House of Representatives
21 January 1902

1^st Parliament · 1^st Session

PETITION
SECOND COMMONWEALTH CONTINGENT
QUESTION
- COMMONWEALTH PUBLICATIONS
QUESTION
- DUTIES ON PRINTING MACHINERY
QUESTION
- POSTAGE RECEIPTS
TRANSFERRED OFFICERS
QUESTION
- FEDERAL CAPITAL
QUESTION
- PARCELS POST SYSTEM
QUESTION
- DISTRIBUTION OF PRINTING
QUESTION
- MAINTENANCE MEN
QUESTION
- MAIL-BAGS
QUESTION
- INCREMENTS : POSTAL SERVICE
QUESTION
- CARBONATE OF SODA
QUESTION
- MESSRS. COHEN AND LEWIS
TARIFF

The Speaker took the chair at 2.30 p.m., and read prayers.

DEATH OF PRESIDENT McKINLEY.

Mr. SPEAKER.- I have to inform the House that I have received the following letter fromHis Excellency the GovernorGeneral : -

Melbourne, 17th January, 1902.

Sir, - With reference to your letter of the18th September last, I have now the honour to inform you that I have received a despatch from the Secretary of State for the Coloniesintimating that a note has been received by His Majesty’s Government From the United States Charge d’ Affaires in London, stating that the President and people of the United States have been deeply touched by the many kind expressions of condolence at the death of President McKinley which have been sent through the British Government from all parts of Australia and Now Zealand, carrying with them a most welcome assurance of friendship and good-will.

Mr. White, the Charge d’ Affaires, was instructed by his Government to ask that on expression of the sincere and heartfelt gratitude, with which these messages have been received by the President of the United States, should be conveyed to the House of Representatives.
Mr. White explains, on behalf of his Government, that pressure of public business, attendant upon the death of President McKinley, has alone, prevented on earlier message of appreciation of these evidences of friendship and deep feeling.

page 8954

PETITION

Mr. HIGGINS presented a petition from certain residents in the. States of New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia, and Tasmania, praying for the withdrawal of Australian soldiers from South Africa, and that the Australian Commonwealth should plead for peace to be offered to the people of the South African Republics on terms consistent with the national traditions of a brave and gifted foe.

Petition received.

page 8954

SECOND COMMONWEALTH CONTINGENT

Mr BARTON:
Minister for External Affairs · HUNTER, NEW SOUTH WALES · Protectionist

– With the indulgence of the House, I should like to make a short statement for the information of honorable members. Honorable gentlemen will remember that, the other day resolutions were passed by the House giving an indignant denial to the baseless charges made abroad against the people and the army of the Empire, and affirming the readiness of Australia to give all requisite aid to His Majesty’s Government with a view to the speedier termination of the war. Yesterday I received from HisExcellency the GovernorGeneral, a copy of a telegram which he had received from the Secretary of State for the Colonies. It is in these words -

In view of splendid response of Australia to recent request for more troops, His Majesty’s Government would gladly accept another contingent of 1,000 men if your Government are prepared to raise it.

Terms and conditions same as for contingent now in preparation. Transport will be arranged by War-office.

I propose to send a reply to the effect that this Government will, without delay, provide the desired number of men as a second contingent, in addition to the number now being raised.

– I have already informed the House that Lord Kitchener, having asked for the services of Surgeon-Colonel Williams, CB., an inquiry was made as to whether the Imperial Government desired to have a field hospital and personnel complete. The answer, came back, rather late, that that offer was accepted, and every effort is being made to see that the field hospital and its proper personnel complete is sent to South Africa. . In view of the short time now to elapse, it may not be possible to draw the proper proportion from each State, but the instructions are that, as far as possible, it should be drawn from all the States, although that consideration would not stand in the way of having the equipment perfectly ready in time.

page 8955

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH PUBLICATIONS

Mr GLYNN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Some time ago the Attorney-General promised to make some arrangements for the distribution of Federal Gazettes and Acts of Parliament through the Government Printing-offices of the States. I have been recently informed that this has not yet been done. When is the arrangement likely to be made ?

Mr DEAKIN:
Attorney-General · BALLAARAT, VICTORIA · Protectionist

– Immediately upon the request being made by the honorable and learned member, either directly or through the Prime Minister, communication was entered into, I understood, with all the States, and arrangements were made to have a certain number of all publications sent to the Governments of the States for distribution.

Mr Barton:

– That is so.

Mr Glynn:

– These publications cannot be bought at the Government Printingoffice at Adelaide.

Mr DEAKIN:

– The Adelaide Government Printing-office may not have them, but I believe that the South Australian Government has been supplied to the full extent of its requirements. However, I shall have inquiry made into the matter.

page 8955

QUESTION

DUTIES ON PRINTING MACHINERY

Mr HUGHES:
WEST SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Has the attention of the Minister for Trade and Customs been called to the anomaly in the Tariff in thefact that, whereas linotypes and other printing machinery are placed on the free list, monolines have been omitted 1 Will the right honorable and learned gentleman take steps to remedy this ob viously inadvertent omission at an early date ?

Mr KINGSTON:
Minister for Trade and Customs · SOUTH AUSTRALIA, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · Protectionist

– We have seen the omission, and we propose to discuss it very early. It is included in the division of the Tariff which is now under consideration in Committee of Ways and Means.

page 8955

QUESTION

POSTAGE RECEIPTS

Mr THOMAS:

asked the Minister representing the Postmaster - General, upon notice -

. Whether it is a fact that, under the agreement of the Postal Union, the country forward- ing letters retains all the postage receipts?
If so, is it a fact that whether the United Kingdom charged 2½d. or1d. to forward letters to Australia, the Post-office authorities of the United Kingdom would retain 2½d. or1d., as the case might be, thus making no difference to the receipts of the Post-office of the Australian Commonwealth ?
Is it a fact that there is a1d. postage rate to all parts of the Empire except Australia?
Is it a fact that the United Kingdom is desirous of forwarding letters to Australia for1d. without even asking for reciprocity in the matter of return postage ?
Is it a fact that the Post-office authorities of the Commonwealth compel recipients of letters from the United Kingdom carrying only a1d. stamp to pay a fine of 3d. ?
If so, can the Minister representing the Postmaster-General give any reason for such action ?

Sir PHILIP FYSH:
Minister (without portfolio) · TASMANIA, TASMANIA · Free Trade

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

Under the provisions of the Postal Union the country of origin retains all the postage prepaid on letters despatched.
It is a fact that whether the United Kingdom charged 2½d. or1d. to forward letters to Australia, the Post-office authorities of the United Kingdom would retain 2½d. or1d., as the case might be, if the postage was reduced to1d. by arrangement between the United Kingdom and the Australian Commonwealth, it would make no difference to the receipts of the Post-office of the Commonwealth.
It is believed to be a fact that there is a1d. postage rate for letters to and from all parts of the Empire except Australia.
No intimation has been received that the United Kingdom is desirous of forwarding letters to Australia for1d. without asking for reciprocity.
Letters posted in the United Kingdom for

Australia, and not fully prepaid at the rate charged, are, in accordance with the provisions of the Postal Union, marked in the United Kingdom with the amount deficient, and, in accordance with the same provisions, double the amount deficient is charged in the Commonwealth before delivery.

Such action is in accordance with the provisions of the Postal Union, and is compulsory.

page 8956

TRANSFERRED OFFICERS

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

asked the Prime

Minister, uponnotice -

Has he considered the question of the increments to the transferred officers with special reference to the action of the New South Wales Government in restoring the £5 to the yearly increment which was deducted by a previous regulation ?
If so, what decision has been arrived at ?

Mr BARTON:
Protectionist

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

Yes.
As to the period between 30th June, 1900, and 1st March, 1901, when the department was transferred, these officers were serving the State of New South Wales, and this Government cannot deal with that period, which can only be dealt with by the Government of New South Wales. As to the period since 1st March, 1901, this Government does not propose to grant the additional £5, which is neither an existing nor an accruing right within section 84. It would be out of the question to vary the salaries payable to Commonwealth officers according to the fluctuations in similar payments under the Governments of the several States.

page 8956

QUESTION

FEDERAL CAPITAL

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

asked the Minister for Home Affairs, upon notice -

Will he inform the House what steps ho has taken since the Federal Parliament met in May, 1901, to further the movement for selecting a site for the federal seat of Government ?
Has he obtained the advice or opinions of any experts further than those which formed the groundwork of Mr. Oliver’s report?
Is it not a fact that the only information which Mr. Oliver relied on in regard to the water supply of the several sites consisted of the opinions of departmental subordinates of the State public services ?
Is it not a fact that, though the insufficiency of the water supply of several of the proposed sites is considered to be a disqualification in regard to them, no further or more experienced opinions or advice have been obtained since in regard to those aspects ?
Will the Minister say whether anything has been done with a view to providing the House with information of the nature indicated as necessary in the motion tabled by me some months ago, and still standing on the business-paper ?
Is it not a fact that the Government architects of New South Wales and other States, who have been consulted in regard to federal capital buildings, have expressed the opinion that as soon as the federal seat of Government is chosen it would be more economical to erect temporary buildings for the accommodation of Parliament, and the Executive and its administrative officers, than to defer their accommodation till portions of the permanent buildings to be decided upon have been erected?

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:
Minister for Home Affairs · HUME, NEW SOUTH WALES · Protectionist

– The answers tothe honorable and learned member’s questions are as follow : -

I would invite the honorable member’s attention to the copies of correspondence between the Federal Government and the Government of New South Wales, recently laid upon the table of the House.
I did not think it desirable to incur expenditure in the verification or otherwise of State Government officers’ report until after federal members had had an opportunity of visiting the sites suggested, and expressing a preference, as obviously there would be a risk of much unnecessary expense and labour in obtaining reports from professional men of high standing upon some 50 sites.
I understand Mr. Oliver held his inquiries in open court, and every suggestion or information was invited.
Same as No. 2.
I have had any information in my department scheduled into a comparative statement, and made arrangements with the Premier of New South Wales to have a number of photographs taken of the different sites, and am now awaiting their completion before circulating amongst members. I am advised that they will be ready in a few days.
Some of the leading architects of Sydney in their report (see page 29 of Mr. Oliver’s report) state that it is desirable that temporary accommodation should be provided, but I am not aware of any general statement by the Government architects of the various States.

page 8957

QUESTION

PARCELS POST SYSTEM

Mr E SOLOMON:
FREMANTLE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · FT

asked the Minister representing the PostmasterGeneral, upon notice -

. Whether the latter is aware that the parcels post system in Western Australia is under the control of the Manager of the Money Order-office at Perth.
Whether, in view of the recommendation by Royal commissioners appointed by the State Government that the parcels post should be managed by the Superintendent of Mails, the PostmasterGeneral intends to permit the continuance of the present arrangement.

