of the sharp conflict of opinion between Senator Findley, Senator Needham, and other honorable senators on this side, and honorable senators supporting the Government, the Minister should place before the committee a clear statement of the position, so that there can be no misunderstanding.

Question - that the request be agreed to - put. The committee divided.

AYES: 0

NOES: 16

Majority … 4

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Request negatived.

Item agreed to without further request.

Bill reported without further request; reports adopted.

Senate adjourned at 11.5 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 10 June 1926, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1926/19260610_senate_10_113/>.