Sir PHILIP FYSH:
Free Trade

– The following answers have been supplied : -

. The Postmaster-General has now been made aware that the parcels post system in Western Australia is under the control of the Manager of the Money Order-office at Perth.
The Postmaster-General has no knowledge of the recommendations made by the Royal commission referred to, but is taking steps to obtain a copy of the report. Ho is making inquiry with a view to bringing the management of the parcels post in Western Australia into line with the management in the other States.

page 8957

QUESTION

DISTRIBUTION OF PRINTING

Mr HUGHES:

asked the Minister for Home Affairs, upon notice -

Upon what system is the printing required by the various federal departments distributed amongst the various Government Printingoffices of the Commonwealth ? .
Is it a fact that, owing to an excessive amount being allotted to the Melbourne office, a number of men have been thrown out of employment in the Sydney office ?
Pending the erection of a Commonwealth Printing-office in the Federal Capital, will he cause such a distribution of work to be made as shall be fair to New South Wales ?

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:
Protectionist

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

There is no fixed rule, but hitherto the printing in each State has gone to the Government Printing-office of that State to a very large degree.
I am not aware that a number of men in Sydney have been thrown out of employment for the reason stated by the honorable member, but will make inquiry. Parliament sitting in Melbourne causes a large influx of work in the Melbourne office, but my own and other departments avail themselves of the services of the Sydney Printing-office.
I will look into the matter.

page 8957

QUESTION

MAINTENANCE MEN

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

asked the Minister representing the Postmaster-General, upon notice -

. Is it a fact that the want of money for the maintenance of the telegraphic and telephonic services in New South Wales is leading to a reduction of the wages of the men ?
Will the Postmaster-General see that the wages and conditions are maintained at least at the level of the conditions obtaining at the time of transfer ?

Sir PHILIP FYSH:
Free Trade

– The following information has been furnished : -

No reduction has been made in the wages of the men referred to. 2.It is the intention of the Postmaster-General that the wages and conditions shall be maintained as at the time of transfer.

page 8957

QUESTION

MAIL-BAGS

Mr HUGHES:

asked the Minister representing the Postmaster-General, upon notice -

Whether it is a fact that the men engaged in the Sydney General Post-office for some years past in making and repairing mail-bags have been discharged.
If so, what is the reason for such discharge ?
Are mail-bags for use in any State being made in the gaols of the Commonwealth ?

Sir PHILIP FYSH:
Free Trade

– I have been supplied with the following answers : - 1 and 2. Owing to a misunderstanding in Sydney, three men who were last year employed making bags by piece-work have not been so employed sincethe 1st January. They will be re-employed immediatly.

Mail-bags are not mode in the gaols of New South Wales. Inquiry is being made as to the practice in this respect in the other States.

page 8957

QUESTION

INCREMENTS : POSTAL SERVICE

Mr FULLER:
ILLAWARRA, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister representing the Postmaster-General, upon notice -

Is it a fact that Mr.Lambton recommended an increase of £25 per year to the salaries of Edwin James Young, William Henry Maguire, Edward William Brumble, and Francis Patrick Brewer, the four inspectors in the mail division of the New South Wales Postal department?
If such recommendation was made, why did the increased salaries not appear onthe Estimates?
Is it a fact that an increase of £25 per year was recommended also to the salary of Charles Augustus Ord, clerk in the cash branch of the New South Wales Postal department ?
If such recommendation was made, why did the increased salary not appear on the Estimates ?
What is the reason why increases have been made in the electrical branch of the New South Wales Postal department, and none have been made in the postal branch of the same service ?

Sir PHILIP FYSH:
Free Trade

– Inquiries are being made as to the cases referred to.

page 8958

QUESTION

CARBONATE OF SODA

Mr THOMSON:
NORTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister for Trade and Customs, upon notice -

Why carbonate of soda is not placed under alkalies, alkaloids and salts, and chemical compounds, on the free list ; under what heading of the Tariff is it chargeable at1s. per cwt. ; and why is it differentiated from bi-carbonate of soda ?

Mr KINGSTON:
Protectionist

– The answers to the questions of the honorable member are as follow : - 1 and 2. Carbonate of soda or washing soda is soda crystal, dutiable as such at1s. per cwt., as per line 101, soda crystal. Large quantities of soda crystal are manufactured in Australia.

Bi-carbonate of soda is not soda crystal. It is a powder used in the household for food purposes, and is also used in medicine, &c. It is free, not being included under any dutiable heading. Further, it is not manufactured in Australia.

page 8958

QUESTION

MESSRS. COHEN AND LEWIS

Mr FULLER:

asked the Minister of Home Affairs, upon notice -

Referring to the answers given by him on Wednesday,15th inst., in regard to Mr. Victor Cohen -
1. How long was Mr. Cohen employed by the Federal Government ?
2. What was the total amount paid to him by the Federal Government for his services.
3. How much of the amount paid was for salary ; how much for travelling expenses ; how much as allowance ; and at what rate per day was allowance paid ?
Will he kindly furnish the same particulars in regard to the employment of Mr. George Lewis?

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:
Protectionist

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

From 1st July, 1901, to 9th January, 1902.
£4411s.11d. £2621s.11d. as salary. Only travelling allowance at the rate of £1 per day was paid in consideration of Mr. Cohen being away from his home, and entitled to claim travelling expenses under the New South Wales regulations, and of the fact that he was not receiving any additional salary while in Melbourne. The amount paid as travelling allowance was £179.

Re Mr. Lewis -

4th June, 1901, to date. (b)£283.
£267 paid as salary, £16 was paid for travelling or living allowance, being at the rate of 10s. per day during 32 days.

page 8958

TARIFF

In Committee of Ways and Means :

Consideration resumed from 17th January (vide page8953) -

Item 74. - Manufactures of metals -

N.E.I., including engines, boilers, pumps, machines and machinery, n.e.i., also screws, n.e.i., axles, springs, and plated and mixed metalware, including plated cutlery, ad valorem, 25 per cent.

Mr KINGSTON:
South AustraliaMinister for Trade and Customs · Protectionist

– In view of the decisions arrived at by the committee, I think we should be acting consistently in fixing the duty, n.e.i., at 20 per cent. I therefore move -

That the words “25 per cent., and on and after 22nd Jan., 1902, 20 per cent.” be inserted after the letters n.e.i.” first occurring.

– I do not know why the honorable member for Bland assumes that the Government have in any way changed their opinions, or that they desire to deal with this item in a particular manne”. In attempting to meet the fair and legitimate demands made on behalf of mining machinery great difficulties arose, looking at the matter from the point of view of those who had to use that machinery, and also from the stand-point of the very large number of people engaged in its manufacture in the various States. We therefore suggested that a certain duty should be imposed, and intimated that where articles could not reasonably be manufactured within the Commonwealth, we should be prepared to place them upon the free list absolutely. We asked honorable members who have had a larger experience in regard to some of these articles than we could possibly have had to supply us with lists of them. Up to the present time, however, only two or three articles have been mentioned. We asked that lists should be given to us. We stated that we would examine any lists supplied to us, and ascertain whether the articles which they contained ought to be placed upon the schedule of exemptions. We also declared that, in order to meet the difficulty that would arise in regard to new patented articles, we were prepared to insert words which would give the Minister power, subject to the con trol of Parliament, to put those articles upon the free list from time to time. That, I think, was a very fair proposal, and it appeared to me to meet with the approval of the committee. To urge now that we should impose a 15 per cent, rate upon everything, irrespective of whether it is made within the Commonwealth or not, is not fair to the manufacturers or to those employed by them, and can scarcely be said to be in the interests of the mining companies, whom we desire to assist as much as possible. We see no reason why we should go back upon the articles which have already been dealt with. They were discussed very fully for two or three days, and the committee arrived at certain decisions. We shall presently deal with the exemption list, and if honorable members will supply us with the information in their possession in regard to articles, or portions thereof, which they desire to see admitted free, we shall be glad to meet them in every way that we possibly can. But we cannot consent to the proposition that all patented articles shall be admitted either at 1 5 per cent, or free. That would be injurious to the importers. They import patented articles and articles which are not patented, whilst the manufacturers make a large number of articles locally which are not patented, and compete with those which are. There is no doubt that if we attempted to say that all patented mining machinery should be admitted at a lower rate or free, we should be doing something which would be injurious to those whom we desire to protect. The Government have no intention of receding from the position which they took up upon a previous occasion.

Mr. SYDNEY SMITH (Macquarie).I cordially support the amendment submitted by the honorable member for North Sydney. We have already decided that “springs” shall be admitted at 15 per cent., and that mixed metalware shall come in at the same rate. Yet it is now proposed to charge 20 per cent, upon articles “ N.E.I.,” which includes a number that we would be more justified in admitting at 15 per cent, than many others which we have already decided should bear that duty. I think that the committee should be placed in possession of a list of the articles which will come under the heading of “N.E.I.” At present we are working very much in the dark. Then, again, we have decided to admit screws free, although I am thoroughly satisfied that if we had a list of the articles covered by “N.E.I.” we should find many which might be admitted free with more justification than exists in the case of screws. I fancy that there will be a great difficulty in enumerating all the machinery which should be included in the schedule of exemptions. The Minister for Trade and Customs should, I think, place the committee in possession of the fullest information in connexion with this item. Many honorable members voted upon. Friday last under an altogether wrong impression. Had they been aware of the class of machinery included under “ N.E.I.,” I feel sure that a very different vote would have been recorded. I recognise that there is a difficulty in particularizing the various articles which should be included in the schedule of exemptions. Let us take electrical machinery as an example. I have no doubt that there are 60 or 70 different parts of these machines alone, all of: which should be specified under the free list. How are we to particularize every article? I think it would be far better if the Government could see their way to postpone dealing with the items included under “N.E.I.,” or accept the proposed duty of 15 per cent, until the exemption list comes to be dealt with by the committee. If that is not done a number, of inconsistencies: will be found to exist, because while the original proposal of the Government was to have the duty upon all these articles fixed at 25 per cent., after the information supplied by honorable members respecting the various items under discussion, we had some put upon the free list, others fixed at 15 per. cent., and then the Government camedown with a proposal to include the whole of the remainder at 20 per. cent. Honorable members were told that they should fix the duty at 25 per cent. on. the items of mixed metalware, and plated cutlery, because they were luxuries ; but it has been pointed out that many of the articles included in these lines are used by the poorest people in the community. That has been admitted by the Government. If we had a list of the articles included under “ n.e.i.,” and upon which the Government propose that the duty should be 20 per cent., we should find that there are a. number of them which ought to be on the free list, as being used by numbers of the poorer classes of the people. Those are the people to whom we should give every consideration, as they are the least able to bear the burden of taxation, and we should have a list of these articles so that the committee may be able to deal with the matter in an intelligent way.

Mr HENRY WILLIS:
Robertson

– I hope the Minister will see the advisableness of accepting the suggestion of the honorable member for North Sydney. It would save the members of his staff a great deal of trouble in discriminating between articles which are patented, and should therefore come in free, and articles which are not patented. I remember that when this matter was before the committee last week I was under the impression when I spoke to the Minister on the question that he was prepared to admit all patented articles free, as well as those articles which could not be manufactured here.

Sir George Turner:

– I said clearly, when the matter was mentioned from the other side, that I could not agree to the proposition that all patented machinery should be admitted free.

Mr HENRY WILLIS:

If the honorable member for Barrier can specify any machine which cannot be produced in Australia, I promise him the fullest inquiry into the subject. I will place an officer at his disposal to assist him in exploring all sources of information. I venture to suggest that in matters of this sort honorable members should freely, accept the statement of the Government of what their wishes are, and the means which they have taken to ascertain the facts. Then they should assist us in regard to the facts. Those honorable members who say we cannot manufacture some of these machines should tell us what they are.

Tell us what they are, and we shall be only too glad to add them to the list ! I believe our capacity to manufacture mining machinery is equal to that of most British peoples. I note with delight, by the way, that a firm contemplates starting manufacturing machinery away up on the goldfields of Western Australia. No doubt their success will be equal to that which has attended similar undertakings in other States. I went on to state, further -

If they can show that a machine cannot be made here, then we will put it on the free list.

Then the honorable and learned member for Werriwa led me right up to the point now involved -

Mr Conroy:

– All patented machinery.

Mr KINGSTON:

-Patented machinery? I cannot be caught with chaff of that sort ! If we were to accept a broad definition of that kind, we might, by the patenting of some small matter in connexion with mining machinery, have to permit the free admission of all the mining machinery in the world into Australia, and destroy the benefits which are intended to be conveyed by protection in connexion with these manufactures. I venture to think I have made a fair offer. Can any honorable member suggest a fairer one ? Are we agreed that it is a reasonable thing to protect machinery which can be manufactured here at a reasonable price?

Mr SYDNEY SMITH:
MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT

– No.

There we parted company. In view of this quotation I am sure that the honorable member for Kalgoorlie-

Mr Kirwan:

– I said that the impression made in the minds of honorable members was that all patented machinery used in connexion with mining was to be exempt.

Mr Page:

– What did the Treasurer say 1

Mr KINGSTON:

– No one else cut down in any way the strength of the statement I made in that particular. If we had no duty on patented machinery or anything that has a patent attached to it, honorable members must see the advantage, in addition to his patent rights, which that would confer on the patentee. He would be the only one who could manufacture the machinery here, and if he did not choose to exercise that right he could send in the machinery at . 20 per cent. - or whatever the duty might be - lower than the price charged by any other competitor. What I put to honorable members is this, and it is the basis upon, winch we dealt with the question of agricultural machinery, and upon which we are proceeding right through : We ought to know, and we do know, the nature of the machinery that can be constructed here, and which cannot be made here. We have been able to deal with the matter on these very lines so far as agricultural machinery is concerned, and, I believe, to deal with it satisfactorily. But the difficulty which arises is that there are very few machines which cannot be manufactured here, and so it would be impossible for honorable members generally to put a list of them on the file, as we have asked them time and again to do. “ Tell us what you consider we cannot manufacture, and we will have the matter investigated and bring down a report on the subject, to enable you’ to deal with it.” That is what we said last week. When I made inquiries this morning, and found that little or nothing had been sent in, I could_ hardly believe it ; but I am informed by the Treasurer that the honorable member for Kooyong supplied a list a few minutes ago. If I remember aright, I suggested that honorable members should send in their lists. We do not want to do anything to the disadvantage of the country, and, while we believe in protection, we do not believe in exacting an exorbitant rate for the importation of machinery, when no machinery of the kind, or similar in character, can be constructed here. It may be, that where protection is not required, a revenue duty may, under the special circumstances of the Commonwealth, fairly be asked for ; but, however that may be, we should differentiate between the two things. Honorable members opposite say that >

Australians cannot make these things. We say that they can make them as well as any one else can do so. At the very least, honorable members opposite should prove, or attempt to prove, their assertions. Let them tell us in respect to what machinery they make their allegation, so that we can investigate their ‘ statements. I ask them not to continue to indulge in these vague assertions against the capability of Australians to do what the members of other industrial communities can do. When honorable members state their special cases, those cases will be given the fullest consideration, and they will be advised of the result. There has been no departure from the course which we originally intimated that we intended to follow ; and I trust’ that the Government, in dealing with the committee, will never alter its attitude so as to place any honorable member in a false position. We stick to the ‘ offer that we made. Tell us what articles cannot be made here. Let us have an opportunity to investigate the facts, and, over and above that investigation, we will give the matter the benefit of the advice tendered by our expert advisors as to any machinery or manufacture of metal which requires specially lenient treatment. We shall apply the information we receive, whether it comes from honorable members or from sources specially at our command.

Mr ISAACS:

-Indi).- The chief question with which the Chamber is concerning itself is, I apprehend, what was the promise of the Government. We are not in a position now, even if we desired to do so, to consider the reversal of the vote which we have already given ; that is a matter for future consideration, if it is to be entered upon at all. It seems to me that the position is this : - We desired, and the Government acquiesced in the view, that patented mining machinery which could not reasonably be made in the Commonwealth should not be taxed, because to tax it would really be to tax and hamper the mining industry. It was recognised that there are exceptional circumstances connected with the prosecution of the mining industry in Australia, and that the conditions are not the same in every part of the continent, so that we cannot make one rigid rule which will meet all cases. The Government seem to me prepared to reasonably meet the position reasonably stated by honorable

– We ought to be very careful how we grant these monopolies. In many cases it would be better if we did not grant a patent at all. An inventor cannot demand of us that we patent his invention. It is not a right which he has acquired - it is a right which we voluntarily give him in return for a small fee. We should see that in the future we are not landed in the difficulty which apparently we are in now. It is a matter for very grave consideration. At present we have to deal with things as they are. I think we should proceed with the consideration of the particular proposal before the Chair, independently of the promise which the Government made the other day, and which I have no doubt they will honorably abide by, and if they do not the remedy is in the hands of the State.

Mr. KNOX (Kooyong). - I do hot propose to go into the merits or demerits of our patent laws. The mining industry has distinctly been advantaged by very useful patents which have been introduced. My suggestion that a duty of 15 per cent, all round would save a great deal of trouble will, I think, force itself more on the minds of honorable members when they come to consider the individual items, and I claim to be as distinctly desirous of seeing as much of our mining machinery manufactured within the Commonwealth as is any honorable member. Where deep sinking is carried on, all mines that use air require compressors. A large number of mining companies use what is known as the Reidler Compressor. Its whole merit consists in the application of a certain valve for forcing in the air or keeping it in. It would be an injustice to manufacturers of machinery in Victoria alone, not to speak of those in the other States, to say that they cannot build an ordinary air compressor. They can do it satisfactorily, and are doing it every day. Would it be just to say that a compressor which had a special Reidler valve attached should be introduced free? It would be an injustice to the local manufacturers, and that is where the difficulties arise. You will find that it is a very small portion of the machinery which cannot be satisfactorily manufactured here.

Mr Kingston:

– The patentee has a prohibitory duty in his favour if he chooses to exercise it, and now honorable members wish to give him a percentage.

Mr KNOX:

– Why should the local manufacturer have the disadvantage which the Minister is suggesting - that an air compressor, with patent appliances attached, should be imported free ? I think it would be altogether wrong.

Sir George Turner:

– We do not propose to allow the whole article to come in free, but only ‘the portion which is patented, and then the article can be made here.

Mr KNOX:

– Then the intention of the Government was not stated clearly. It would be difficult here to determine what part is affected by the duty. The whole object of honorable members on this side is not to interfere with local industry, but to help it in every possible way.

Mr CONROY:
Werriwa

– This question can be looked at from three points of view. First, from the free-trade point of view, all the free-traders are desirous of having the duty taken away. Secondly, from the point of view of the revenue tariffists, I think it will be generally admitted that a duty of from 10 to 12½ per cent, would yield the maximum of revenue with the minimum of inconvenience. Now we have the Government going still further, and asking us to impose a protective duty. They say that they will make a concession’ to us if we will state what articles we desire to be placed on the free list. What a subversion of the ordinary way of doing things ! Surely, if they wish to see that an article is protected, they ought to name it. They ought to be the very first to bring forward a list of the articles which are being manufactured here, and say - “ We want a duty imposed, and we can show that the industry is already established.” No list of that sort has been brought forward by them, but they ask us to enumerate not only the articles which are used at the present time, but those which will be used in thefuture, as if in fact we could pry into minds of inventors and tell exactly what is likely to be invented. Because we do not happen to know what has been invented this year, or what will be invented next year, it all has to pay 20 per cent, duty ; but all articles which can be named Ministers will allow to come in free. If the Ministry will consider the matter, they will see what a curious position they are placing themselves in. They are making this assertion, that all the knowledge concerning machinery is known to them, and ought to be known to us, and we ought to be able to supply them with a list. I hope that the Ministry will reconsider the matter and see that they have taken up an utterly indefensible position, and one which certainly from a protectionist point of view they cannot defend. If, as they say, a duty is absolutely necessary in Victoria for some of these articles, and at the same time the articles are being manufactured in New South Wales, it is perfectly clear that the Victorian manufacturer cannot exist at all now that the Inter-State duties have been swept away.

Mr Kingston:

– The Victorian beats the New South Wales man in neutral markets by five to one.

Mr CONROY:

– Yes, with strippers and binders in the market of Riverina, with regard to which the Minister gave us a quotation. Does he know that it amounted to only 4,000 strippers in all? When he mentioned the sum of £200,000 as coming in, was he aware that the great bulk of that sum was for machinery of that type? Surely, if the Ministry are willing to accept 15 per cent, duty on other articles they ought to be willing to accept the same rate on these articles ? I would remind the Minister that very many of these smaller articles will be absolutely necessary. Of course, I do not believe in the exemptions. If we are to be taxed, I believe we should be all taxed alike. I do not think that merely for the reason that an article is required by the manufacturer he should be allowed to get it duty free, because he can come here and make his representations, while the unfortunate farmer or miner has to pay a duty. Why should the representations of a well-to-do man have effect, while the representations of the farmer and the miner are to be of no avail ? Until the Ministry are able, to enumerate the articles which are to be specially favoured or to show why that special favour should be extended, the committee should not agree to their proposal. I should have liked to abolish the duty upon all the articles included in this item or to have at least reduced them to 10 per cent., but as the committee are not in favour of going to that length I shall support the proposal of the honorable member for North Sydney.

Mr BROWN:
Canobolas

– I am sorry the committee has decided against the free admission of mining machinery. Mining and agriculture may be regarded as the main primary industries of the Commonwealth, and as we have already fixed the duty on agricultural machinery at 15 per cent., it will be reasonable to place the mining industry upon the same footing with regard to machinery. In the case of mining and agricultural machinery, great improvements are being made daily. The Ministry have intimated their readiness to make some concession in the direction of admitting patented machinery free of duty if it can be shown that such machinery cannot be manufactured here, but it will be very difficult to give that proof. Almost anything can be produced here if the question of cost is not taken into account, but the expense involved in the local manufacture of machinery should receive the fullest consideration. I agree to some extent with the honorable and learned member for Indi that some concession should be given to local - as distinguished from foreign - inventors, but we should not give to any individual a complete monopoly with respect to an invention. Inventors should reap every reasonable reward, but when their inventions become important factors, in production, the State should step in and by a fair system of compensation make them available for the benefit of the whole community. That, however, is a question that we shall have to consider when we deal with the patent laws. I hope the Ministry will agree to the suggestion that the duty should be reduced to 15 per cent.

Mr. G. B. EDWARDS (South Sydney).The Government will act wisely and facilitate business if they suspend the consideration of the duty upon articles, N.E.I., until the exemptions are dealt with. We can hardly be expected to enter into the details of the proposal before us until we know what articles are to be placed upon the free list. Although a good case has been made out for the special exemption of patent mining machinery, I hold that other interests are worthy of consideration equally with the mining community. The manufacturers of Victoria would stand in a far better position to-day if patented machinery had been admitted free of duty from the beginning. I have seen many instances in which the want of up-to-date machinery has retarded manufacturers in Victoria, and we should make a general exemption of machinery or impose only a low rate of duty. I shall be strongly opposed to any special legislation in favour of the mining industry. The country generally will benefit from the admission of the latest forms of machinery at as low a rate of duty as possible, consistently with the collection of sufficient revenue to carry on the Government, but until we know what articles are to be placed upon the free list we cannot very well deal with the proposal now before us.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment (by Mr. Thomson) proposed -

That the words “25 per cent, and on and after 22nd January, 1902, 15 per cent.” be inserted after the letters “ n.e.i.,” first occurring.

Mr Kingston:

– Of course, “N.E.I:” will be qualified by every item that is placed on the free list.

Mr G B EDWARDS:
SOUTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT

Mr SYDNEY SMITH:
MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT

– The honorable and learned member for Werriwa knows that they have manufactured some dredging machinery in the free-trade State of New South Wales without any protection. One of the first dredging machines built in New South Wales was constructed by an enterprising firm in that State for Mr. Garland, and sent to theMacquarie. If the amendment is not agreed to, a very serious injustice will be done not only to the mining industry, but to several of the industries of the Commonwealth.

Mr POYNTON:
South Australia

– I have no wish to appear in the role of lecturer to the committee, but I desire to impress upon honorable members the necessity of trying to get along with the business. The discussion upon this subject has been fairly thrashed out two or three times. While I admit that the attitude of the Government, in including so many things under the expression “N.E.I.,” has necessitated more talk than would otherwise have been necessary, it should not be forgotten that if each member of the committee speaks upon two occasions, or speaks once upon every subject, it will be hard to say when we shall get the business done. I say this in no offensive way, but because we have a. considerable amount of work to do yet, and no further talk upon this question will influence a vote one way or the other.

Question, - That the words “ 25 per cent, and on and after 22nd January, 1902, 15 per cent.” be inserted after the letters “n.e.i.” first occurring - put. The committee divided -

Ayes … … … 25

Noes … … … 29

Majority … … 4

Question so resolved in the negative.

Amendment negatived.

Amendment (by Mr. Kingston) agreed to-

That the words “25 per cent, and on and after 22nd January, 1902, 20 percent.” be inserted after the letters “ n.e.i.” first occurring.

Item 75 - Rails, fish-plates, tie-plates, switches, points, crossings, and intersections for railways and tramways, ad valorem, 15 per cent.

Mr KINGSTON:
Protectionist

– Honorable members will note that we did not expect to receive any revenue from this particular line. The idea was that rails were used chiefly by the Governments of the variousStates ; and, therefore, that we were not likely to collect much revenue from this source, or, that if we did so, it would have to be refunded. In the circumstances, we propose to strike out the item with a view of dealing with it subsequently under the heading of Division 6a. I move -

That the words “and on and after 22nd January, 1902, free,” be added.

Mr McDONALD:
Kennedy

– I presume that this proposal on the part of the Government will assist the few syndicate railways in Queensland to a very large extent?

Mr Fisher:

– A great number of lines in Queensland are owned by syndicates.

Mr McDONALD:

– I think that there are about 1,000 miles of railway to be constructed by syndicates, and one syndicate has 650 milesof railway in one district. It controls practically one-sixth of Queensland by the construction of that line, and is exempt practically from all taxation for 50 years. I think that a fair duty for revenue purposes should be placed on this item.

Mr KINGSTON:

– Honorable members will observe that we did not expect to derive any revenue from this item, and that was why we proposed just now that it should be placed on the free list. But the circumstances that have just been brought under our’ notice by honorable members from Queensland have entirely placed another aspect upon the matter. £ do not hesitate to say that, in view of that aspect, we propose to adopt a course different from that which we indicated just now. We propose to make further inquiry into the matter before we decide to place the item on the free list. If it is a fact that a great many miles of railway have to be constructed by syndicates in Queensland - and honorable members possess considerable special knowledge regarding the particular States from which they come - I think it is reasonable that we should have some revenue from the item. I will ask leave, therefore, to withdraw my amendment.

Sir Malcolm McEacharn:

– The trams and railways to which the honorable member for Kennedy refers are already constructed, are they not ?

Mr Fisher:

– No.

Mr McDonald:

– -Why attempt to deceive the people in that way ?

Mr KINGSTON:

Mr REID:

– If some honorable member will move a reduction of the duty to 10 per cent., I shall certainly support him.

Mr. JOSEPH COOK (Parramatta).The position taken up by the Ministry and their supporters shows the absolute selfishness of the protectionists. They cannot look beyond their own horizon, and they believe that nothing can be made in Australia except it is manufactured in Victoria. If the honorable and learned member for Bendigo were here, he would probably ask that rails should be placed on the free list, because a few mines happen to be in his electorate. The honorable and learned member, however, has already taxed everything that the miners use, and if rails are to be placed on the free list why should not mining machinery, winding gear, axles, the candles the miners use, and the soap with which they wash themselves also be admitted free of duty? Why should any distinction be made between rails and other articles ? Rails are now being made at the Eskbank Iron Works from scrap iron, without the slightest difficulty, and there is no excuse for any protectionist seeking to exclude the manufacturers from the benefit of a duty.I move -

That the words “and on and after 22nd Janu ary, 1902, 10 per cent.” be added.

Mr. McCOLL (Echuca). - I have never proposed that a duty should be imposed on any article that could not be manufactured here, and when I advocated the free admission of rails I was not aware that they were being made in Australia to any extent. If articles can be made here they should be subject to a duty, but if they cannot be locally manufactured they should be admitted free, except so far as the necessities for revenue might suggest the imposition of a duty. My position is a perfectly clear and logical one. I was surprised at the sudden change of mind on the part of the Government, and I can only conclude that Ministers were unaware that rails were being made here. If it can be shown that rails can be made here, I am prepared to support the encouragement of the industry to a reasonable extent. It has been stated that the rails are being made from scrap iron, but that is not developing our natural industries.

Mr Watkins:

– They are made of scrap and pig-iron.

Mr McCOLL:

– If it can be shown that rails can be made from our own ores, we should impose a protective duty, but not otherwise.

Mr MAUGER:
Melbourne Ports

– If the Government, acting under a misapprehension, placed rails on thefree list surely they are doing right in acknowledging their mistake and proposing a duty of 15 per cent. I intend to vote for a 15 per cent, duty, because I regard the manufacture of rails as a national industry that can be carried on not only at Eskbank, but at various other places in the Commonwealth where we have supplies of iron ore. The honorable member for Echuca seems to think that if the rails are made from scrap iron the industry is of no importance, but it is better for us to use up our scrap iron in that way rather than allow it to be collected by Chinamen and sent to foreign countries to be made up there. I think that the protectionists of Victoria should be a little more consistent, and do their best to support industries which can be carried on in other States than Victoria.

Mr CONROY:
Werriwa

– We have had three proposals from the Ministry within as many minutes, and I should like to know what course they have finally determined upon.

Sir George Turner:

– We propose a duty of 15 per cent.

Mr CONROY:

– This opens up an important constitutional question. The rails and the bulk of the goods in question are used almost entirely by the State Governments. Where railways have not been constructed by the States themselves, we must assume that, as the sanction of the Parliaments is necessary, those Parliaments, having approved, would, if they had had the means, have constructed the great majority of the so-called syndicate lines, such as we find in Northern Queensland. I am not now referring to cases of lines of only a mile in length. We must presume that almost the whole of these articles will be required by the States themselves, and, if so, the important question arises under section 114 of the Constitution, whether property of any kind belonging to a State can be taxed. The Ministry seem to have thought that such property cannot be taxed j and there is a great deal to support that view, which, if it be correct, means that no revenue can be expected from this proposed duty of 15 per cent. The concluding words of the section are -

Noi shall the Commonwealth impose any tax on property of any kind belonging to a State.

It is pretty clear that if the local Government care to say that the rails belong to the State, we cannot impose a tax. If some States go further in the direction of State socialism, we may find them import-‘ ing tea and other articles and vending them to the public; and under these circumstances the Federal Government would cease to derive any revenue. For instance, in New South Wales, at the present time, some deviating and new lines are being constructed wholly by day labour, and the whole of the material required is State property. The question here raised might well be considered before these articles are placed upon the free list ; otherwise the Federal Government may find their powers of raising money very seriously limited. The first part of section 114 reads : -

A State shall not, without the consent of the Parliament of the Commonwealth, impose any tax on property of any kind belonging to the Commonwealth.

These words have been read to mean that the incomes derived by honorable members from the Commonwealth may. not be taxed by the States ; but if the Federal Parliament are in a position to impose a tax on State property, then, conversely, the State may be in a position to impose a tax on our incomes. This matter might be postponed until the Government have consulted the Attorney-General and decided what course shall be adopted. Every railway constructed opens .up and develops the country, and to place any hindrance in the way of railway extension will do an injury to the whole of the Commonwealth. To impose a tax of 15 per cent, on the material required for the . proposed railway from Kalgoorlie to Port Augusta would considerably increase the cost of that work ; and I suggest that the Ministry take the second course which they indicated and withdraw their proposal, in order that further time may be allowed for consideration.

Mr GLYNN:
South Australia

– I suggest that the Government should in the

Tariff leave out all- reference to the Constitution in relation to the exemption of State property. The matter ought really to be tested ; although, looking at the question roughly, I am inclined to agree with the opinion given by the leader of the Opposition as to the comprehensive character of section 114 of the Constitution. I do not know whether in America goods come under the category of “property,” but the reason that the decisions are there in favour of the exemption of State property is that by imposing a very heavy tax on such property the federation is given power to destroy the efficacy of the State Governments by taking away the instruments of Government. Of course that cannot possibly apply to goods of thi3 class.

Mr Kingston:

– The prohibition is reciprocal.

Mr GLYNN:

– I am aware of that, but we seem to have copied American decisions without adequate consideration. The matter was not discussed very much in the convention. The basis of the decisions in America was that if power were given to the Federation to tax State property, the Federation could really paralyze the States by confiscating their property. Of course that does not apply to the placing under a general Customs law of the States as States. If it would paralyze the States to pay a duty upon imported goods it would similarly paralyze an individual or a company Consequently the logic of American decisions ought not to apply to the case of ordinary importations. It is quite open to consideration whether the words of section 114 of the Constitution are equivalent to declaring that State goods or State property shall be exempt from the general law. I say that it may not mean that. It may simply mean that no special law is to be passed whereby State property is subject to taxation. Of course there are considerations which tell even against this construction, because section 51 prevents special taxation of State property. On the whole I am inclined to agree with the opinion offered by the leader of the Opposition, that the section means that no taxation is to be imposed upon State property - that it does not only mean that a special Act should not be passed in respect to State property. Nevertheless, as the matter is so doubtful and so important, we ought not, by our Customs regulations and Act, to exempt State property from taxation, but ought to leave the

Constitution to operate in respect to State property. Then, if Customs duties are collected in respect of the imports of a particular State, and that State objects, it can appeal to the High Court of Australia to test the question.

Mr. KIRWAN (Kalgoorlie).- I should like to draw the attention of the committee to the extraordinary action of the Government in connexion -with this .particular item. In the first place, they proposed that rails should be placed upon the free list. Then, because two honorable members representing Queensland got up and talked about certain syndicate railways in that State - the existence of which we all regret - the Government have calmly gone back upon their original proposal and have agreed that a duty of 15 per cent, should be imposed. That simply means that all the mines in Australia which use these rails for ore tramways, not only on the surface but underground, are to be penalized because of certain syndicate railways in Queensland. The action of the Government is a most extraordinary one, and I feel so strongly upon this matter that I intend to move that rails shall be included in the list of exemptions. I agree with what has been said by one or two honorable members upon this side of the House, namely, that rails might very well be regarded as a commodity which should be taxed for revenue purposes. But in considering this Tariff, we have to consider each item in relation to every other item. When, therefore, mining machinery is taxed at the rate of 20 per cent., we may reasonably ask that rails should be placed on the free list. That is a perfectly consistent attitude for a revenue tariffist to adopt, and, under the circumstances, I trust that the honorable member for Parramatta will withdraw his amendment, so that I may move in the direction I have indicated.

Mr. REID (East Sydney). - Before that is done, I should like to mention for the information of the committee, that the Attorney-General has informed the Municipal Corporation of Sydney that under section 114 of the Constitution Act it is impossible for the municipal authorities to impose even municipal rates upon Commonwealth buildings in that city. The section reads -

A State shall not, without the consent of the Parliament of the Commonwealth, raise or maintain any naval or military force, or impose any tax on property of any kind belonging to the Commonwealth ; nor shall the Commonwealth impose any tax on property of any kind belonging to a State.

– That is not quite so.

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

Sir Malcolm Mceacharn:

– 650 miles.

Mr McDonald:

– Over 1,000 miles.

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

– The honorable member said there was one line of 650 miles and another of 200 miles, making 850” in all. Then the honorable member for Melbourne, who was seated on the opposite benches at the time, said - “ They have been constructed.” Those were the only statements made in regard to these railways, and upon those two contradictory statements the Minister for Trade and Customs has altered the whole scheme of his Tariff upon this particular question. That is an absurdity. Even assuming that these lines had not been carried out, the whole of this discussion would be over the question of 850 miles of railways still to be constructed. A good deal has been said about rails which are used, in short lengths, in connexion with mining operations. If honorable members are bent on revenue, I do not see why even these short lengths of line, and even the railways which are run by private enterprise - without stigmatizing them in any way - should not be made to pay. I think that a duty of 15 per cent, would be too high ; but I should be glad to see a duty of 10 per cent, all round, and in connexion with that duty to see this portion of the exemption removed, so that we may have a chance of obtaining a decision of the High Court in favour of the Commonwealth, and so, if duty is imposed, ‘ recover a very large amount of revenue from the States.

– If they take the decisions of the United States court I am afraid we shall lose.

Mr O’MALLEY:

– I think a similar case arose in connexion with the State of Tennessee, and the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the federal power was paramount, and that the State power was subordinate to it. Several of our States have given syndicates the right to construct railways, and now it is proposed to discriminate between these syndicates, because they are corporations, and the States. But as the syndicates are corporations of citizens and the States are also corporations of citizens, the proposal is a proposal to discriminate between citizens, which is unconstitutional, and gives a preference to the strong against the weak. We do not want to vote for expediency ; we want to vote for justice, and to put all on an equality. If the honorable and learned member for Parkes will move the omission of these exemptions I shall vote with him.

– They could not well have forgotten that fact. I am inclined to think that it may very fairly be argued that that does give the exemption suggested. But honorable members have pointed out that by the particular specification of goods imported by and for the use of a State we are hardly leaving the point open, and they suggest that we should remove the special exemption which is conveyed by the later words in the Tariff, and leave the matter to be interpreted by the federal courts. There is a good deal to be said in favour of that course. It will come up for discussion when we come to that part of the Tariff. Honorable members will notice that it does not make much difference what we do in this respect, at least during the bookkeeping period; for every penny that we collect, whether it is on the goods of private people or on the goods of a State will be accounted for, and, less certain deductions, returned to the State. Later on there may be different principles provided for. Without expressing any definite opinion I would say that this matter has troubled us a good deal, and we shall ask the House to give its best consideration to the question of whether or not the matter should be finally decided, so far as we can do it by ourselves, in a free gift to the States in the Tariff, or left to the construction of the Constitution. We are more deeply impressed with the importance of a question of this sort since we introduced the Tariff, because in a number of little matters brought under our notice attempts are being made to stretch the interpretation of the provision we inserted in a degree we hardly believe in, and there is a strong argument undoubtedly in favour of some alteration of it. There is also the argument that we should not provide for many exemptions, and it is hardly desirable to provide for exemptions that have nothing to do with questions of national policy, but which might well be left to the States to decide for themselves after the receipt of the money. If we provide in a national Tariff for a number of matters of State concern which are generally decided by the States themselves, we shall be making a mistake, and there is no doubt also that the less complicated we make the exemptions in favour of a particular class the better it will be for the simplicity of administration, and the less liable we shall be to abuses. I have made this statement to indicate how we. feel at this particular moment regarding the exemption of States, classes, or bodies, and I do not propose to go any further just now. I hope we shall deal with this New South Wales industry in the same liberal manner as we have treated other matters which have come under our consideration.

Mr. THOMSON (North Sydney) Referring to the remarks of the Minister for Trade and Customs as to whether the Commonwealth has the right to tax the imported property of a State, I think that this is not the right stage at which to discuss the matter, except incidentally. The Minister has not yet sounded by any means the loss of revenue that this provision is going to cause to the Treasurer of the Commonwealth. In New South Wales goods consumed by the Government have been practically free of duty, and the Treasurer cannot know and has not reckoned the value of the goods which have come into New South Wales free in the past, but which will not come in free under the new conditions when the State Government adopts to the fullest extent the practice of carrying out its own work and of importing the goods required for that work. Prior to federation it made no great difference to the State’ Government if they had to pay duty, because if they bought, say, cement or similar goods in the open market at a price which included the duty added to the cost, they knew that they got the duty back in the form of revenue. If the section in the Constitution to which reference has been made was meant to cover what some honorable members seem to think it was designed to embrace a mistake was made, because its application under the new conditions will be very different from its effect under the operation of State laws. If the State paid duty on imported goods, they received that duty back. If the State has to pay the the duty now, it will not under the possible future distribution of Customs receipts get back the full amount that it has paid. The Minister for Trade and Customs stated that it would not make very much difference to the States during the bookkeeping period, but I think it will make a great difference, because the Treasurers of the States will look to the Treasurer of the Commonwealth to provide the revenue that they were previously in receipt of, although in that revenue there was included a considerable amount of duty which the State Government actually paid by buying goods duty paid in the open market instead of importing direct for themselves.

Mr Kingston:

– How does it make any difference when they both pay and receive ?

Mr THOMSON:

– It does not make any difference in one way. It is not a difference of £ s. d. so far as taking money out of one pocket and putting it in the other is concerned, but it is the difference that it will make to the Treasurers of the States, who will look for the full amount of revenue they have previously been receiving. There will be a tendency on the part of the States’ Governments to import their goods direct, and thus save the amount that would otherwise be paid in duty, and thereby be able to spend the saving. The State Treasurers will, at the same time, resist any reduction in the amount of duty returned to them by the Commonwealth Treasurer. I should like to direct attention to what the Ministry have, done in connexion with this item. First of all, the committee were requested to consent to rails being placed on the free list. The Government must have been perfectly aware that rails were being manufactured within the Commonwealth. Then when representations were made with reference to the rails required by syndicates, the Ministry at once stated that a duty ought to be imposed and afterwards they pointed out that a 10 per cent, duty would not afford sufficient protection to the local manufacturer, absolutely overlooking the fact that the manufacture of these rails which they were anxious to protect had proceeded for ten or twelve years without any duty whatever. Surely a 10 per cent, duty is the most the Ministry could ask for, and certainly the most the manufacturer would require. How can it be argued that a 10 per cent, duty will be absolutely insufficient where it has been shown that the industry can be carried on without any protection ? If the committee, cannot agree to admit these rails free, I hope that in the interest of the various industries in which rails are used they will agree to the reduction of the impost to 10 per cent.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The honorable member for Parramatta desires to alter his amendment so as to make it apply to rails and fishplates only.

– Fire-engines cannot be made here.

Mr RONALD:

– We can make those.

The CHAIRMAN:

– I would refer the honorable member to the item before the Chair, which is “rails, fish-plates.”

Mr RONALD:

Mr Isaacs:

– Is there not to be a bonus in addition to the duty?

Mr. PAGE (Maranoa). It is very amusing to hear the Victorian protectionists answering to the call of the Age. The speeches which some of them have made tonight remind me of the old times when I was fighting in South Africa, and the cry was - “ Rally, boys, rally.” For the information of Victorians, I should like to point out that rails have been made at the Victorian Iron Rolling Mills and at Forman’s South Melbourne Mills, in the electorate of the honorable member for Southern Melbourne. Rails are also made in New South Wales at the Eskbank works, where 250 tons were manufactured last year, and at Brown and Brown’s mills at Pyrmont. I think that some protection should be given to this industry, but I believe with the leader of the Opposition, that a fair thing is enough, and that if the manufacturers are satisfied with a duty of 10 per cent., that is all they should have. If the man to whom the leader of the Opposition referred was a Victorian he would not have been satisfied with 50 per cent. I think that Victorians should put their own house in order before they condemn their neighbours. But I find that under the present Minister, Mr. Trenwith - whom I always looked upon as the champion protectionist of Victoria - the Victorian Government are getting . their railway supplies, not from Commonwealth manufacturers, but from other parts of the world. They buy in the cheapest market, but the Victorian representatives want us, who have to sell our products in themarkets of the world, to spend our money in the Commonwealth, so that they may fleece us. Everything we eat, drink, wear, and use in Western Queensland is taxed. I should like to see them consistent.

Mr Mauger:

– The Victorian Government have no control over the Railways Commissioner.

Mr PAGE:

– We have some control over our Railways Commissioner. He would not send to Germany for anything we could make in Queensland. If the manufacturers of rails are satisfied with a duty of 10 per cent., I do not see why the Government should make them a present of a higher duty.

Mr Conroy:

– They are giving away the money of the people,not their own money.

Mr PAGE:

– No doubt if the Opposition were inpower we should have complaints to make against them, too. The honorable member for Melbourne Ports has spoken against the New South Wales system of building up industries, but I wish that in Victoria they had done as wellin that matter. We should not then have had the battling to do which we have had. To draw a. concession of a few per cent, out of the Government is like drawing a tooth out of an old man of 60 - you cannot find the stumps. This item will bring in a certain amount of revenue. As the honorable and learned member for Parkes said, there is a certain section in the Chamber that is always opposed to syndicates. I am opposed to syndicates or monopolies all the time, and if I get a chance to have a dig at them I shall, free-trade or protection. I see a chance of having a go at syndicates now, and that is the reason why I intend to vote for this duty. For the next 50 years the Queensland Governmenthas given the syndicates a present of all the material they require for telegraph and telephone lines and for railways, duty free. The only chance we have of getting at them is to make them pay a fair percentage on their material, and I shall vote for the imposition of a duty on rails.

Mr KINGSTON:

– The honorable member for Flinders asks why we propose to have a duty of 15 per cent, on rails, whilst as regards a similar item under division 6a, there is a provision for a 10 per cent. duty. Honorable members know perfectly well that protectionists generally differentiate between the raw material and the manufactured article. We are dealing here, not with the raw material, but with the manufactured article, and we propose a duty of 15 per cent. In division 6a we are dealing with the raw material, and there we impose a duty of 10 per cent., but on the manufactured articles we propose a 15 per cent, duty. So I venture to put it to honorable members that applying the very principle which generally regulates protectionist proceedings in making the difference, we are only doing that which is absolutely necessary in giving a 5 per cent, difference between the raw material and the manufactured article. What is attempted on the other side is to tax the raw material and the manufactured article at the same rate, which is utterly indefensible. The thing has only to be mentioned,I am sure, to enable honorable members to see the fallacy of it.

Mr. REID (East Sydney). - I wish to point out to the Minister for Trade and Customs that he arrives at a fallacious conclusion, by supposing that we are guided by the same principles as he is. From his own point of view it seems an extraordinary thing that there should be a difference of only 5 per cent, between the duty on the raw material, out of which a man here has to make the finished article, and the duty on the imported finished article. Instead of his remarks being at all happy they are most unhappy, because he directs the attention of the committee to this fact, that whilst he proposes a duty of only 15 per cent, on finished rails, he intends to put a duty on the user of the raw material, pigiron. Will any one say that a difference of only 5 per cent, will be enough to help the colonial producer of iron rails against the importer of iron rails ? In this Tariff there are a number of instances where there has been a singular disproportion which has excited a great deal of dissatisfaction, I believe, amongst the manufacturers. There are a number of duties on the raw materials they use, which practically make the duties on the finished article of no good to them, and of no good probably to any one else. Here is a flagrant instance of the same fault, but I understand that the Ministry have withdrawn division 6a for the present.

Mr Kingston:

– No.

Mr REID:

– I understood so ; but since it is not withdrawn, that only points more strongly to the remark I have made. My right honorable friend’s complacency in referring to the admirable adjustment which has been made between the maker here and the importer shows that the thing has not been studied at all, because the slightest study of it from a protectionist point of view would demonstrate that to put 10 per cent, on pig iron, and only 15 per cent on the imported finished article, is, if there is anything in protection, altogether absurd.

Question - That the words “ 15 per cent, and on and after 22nd January, 1902, 10 per cent.” be inserted after the words “ rails, fish-plates “ - put. The committee divided.

AYES: 22

NOES: 26

Majority … … … 4

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Amendment negatived.

Item agreed to.

Item 76-

Rolled iron or steel beams, channels, joists, girders, columns, trough and bridge iron or steel, not drilledor further manufactured ; shafting, cold rolled, turned, or planished ; also bolts and nuts and barbed wire, ad aalorem, 20 per cent.

Amendment (by Mr. Watson) put -

That the words “20 per cent., and on and after 22nd January, 1902, 15 per cent.,” be inserted after the word “ columns.”

The committee divided.

AYES: 25

NOES: 24

Majority … …. 1

AYES

– I do not think it would be wise to complicate matters by introducing the amendment which has been suggested at the present stage. I would, therefore, urge the honorable member for Newcastle to endeavour to gain his object by moving his proposal in the form of a separate item. As regards the granting of a bonus, I desire to see a great deal of discussion before that proposal is allowed to pass. I am altogether opposed to it unless under conditions which are very clearly defined, and unless we are to receive a quid pro quo. The effect of granting a bonus, if the Canadian system is to be followed, will be that we shall pay for the works about one and a half times over, and shall then have neither the money nor the works. I do not wish to discuss the matter at the present stage. I merely desire to point out that it is not wise to. calculate too much upon the granting of a bonus until we see what is the temper of the committee after full discussion. I agree with’ the honorable member for Newcastle as to the desirability of giving some little consideration to industries such as that which has been established at Lithgow. I believe that about 20,000 tons of this class of iron is annually turned out in the Commonwealth, and even from a revenue stand-point, therefore, I think that a 15 per cent, duty would be a fair thing. I therefore move -

That the words “ 20 per cent, and on and after 22nd January, 1902, 15 per cent.,” be inserted after the word “ planished.”

Mr WATKINS:
Newcastle

– I understand that “ trough and bridge iron or steel, not drilled or further manufactured “ comprises iron which is simply in a semiprepared state, the same as are the articles which I wish to have inserted. If the former are to be charged duty at the rate of 20 per cent, it will be an inconsistency to afterwards tax the articles which I have mentioned at 10 per cent. I desire to insert after the word “ steel “ the words - “Angle, tee, in all sections, also rolled iron or steel in bar, rod, sheet, plate, or hoop.” I may say that the information I have is absolute that at the present time from 18,000 tons to 20,000 tons of these materials are made in Australia.

Mr Watson:

– I would ask the honorable member not to complicate this question, but to put his amendment separately, because this bar iron is used by different classes of people altogether.

Sir George Turner:

– The honorable member can move the words he refers to as a new item after this item is dealt with, and I would suggest that he should add the words - “not drilled or further manu1factured.”

Mr REID:
East Sydney

– It seems’ to me that in dealing with this Tariff it would be most misleading to bring this division VIa into the question, because it is a matter of uncertainty whether it will evercome into operation. It can only come into operation if we manage to establish ironworks for the treatment of iron ores.

Mr Kingston:

– There’ is no doubt we. shall be able to do that.

Mr REID:

– I used to think so, but we tried in New South Wales for several years unsuccessfully to give the thing a start. It will be one of the most difficult things we can think of to establish, as honorable members will find when they come to deal with the practical phases of it. I have had a number of positive assurances of the practicability of the thing, but when the sticking point came they vanished into thin air. We must not treat this Tariff on a supposititiousbasis, such as the possibility of DivisionVIa coming into force. I do not think Victorian manufacturers will be satisfied with a basis of that sort for their protection. Since protectionists are having so much to do with the framing of this Tariff; I am glad to see that the New South Wales protectionists are looking after these matters, and it is really time that New South Wales industries were looked at as carefully as any others. It is really a remarkable thing that these articles, which have been referred to by the honorable member for Newcastle as being largely made in New South Wales, should have been left out of this Tariff. They are obviously important, and represent recognised articles of Australian manufacture. We do not expect Ministers to know everything, but their officers should know something about these things.

Sir George Turner:

– We cannot get everything.

Mr REID:

– I admit that, but I think that pretty well everything Victorian is in this Tariff. Of course there is some advantage in the Parliament sitting here, where it is more convenient of access, and information can be got more easily. I hope that the Government have some specialists who advise them in these matters, because the collectors of customs cannot be expected to know all these things. If the matter is to be attended to at all, it should certainly be dealt with in the Tariff, as honorable members will not get any help out of Division VIa.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. WATKINS (Newcastle). - I think this is the proper place in which to propose the amendment I have already referred to, and I move -

That the words, “ Angle, tee, in all sections, also rolled iron or steel in bar, rod, sheet, plate, and hoopiron. 20 percent., and on and after 22nd January, 1902, 10 per cent.,” be inserted after the words “15 per cent.”

Sir GEORGE TURNER:

– I am quite aware that a number of these items are of the utmost importance to manufacturing industries, and unless they are being made here in considerable quantities, we should be doing an injustice to other iron industries if we made them dutiable. I should be glad if the honorable member for Newcastle could see his way to give us an opportunity of considering the matter. I do not feel at the present time in a position to give the committee advice as to what we think ought to be done. If the honorable member will allow the matter to remain in abeyance until honorable members and the Government have an opportunity of making inquiries, he will assist the Government out of a dilemma, and I shall take care that he shall have another opportunity of making the proposal.

Mr. REID (East Sydney).- The policy of the Government, as shown in this Tariff, with its Division TrIA, seems to have been that, -until we had established ironworks in Australia., iron should be admitted free. That was a broad principle, though I do not say it was a consistent one. It. is obvious to every honorable member that iron enters into not only the manufacturing industries, but into all the industries of the Commonwealth, and, until we do make iron in the country, there is a basis upon which both protectionists and free-traders can unite to make that raw material as cheap as possible. There is just the difficulty that complicates the matter, which the honorable member has very fairly brought under our notice, namely, that in one manufactory established in New South Wales they have been making these articles.

Mr Watkins:

– They are made in every State.

Mr Mauger:

– Two iron-mills in Victoria are making them.

Mr REID:

– Not to any large extent.

Mr Mauger:

– I am assured that they are.

Mr REID:

– If they are being made in New South Wales to any extent that is a very good proof of the wonders which can be accomplished under a free-trade policy.

Mr Watson:

– With railway concessions.

Mr REID:

– Still, the duty proposed is perhaps, after all, the best thing. In spite of railway concessions the industry is, no doubt, a wonderful one, considering that it is planted on the other side of the mountains, 100 miles away from the seaport. The difficulty which comes up over and over again is that there is a national advantage in pursuing a certain course ; but that there are a number of individuals whom people desire to protect. We cannot do both. W e cannot admit the things free for the benefit of all the manufacturing industries, and yet give a protection upon them. Even this artificial policy practically leaves nothing to the protected manufacturer in the end, because he gets protection on the thing he makes, but has to pay artificial prices on 100 articles that he uses. Many of the manufacturers in Sydney put it that way. They say - “ If we could get protection for our own industries, and if nobody who manufactured the things which we require were protected, it would be a good thing for us, but by the time that every one is protected on the material used in producing our article there is nothing left for us.” On this side of the committee we all feel that when protection is going to so many people in Australia it is very hard that we should not get some of it for our own people - men of industry and enterprise, who have established a number of industrial departures. On the other hand, it is very difficult for us to sacrifice our principles even in view of this state of things, and especially serious does it become when the duty will handicap every conceivable industry, whether manufacturing or producing, in Australia. These articles enter into the construction of an inconceivable number of things that are required in the development . of our own industries and manufactures, and in promoting the comfort of our people in their homes. Consequently, there is a great difficulty in the matter, and I should be very glad if it could be put off for a little while in order to give the Government time to consider what can can be done.

Mr. WATKINS (Newcastle).- I have no desire to harass the Government or any honorable member in considering this matter. So far as the complaint is concerned that I failed to give the Government notice of my intention to move this amendment, I can say, like other honorable members, that possibly there are other industries such as this that have not been approached in this matter. It was only when the Tariff came along that these manufacturers found that they had been left out. I do not say that that has been done intentionally, but that is the real position. As to the information that I have supplied, I can only say that I have been informed by men in the business that last year there were from 18,000 to 20,000 tons of this material produced within the Commonwealth. This production was not confined to New South Wales, but portion of it was produced in other States. If I have a clear opportunity to move my- amendment later on, I shall be glad to postpone it, but I wish it to be understood that that opportunity will be given to me before the Tariff is passed. I should like the Minister, if he will, to indicate, by a reference to the schedule, the stage at which my proposal can be reconsidered.

Mr KINGSTON:
Protectionist

– I am sure the honorable member for Newcastle will not require me to indicate the precise place at which he can take the action mentioned by him, but I promise him that, before the Tariff leaves this House, he shall have an opportunity to move his amendment. As to the suggestion that this matter has not been brought under our notice, either specially or generally, I would say that the importance of the iron industry was naturally forced upon our consideration in the early stages of the preparation of the Tariff. I can asssure the honorable member further that the people of New South Wales, so far as they were concerned in this industry, did not hesitate to place their views before us in the usual way by correspondence.

Mr McCOLL:
Echuca

– This is much too serious a question to be settled in an offhand way. I regret that the honorable member for Newcastle did not fall in with the proposal of the Government, and allow the matter to be dealt with in Division VIa, under which it would be included. It must be remembered that the duties on metal-work under the old Victorian and Queensland Tariffs have been reduced from 35 per cent, to 10 and 15 per cent. In the other States, the duty has been 20 per cent. To put a duty of 10 per cent, on the raw material after this reduction has been made will be to take away the whole of the protection given to metal-workers, and bring on the committee the execration of every metal-worker in this continent. It seems to me that the articles -

Boiled iron, or steel in bar, rod, sheet, plate, and hoop - are really the raw material of all the metal workers, and the practice has been to allow them to come in free. Seeing that the duties on metal-ware have been cut down so low, I think we should be inflicting a great injustice on manufacturers of metal ware if we were to place a duty on these articles. I should like to encourage the industries mentioned by the honorable member, but we will have to encourage them in some other way than by putting a duty on the raw material.

Mr Kingston:

– It will have been in committee long enough to have grown up.

– The Victorian Parliament put them on the free list.

Mr MAUGER:

– They have been on the free list, and the manufacturers want protection in order to make them in still larger quantities. We have the machinery and the skill, and we can make every kind of bolt and nut required. At any rate the furthest I would urge the committee to go is, if there is any special kind which must be used - I do not know of it and I do not admit it - to put it on the free list. There has been a very substantial reduction of the duty which was formerly imposed, and if honorable members reduce the duty to 10 per. cent, they will do what is decidedly unfair. Even the leader of the

Opposition will admit that 10 per. cent, is only a revenue duty.

Mr. BATCHELOR (South Australia).Surely the committee are not going to knock out every portion of the iron industry ! Nut and bolt making is a crude manufacture. It is. not a complicated work by any means. No special skill is required, and the work is nearly all done by machinery. It would be a pity to bring the duty down to 10 per cent., and to have boats carrying nuts and bolts to these States. I do not think there is very much in the contention of the honorable and learned member for South Australia about American bolts. Square thread bolts could be made here just as easily as the others. I should like to get some more information before I agree to place these special bolts on the free list.

I fail to see anything special about the carriage bolts referred to by the honorable member for Echuca, unless it can be shown that they are made of some special material, and it would be far better to adhere to the Government proposal.

Mr. JOSEPH COOK (Parramatta).- I may inform the honorable member for South Australia, Mr. Batchelor, that tons of nuts and bolts are manufactured in New South Wales, and that the raw material is not imported, but is locally produced. As far as I am aware the manufacturers would be satisfied with a 10 per cent, duty, and I shall therefore support the amendment.

Mr. CONROY (Werriwa).- I fail to see any evidence of that unremitting attention which the Ministry claim to have bestowed upon this Tariff, because they have changed their attitude several times in view of knowledge which has come to light during the discussion. When I remember that the Prime Minister at Maitland alleged that so much care, thought, and attention had been bestowed by the Ministers on the Tariff that some of them were seriously ill from overwork, and now observe Ministers varying their proposals as they are doing, I am reminded of a quotation from Phaedrus - Gratis anhelans, multa agendo, nihil agens which means’ that they have, in fact, been “ Out of breath to no purpose ; very busy doing nothing.” I recognise that our industries are placed under a great disability when duties are levied upon such articles as nuts and bolts, which are used in the carriage building and other important industries, and I should, therefore, like to see them admitted free.

Mr BROWN:
Canobolas

– The Government proposal might appeal to those who believe that the mere imposition of a duty makes an article cheaper, but it does not appeal to me. We have in New South Wales extensive works in which nuts and bolts are manufactured from the raw material, which is locally produced, and the manufacturers ask that they should be allowed to share in the benefits of a protective Tariff. If the committee consider that certain industries should be protected, why should the bolt and nut industry be denied the same advantage 1 I cannot understand the position taken up by some of the leading Victorian protectionists, who contend that a duty should be imposed upon certain goods, and then decline to similarly protect another manufactured article because it forms part of the raw material used’ in certain protected industries. I have every sympathy with the gentleman who is carrying on the Esk Bank works. I know, from the conversations I have had with his workmen, that he is one of the few employers who believe in giving labour a fair return for its energies. I wish to see the iron industry encouraged as much as possible, because it is a natural one, and with a little assistance at the initial stages it can be placed upon a basis which will enable it to defy the competition of the outside world. Although the founder of the bolt and nut industry in New South Wales has had considerable difficulties to contend with, he will no doubt be prepared to accept the amendment, which is a reasonable one, in view of the duties which we havealreadyagreed to impose. One of the difficulties in considering the amount of protection to be given is that in protecting one industry to a certain extent, other industries are placed at a disadvantage, as was shown in connexion with the manufacture of agricultural implements. It was stated in a circular that while the manufacturer of a complicated piece of agricultural machinery received protection to the extent of something like 15 percent., a quantity of his raw material was protected up to 25 per cent., and he was thus penalized. These bolts and nuts are the manufactured article of the big iron industry at Lithgow, but they are the raw material of a number of other manufactures. That is the great trouble protectionists have in trying to frame a comprehensive policy - that in protecting one industry they protect the raw material of another just as important to the community. I should prefer to see the whole of these articles free, because they are the very basis of manufacturing. Industries, in my opinion, ought to be established and encouraged in some other direction, but we have got away from that point ; and I trust the reasonable suggestion which has been made by the honorable and learned member for South Australia, Mr. Glynn, will prove acceptable to the committee.

Mr O’MALLEY:
Tasmania

– I ask the Minister for Trade and Customs to compromise by accepting a duty of 15 per cent.

Sir George Turner:

– The leader of the Opposition says that he is not in favour of any compromise.

Question - That the words “ 20 per cent., and on and after 22nd January, 1902, 10 per cent.” be inserted after the words “bolts and nuts” - put. The committee divided.

AYES: 25

NOES: 21

Majority … … 7

Majority … … … 4

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Amendment negatived.

Amendment by (Mr. O’Malley), put -

That the words “ 20 per cent, and on and after 22nd January, 1902, 15 per cent.” be inserted after the words “ bolts and nuts.”

– It would be of great assistance to the committee.

Mr POYNTON:

– I got the information and the samples from merchants. The information has been advertised, and I do not know that there is any secret about it. I am prepared to stake my reputation that what I say is correct. I say that the colonial-made barbed wire is almost on a par with No. 8 to No. 6 plain wire. I do not wish to occupy any further time in dealing with the matter. It is a matter of the greatest importance to us, because persons engaged in the pastoral industry in dog-infested portions of the country must have barbed wire. It is of considerably more importance to the Commonwealth that this barbed wire should be admitted free than that there should be some 30-odd men or boys employed in the industry in Victoria, because the average wage paid amounts to only 28s. 3d. per week. I say that it would pay the pastoralists concerned in dog-proof fencing better to build houses for the persons engaged in this industry in Melbourne, and pension them off at £2 per week for their life-time, than to have to pay this duty. I move. -

That after the words “and barbed wire, ad valorem, 20 per cent.,” the words “and on and after 22nd January, 1902, free “ be added.

Mr HUME COOK:
BOURKE, VICTORIA · PROT

– The little history which the honorable member for South Australia, Mr. Poynton, has given us in regard to the efforts of the Government of that State to get rid of the dingoes, may be very interesting, but it is not very apropos of the point under discussion.

Mr Poynton:

– Is it not ?

Mr HUME COOK:
BOURKE, VICTORIA · PROT

– It is not, for the reason that the question before the committee is whether it is more advantageous for the consumer to have this wire made in the Commonwealth, or to be able to import it free. I am going to prove, I think, that it is to the advantage of the consumer to have the industry established in Australia, and to keep it in existence. The honorable member made the assertion that barbed wire was £16 per ton. He did not name the State in which that price was ruling. He referred, however, to South Australia. The price of barbed wire is £16 per ton in New South “Wales, £17 in Queensland - it was £17 10s. a ton there a little while ago - and £15 12s. 6d. per ton in Victoria, where it is manufactured. That is to say, it is 7s. 6d. per ton cheaper in this State than in any other State, and it is made in this, and not in any other State.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– Do the prices relate to the same kind of wire ?

Mr HUME COOK:
BOURKE, VICTORIA · PROT

– I am quoting the wholesale rates for exactly the same kind of wire. A little more than a month ago barbed wire was £17 10s. a ton in Queensland, but the Victorian manufacturers have been sending their wire into Queensland since then with the result that there is already a reduction of 10s. per ton. If the duty is carried, and the manufacturers are assured that it will remain, they will be prepared at once to lay down machinery sufficient to enable them to supply the needs of the Commonwealth. One manufacturer,, of whom I know, Ls prepared to expend £2,000 on colonially-made machinery as soon as this duty is fixed, and he calculates that this will enable him to manufacture an output sufficient to supply the requirements of at least two of the States. There are at present five manufacturers of barbed wire’ in Victoria. If they all increase their output in the same way it is clear that in a very short space of time the whole of the Commonwealth can be supplied by local manufacturers. I am inclined to think that the probability is that they will begin the manufacture of barbed wire in each State. One of the Victorian firms to which I have referred contemplates starting in South Australia, at any rate, for the reason that the Government there have by their legislation induced such an enormous consumption of barbed wire that it would probably pay the company better to establish its manufactory in South Australia rather than to send the wire there from Victoria. However, I make the assertion that in all the other States the price of barbed wire to-day is greater than it is in Victoria, and that the Victorian price is 7s. 6d. per ton lower than the next best price in the Commonwealth. That is due to the fact that the article is made here, and not in the other States, and because the manufacturer comes into competition more closely and more keenly here with the importer than he does in the other States.

Mr CONROY:

– Is it to reduce the price that the honorable member desires to put on this duty?

Mr HUME COOK:
BOURKE, VICTORIA · PROT

Progress reported.

House adjourned a? 10.52 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 21 January 1902, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1902/19020121_reps_1_7/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant

House of Representatives21 January 1902

PETITION

SECOND COMMONWEALTH CONTINGENT

Mr BARTON:Minister for External Affairs · HUNTER, NEW SOUTH WALES · Protectionist

Mr CONROY:WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr BARTON:

Mr Conroy:

Mr BARTON:

Mr Thomas:

Mr BARTON:

Sir Malcolm McEacharn:

Mr BARTON:

Sir Malcolm McEacharn:

Mr BARTON:

Sir Malcolm McEacharn:

Mr BARTON:

Mr O’MALLEY:TASMANIA, TASMANIA

Mr BARTON:

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH PUBLICATIONS

Mr GLYNN:SOUTH AUSTRALIA, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Mr DEAKIN:Attorney-General · BALLAARAT, VICTORIA · Protectionist

Mr Barton:

Mr Glynn:

Mr DEAKIN:

QUESTION

DUTIES ON PRINTING MACHINERY

Mr HUGHES:WEST SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr KINGSTON:Minister for Trade and Customs · SOUTH AUSTRALIA, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · Protectionist

QUESTION

POSTAGE RECEIPTS

Mr THOMAS:

Sir PHILIP FYSH:Minister (without portfolio) · TASMANIA, TASMANIA · Free Trade

TRANSFERRED OFFICERS

Mr JOSEPH COOK:PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr BARTON:Protectionist

QUESTION

FEDERAL CAPITAL

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

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:Minister for Home Affairs · HUME, NEW SOUTH WALES · Protectionist

QUESTION

PARCELS POST SYSTEM

Mr E SOLOMON:FREMANTLE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · FT

Sir PHILIP FYSH:Free Trade

QUESTION

DISTRIBUTION OF PRINTING

Mr HUGHES:

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:Protectionist

QUESTION

MAINTENANCE MEN

Mr JOSEPH COOK:PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Sir PHILIP FYSH:Free Trade

QUESTION

MAIL-BAGS

Mr HUGHES:

Sir PHILIP FYSH:Free Trade

QUESTION

INCREMENTS : POSTAL SERVICE

Mr FULLER:ILLAWARRA, NEW SOUTH WALES

Sir PHILIP FYSH:Free Trade

QUESTION

CARBONATE OF SODA

Mr THOMSON:NORTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr KINGSTON:Protectionist

QUESTION

MESSRS. COHEN AND LEWIS

Mr FULLER:

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:Protectionist

TARIFF

In Committee of Ways and Means :

Mr KINGSTON:South AustraliaMinister for Trade and Customs · Protectionist

Mr MCDONALD:Kennedy

Sir George Turner:

Mr KINGSTON:

Mr G B EDWARDS:SOUTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT

Mr KINGSTON:

Mr Thomson:

Mr KINGSTON:

Mr Glynn:

Mr KINGSTON:

House of Representatives
21 January 1902

Mr BARTON:
Minister for External Affairs · HUNTER, NEW SOUTH WALES · Protectionist

Mr CONROY:
WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr O’MALLEY:
TASMANIA, TASMANIA

Mr GLYNN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Mr DEAKIN:
Attorney-General · BALLAARAT, VICTORIA · Protectionist

Mr HUGHES:
WEST SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr KINGSTON:
Minister for Trade and Customs · SOUTH AUSTRALIA, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · Protectionist

Sir PHILIP FYSH:
Minister (without portfolio) · TASMANIA, TASMANIA · Free Trade

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr BARTON:
Protectionist

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

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:
Minister for Home Affairs · HUME, NEW SOUTH WALES · Protectionist

Mr E SOLOMON:
FREMANTLE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · FT

Sir PHILIP FYSH:
Free Trade

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:
Protectionist

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Sir PHILIP FYSH:
Free Trade

Sir PHILIP FYSH:
Free Trade

Mr FULLER:
ILLAWARRA, NEW SOUTH WALES

Sir PHILIP FYSH:
Free Trade

Mr THOMSON:
NORTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr KINGSTON:
Protectionist

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:
Protectionist

Mr KINGSTON:
South AustraliaMinister for Trade and Customs · Protectionist

Mr MCDONALD:
Kennedy

Mr G B EDWARDS:
SOUTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT

Mr THOMSON:
North Sydney

Mr HUGHES:
West Sydney

Mr THOMAS:
Barrier

Mr KNOX:
Kooyong

Mr WATSON:
Bland

Sir GEORGE TURNER:
Protectionist

Mr HENRY WILLIS:
Robertson

Mr KIRWAN:
Kalgoorlie

Mr KIRWAN:
KALGOORLIE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · FT

Mr SYDNEY SMITH:
MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT

Mr KIRWAN:
KALGOORLIE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · FT

Mr SYDNEY SMITH:
MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT

Mr CONROY:
Werriwa

Mr BROWN:
Canobolas

Mr G B EDWARDS:
SOUTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT

Mr SYDNEY SMITH:
MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT

Mr SYDNEY SMITH:
MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT

Mr SYDNEY SMITH:
MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT