House of Representatives
13 February 1902

1^st Parliament · 1^st Session

QUESTION
- HORSE-BREEDING STATIONS
QUESTION
- TELEGRAPH MESSENGERS
QUESTION
- UNPAID ALLOWANCES
QUESTION
- WAYS AND MEANS
QUESTION
- TARIFF
THE NEW SOUTH WALES STEEL RAIL PROPOSALS
ADJOURNMENT
- Queensland Japanese Treaty - Immigration Restriction Act

Mr. Speaker took the chair at 2.30 p.m., and readprayers.

page 9983

QUESTION

HORSE-BREEDING STATIONS

Sir LANGDON BONYTHON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I wish to ask the Prime Minister a question without notice. A cablegramwas published in the newspapers on Tuesday reporting that in the House of Commons last week Mr. Brodrick, the Secretary for War, made a statement as to the number of horses sent to South Africa: The total is 218,000, in addition to 90,000 captured from the Boers. The United Kingdom supplied 60,000, the United States 77,000, Australia 20,000, Canada 11,000, South America 26,000, and Hungary 24,000. It is well-known, as was pointed out by Sir John Cockburn, in a letter to the London

Times last week, that the table-lands of North Australia are peculiarly adapted to the establishment of stations for horsebreeding purposes. Emphatic testimony on this point has been borne, both bythe present Government Resident at Port Darwin, Mr. Justice Dashwood, and his predecessor, the Hon. J. L. Parsons. In a report dated 31st December, 1900, Mr. Justice Dashwood writes -

I have taken every opportunity of urging upon thepastoralists of the Northern Territory the advisability of engaging in the enterprise of breeding horses of the right stamp for export to the East,and particularly as Indian remounts. There are thousands of square miles of country suitable for this purpose, find which, under the land laws, can be acquired from the Government on the most liberal terms.

In a later report, written from Powell Creek, and dated 19th September, 1901, His Honour says -

Arrived here yesterday. Had a most interesting journey overthe table-lands. Have travelled hundreds of miles over magnificent plains, consisting of rich black and chocolate soil, thickly grassed with Flinders, Mitchell, and a variety of other excellent stock grasses. All the stockI saw, both old and young, are fat and healthy.

Having read these extracts I will now ask the Prime Minister whether the Government will make representations to the Imperial authorities as to thewisdom in the interests of the Empire of utilizing the facilities afforded in the northern portions of Australia for breeding horses of the stamp required for service in South Africa, India, and elsewhere.

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

– It is probable that we should receive a very considerable volume of testimony as to the advantages of particular parts of Australia for the purpose of horse-breeding if we were to go through a preliminary investigation of the subject. This Government has to make whatever representations it may make in view of the common interests of all Australia, and, while I can undertake to represent the advantages of establishing breeding stations for horses in the’ Commonwealth, I can scarcely undertake, at the same time, to assume the large and heavy onus of pointing out that any one part of the Commonwealth is better adapted for the purpose than another. If the Imperial Government arc induced to establish breeding stations in Australia, no doubt they will make such inquiries as will probably lead them in the right direction.

page 9984

QUESTION

TELEGRAPH MESSENGERS

In it the custom of the Postal department to make telegraph messengers, when partaking of their annual leave, pay half the cost of the relieving officer ?
If so, will the Postmaster - General cause this practice to be discontinued ?

Sir PHILIP FYSH:
TASMANIA, TASMANIA · FT

– The answer to the honorable member’s questions is as follows : - 1 and 2. It is not the custom of the Postal department to wake telegraph messengers, who have completed their probation, and have served for twelve months in the department, when par- taking of their annual leave, pay half the cost of the relieving officer.

page 9984

QUESTION

UNPAID ALLOWANCES

Mr CHAPMAN:
for Mr. Cruickshank:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice -

Whether it is the intention of the Government to make provision on the Estimates for the unpaid allowances which have been promised to certain officers in the Post and Telegraph department ?

Sir GEORGE TURNER:
Treasurer · BALACLAVA, VICTORIA · Protectionist

-Additional Estimates are being prepared in the departments, and when those are being considered by the Cabinet this matter, which relates, as I understood from the honorable member yesterday, to the Post-office employes in New South Wales, will be reconsidered, and then we shall be able to say exactly what we intend to do.

page 9984

QUESTION

WAYS AND MEANS

Salaries of Transferred Officers - Customs Administration - Supply of Rifles

Question - That Mr. Speaker do leave the Chair, and the House resolve itself into Committee of Ways and Means - proposed.

Mr TUDOR:
Yarra

– I regret that the question I have to bring before the House has been raised so many times, and that so far as I know the men affected are no further forward in obtaining what they consider their rights than they were last June. One of the first questions put on the notice-paper when this House met last May, was a question by the honorable and learned member for Bendigo, asking that effect should be given to a section in an Act of the “Victorian Parliament relating to officers transferred from the public service of Victoria to the Commonwealth service. It provided that men in receipt of less than £156 per annum should be paid at rates equal to those attached to corresponding positions in any other State. The Act was passed months before the departments were transferred, and the Premier of Victoria, in reply to questions on the subject, says that he is quite prepared to pay these men for the time they were in the employment of the State, provided that he can get vouchers from the Prime Minister stating what they are entitled to get. The grievance of these men has been explained by the honorable member for Bourke, the honorable and learned member for Bendigo, and myself, on three or four occasions, and each time we were promised that some effect would be given to the State Act. In order that the Victorian Public Service Board could be sure that the men held positions corresponding to those in other States, a federal officer was borrowed for the purpose of going round the States to obtain the information, and he furnished a report early last December. When I asked, first the Minister for Home Affairs and subsequently the Prime. Minister, if effect would be given to the report, I was told that the Cabinet would consider the matter. Although the report has been in the possession of Ministers for over two months, nothing has yet been done so far as I can learn. It has been announced in the press that to give effect to the report would cost the Commonwealth £40,000 or £50,000 per annum. That estimate is, I consider, very wide of the mark. About 600 officers are affected by the Act, and if the amount is correctly stated in the press then they must be averaging about £60 per annum, but badly as this and other States sweated officials, especially the lower paid men, I do not think they ever were so unjust as that. It is not the report, but an Act of Parliament that gives the men the money. According to high constitutional authorities the Constitution safeguards the men in their position, and they were entitled to that money prior to their transfer, provided that they held corresponding positions. Most of these men are in the Post and Telegraph department, and I do not think it would be very hard to find out whether they are in corresponding positions. I have taken the trouble to go through the figures for the various States, and I find that in no case is the salary paid in Victoria the highest - that is £156 per annum. I hold that effect should be given to the report, and I trust whichever Minister replies on behalf of the Minister for Home Affairs, who, I regret to see, is absent, will give a straightforward answer. The men have been waiting for over fourteen months to have effect given to the State law. Some of the highest paid men in the service received their increase right away. But the men at the bottom of the ladder - those who receive £78, £90, ; and £132 a year - have not received theirs yet. Perhaps it would have been a good thing for them had the Act provided that no money should be paid until all the increases were granted. In that case, the higher paid officers would have seen that the Act was put into force quickly. It has been stated that there is a great deal of difficulty in ascertaining what is a corresponding position in the various States. Most of the men who are affected are letter-carriers, and what are known as postal assistants - men who do telegraphic work and relieve postmasters. Some of these relieving officers occupy responsible positions, and have a great deal of money passing through their hands. I do not see that there is any difficulty in finding out whether a letter-carrier in Melbourne is in a position similar to that of a letter-carrier in Sydney, Brisbane, Adelaide, or any other city.

Mr Mahon:

– Does the honorable member contend that a letter-carrier in Melbourne is entitled to the same wage as a letter-carrier in Kalgoorlie ?

Mr TUDOR:

– I am not contending that for a minute. Probably a lettercarrier in Kalgoorlie gets much more than the maximum specified in the Victorian Act, which was passed before the men were transferred. A reclassification board had sat in this as in other States. I believe that in New South Wales a reclassification board fixed the salaries of these men, and that they are being paid. I believe that if this Act had been applicable to New South Wales the men would have been paid their increase before now. Their representatives would have been more pressing than we have been.

Sir George Turner:

– They have been pressing for their increments, but they have not received them yet.

Mr TUDOR:

– The officers in the Victorian departments are in a far worse position than are those in the other States.

The Treasurer knows the circumstances perhaps better than doe3 any other honorable member, as he assisted to draft the Act to which I have been referring. I trust that we shall receive a definite answer from the Minister who is representing the Minister for Home Affairs.

Sir JOHN QUICK:
Bendigo

– I desire to support the request of the honorable member for Yarra. This question has been postponed from time to time, but has now reached such a stage that it must receive the serious consideration of the Government. This is not an ad miscrecordiam appeal for any concession to the Victorian officers, but merely a request that they shall receive their legal and constitutional rights. It is clearly provided by section 84 of the Constitution that any State officer who is retained in the service of the Commonwealth shall have preserved to him his existing and accruing rights, and there is no limitation to that reservation. When an officer of a State department is transferred to the Federal service he passes over in the possession of all his rights existing and accruing at the time of his transfer. That was enacted so that public servants should not be apprehensive that under the Federal regimé the)’ would be treated less generously or less liberally than under the State system of Government. That point having been clearly stated, we next have to inquire what was the position of the Victorian officers at the time of the transfer of the departments which have been taken over by the Commonwealth. The Post and Telegraph department was transferred by Gazette notice on the 1st March, 1901. If honorable members will turn to the Victorian Act passed on the 27th December, 1900, they will see that section 19 clearly defines the position of the officers of the Trade and Customs, Defence, and Post and Telegraph departments. It is there enacted that every officer of these departments shall be entitled to receive a salary equal to the highest salary then payable - that is at the time of the commencement of the Act - to an officer of corresponding position in any Australian State.

Mr Thomson:

– That was an improper provision.

Sir JOHN QUICK:

– That is not the point. Whatever may be said with regard to this legislation, it conferred certain rights on the officers of the transferred departments. The provision in the Victorian Act was subject to the condition that the highest salary payable should notexceed £156 per annum. The Treasurer was a member of the State Government that assisted to pass that law, as also was the honorable and learned member for Indi. At the time of the transfer of the State departments to the Commonwealth there were about 430 letter carriers in the service of the Victorian Postal department, and all. these are interested in the rightsconferred by the Act to which I have referred. There are also about 100 postal assistants, and these, with the letter carriers, constitute about three-fourths of the Victorian officers concerned, the other fourth being made up of line repairers, porters, and pillar cleaners, not officers in the department.

Sir George Turner:

– There are also the telephone attendants.

Sir JOHN QUICK:

– Yes ; but I do not think they are so much interested, as the difference in the salaries paid in Victoria and in the other States is not so great in their case as in that of the letter carriers.

Sir George Turner:

– The Victorian Act applies to them as well.

Sir JOHN QUICK:

Mr Barton:

– He cannot stay here for long upon any day.

Mr WILKS:

Sir George Turner:

– We have already sent 40 or 50 officers from Victoria.

Mr F E McLEAN:
LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT

The officer took a long time to visit the various States and make inquiries, and it was not until late in December last that his report reached the Government. The report is a very lengthy document comprising some 74 or 75 pages. I obtained it from the Minister for Home Affairs - to whoso department this matter appertains - and went through it, as I had been interested in the matter while in the Victorian State Parliament. Before the Government can attempt to deal with this report, it is absolutely necessary that the various departments interested should have an opportunity of considering the suggestions made in it. The report is a valuable one, made by a very able officer, possessed of great experience ; but having read it, I venture to say that there are a vast number of questions which are not dealt with in it, and to which the Minister would have to give many weeks of steady work. That would be necessary in order to enable him to decide fairly between the officers in the various States, so that the officers in Victoria may not be placed in a better position than that of their confreres in other States. There are a large number of questions to be considered. It is not merely, as the honorable and learned member for Bendigo said, a question of taking a letter carrier in Melbourne and a letter carrier in Sydney, and saying that they are to get the same rate of pay. The claim put forward by these officers, I believe, is that no matter for how long or how short a term they may have served, they are to get this maximum rate of pay. That never was the intention of the Victorian Government or Parliament. It would be a very unreasonable contention indeed to say that an officer who had been at this particular work for two or threeyears, and who, perhaps, was in the lowestgrade of all, should have his salary immediately raised from £90 or £110 to the maximum of £156, and that is why this large sum of money, £40,000 or £50,000, is spoken of. It has been stated that the Act applies to 600 officers ; but my recollection is that it applies to a far greater number. The 600 officers who are spoken of may be the letter carriers and letter sorters. There are a large number of officers whose positions are dealt with in the report. Seeing that it only came into our hands from theVictorian Government towards the »nd of December, we have had no opportunity toconsider the report, and are not likely tx> get a fair opportunity until we are in recess. It must be fully considered by the various departments interested. The information given with regard to the work has been, collected with a great deal of industry. But still there are a number of points which could not be dealt with in the report, because it was for the head of the department to consider them in dealing with the very difficult question of corresponding positions. Being responsible, as the head of the State Government for the passing of the Act, I am naturally anxious to see it carried into effect at the earliest possible moment, but with the work that the Government have had to do, and the fact that, excepting for two or three weeks when we adjourned, Parliament has been sitting practically for nine months, we have not had time to go into the question. “We have sent the report to the different departments asking for information with regard to the various matters it deals with. As soon as that information is received, and an opportunity is presented, we shall endeavour to deal with it, but I confess frankly that I do not think it will be possible for us to go fully into the matter, nor do I think it would be possible for the Minister for Home Affairs to properly go into it with the other duties he has to perform before the close of the session. However, if it is at all possible, it shall be done. But, in my opinion, the classification can be properly made only by the commissioner to be appointed under the Public Service Act, who will have to classify all the services, and who probably, in dealing with classification, will be in a much better position than would any officers we might appoint, or any Minister who might attemy.it to deal with the question. I admit that that means some considerable delay, but I do not think it right that I should raise the hopes of officers that the matter will be dealt with at once, when in my opinion it cannot be dealt with in a proper manner for a considerable time. Whatever is done will be dated back to the day when the Act was passed, and the officers will be entitled to get the fixed rates of pay from that date. While we shall be anxious to expedite the -matter as much as possible, it is of no use to raise any hopes that it will be done within a few weeks. I feel perfectly certain that it is impossible to deal with it unless we can have more leisure at our disposal than we are likely to have for a little time to come with Parliament sitting. It will be for the Attorney-General to consider the constitutional rights of the officers. I know what was the intention of the State Parliament, and I do not think there was any desire to be smart or to take an unfair advantage of the other States. In New South Wales a reclassification took place just before the transfer of the departments, by virtue of their Act, which provided for a reclassification from time to time, and the salaries of the officers were considerably raised. In Victoria a large number of positions were filled up, and rightly filled up, before the officers were transferred, and a special clause was inserted in the Public Service Bill in order that thi officers might be given what I believe they would have been given by the commissioner without that provision - an amount of salary commensurate with the work they were doing, and comparing it with a similar class of work done by officers with a somewhat similar length of service and similar responsibility in other States. Under these circumstances I think that honorable members, and the officers concerned, will have to exercise patience for a little longer. I can only promise that whatever we, as a Government, can do, whatever the Minister for Home Affairs can do, to expedite the matter, will be done, and that if the officers have any rights under the State Act, they will undoubtedly be conserved, and I am certain that in the course we propose we shall be supported by the House.

Mr POYNTON:
South Australia

– I am glad to hear that the Treasurer recognises that where the class of work is the same, and the conditions similar, the same amount of wage should apply. I wish him to take one point into consideration. It will be found, when the Government come to deal with the question, that some of the States were not up to date in the matter of attending to the whole of £he services to be transferred, and getting an Act passed just at the eleventh hour. I can understand that it is difficult to arrange this matter, and that it cannot be done in a hurry. But I wish it to be done in such a way that no injustice will be done to those men for whose benefit an Act was not rushed through, on the eve of the transfer of the department, to raise their status and their increments. Take the case of the linemen in connexion with the telegraph department in South Australia. Although men in the country branch, extending right out on Eucla, put up with more hardships in a month than linemen round the cities put up with in twelve months, yet those men are getting only 6s. per day. Nothing was done by the State Parliament just before the services were transferred to increase their rate of pay. I do not think that simply because the State did not increase the pay of these men, and other States did increase the pay of their men, they should be left out in the cold when they are doi ng a class of work which warrants their getting a wage of more than 6s. a day. I am not raising a question as’ to the position of the Victorian officer or the New South Wales officer : but I submit if a man in the interior is doing line repairing he is entitled to get more per day than a lineman who is engaged in a city, where all supplies are much cheaper than in the interior. All I ask of the Treasurer is that, when this service is being considered, the cases of the men will be dealt with on their merits, irrespective of any legislation which may or may not have been passed.

Mr CHANTER:
Riverina

– I wish to ask the Treasurer, who gave a reply to the honorable member for Melbourne, if the decision of the Government relates to jewellery only, or to all goods, including machinery, if a bond is entered into that they shall be returned.

Sir George Turner:

– To all goods sent for repair.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 9999

QUESTION

TARIFF

In Committee of Ways and Means -

Consideration resumed from 12th Feb ruary (vide page 9983).

Division VIa. - Metals and Machinery. - To come into operation on dates to be fixed by proclamation, and except us to galvanized plate and sheet iron, exempt from duty in the meantime. Proclamation to issue so soon as it is certified by the Minister that the manufacture of iron or of reapers and binders or of any machinery to which the proclamation refers has been sufficiently established in the Commonwealth, according to the provisions of any law relating to bonuses for the encouragement of manufactures : -

Item 77. Iron and Steel -

Scrap Iron and Steel, and Pig Iron, 10 per cent, ad valorem.

Ingots, Blooms, Slabs, Billets, Puddled Bars and Loops, or like crude Manufactures less finished than Iron or Steel Bars, but more advanced than Pig Iron (except Castings), 10 per cent, ad valorem.

Bar, Bod, Angle, Tee, Sheet, Plate, and Hoop, except Galvanized Plate and Sheet, 10 per cent, ad valorem.

Galvanized Plate and Sheet, viz.: - Plain, 10 per cent, ad valorem.; Corrugated, 15 per cent, ad valorem..

Machinery- Reapers and Binders,15 per cent, ad valorem; other Machinery referred to in Proclamation, 15 per cent, ad valorem.

Upon which Mr. Glynn had moved -

That the words “Division VIa.” be omitted.

Mr SKENE:

– I understood that the principle of bonuses generally was being discussed at the present stage. The honorable and learned member for Illawarra has raised the objection that bonuses do not find their way into the hands of those whom they are intended to benefit. But that drawback could be very easily overcome by applying the bonus to secure to producers some concession upon railway freights alone; at any rate, a good deal could be done in that way. Let us take the wheat industry as an illustration. We are aware that a very close estimate of the consumption of wheat is made every year, and we know the quantity exported. The Tariff offers the farmers the benefit of a duty of ls. 6d. per cental upon wheat - a duty which, tomy mind, is worthless, because, I think, weshall never again require to import wheat from abroad. I would point out that the difficulty raised by the honorable and learned member for Illawarra could beovercome by subsidizing the railways tothe extent of any bonus that might be given upon grain or produce of any kind. If the railways were subsidized to the extent of 6d. per bushel, 55 per cent, only of the inoperative duty, it would represent a substantial concession as against the Government proposal. If a bonus were given on the estimated consumption of the homemarket, it would be only what we are supposed to give under a protective duty. In this connexion it also occurs to my mind that the cost of export from thiscountry must also increase, if there is anything in the Government contention that the operation of this Tariff’ will check imports. To the extent that there is a checking of imports the freights must rise. Vessels must come here in ballast, with the result that freights would rise instead of fall. A good deal has been said both inside and outside the House in reference to the development of the iron industry in America. We hear so much about America that one is almost impelled to think that her position, with a population of 80,000,000 is analogous to that of Australia, with a population of only 4, 000, 000. The opportunities for developing the iron industry in America are so great that the comparison does not hold good in the slightest degree. I have taken theopportunity of looking up some facts in connexion with the enormous mileage of railways made in the United States, which have provided an opportunity for developing this industry. I am in possession of some astonishing facts, which will show what the railway system of America is. An amount of money has been absolutely wasted in the making of railways there, which would pay for the establishment of 50 iron industries. For example I find that from 1875 to 1890 the aggregate foreclosure sales on the railways of the United States comprised 50,525 miles with 2,S65,000,000 dollars worth of combined stocks and bonds, or an average of 191,000,000 dollars per annum. In 1893- alone 74 railway companies, holding a mileage of 30,000 and a capital of £360,000,000, passed into the hands of the receiver.

Mr O’Malley:

– They are not in the hands of the receiver now.

Mr SKENE:

Mr POYNTON:

Mr. V. L. Solomon, has interjected that very few of the States are extending their railway systems at the present time. We know, however, that there is a proposal - whether it is made seriously or not I do not know - for the construction of a railway from Port Augusta to Kalgoorlie. An order for the supply of the rails necessary for the construction of that line would be sufficient to satisfy the people to whom I refer. Then there is the proposed railway from Oodnadatta to meet the short line from Port Darwin to Pine Creek.

Mr V L SOLOMON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · FT

– The real transcontinental railway.

Mr HENRY WILLIS:

– I agree with the honorable member that that would be a real transcontinental railway. One of these railways will be taken in hand in the future.

Mr Kingston:

– Does the honorable member think that we could establish the industry in the Commonwealth if we arranged for the States to obtain their supplies of rails from the local works ?

Mr HENRY WILLIS:

– Yes, upon the conditions I have stated. There is no reason -why the Ministry should not be able to obtain that guarantee, because some of the State Governments have expressed their willingness to let contracts for the local production of steel rails upon certain conditions. In the first place it may be asked why the Government of New South Wales have failed hitherto to establish the industry upon the lines I have indicated, and judging by his interjection that idea has occurred to the Minister. The lines I have indicated formed part of the policy of the Reid Government.

Mr Thomson:

– The guaranteed order was not sufficient.

Mr HENRY WILLIS:

– The honorable member is correct. In the first place the offer made by the Government of New South Wales was limited to the taking of rails required for that State for a certain period. A limited annual output for a limited number of years was to be taken, and the demand for one State only was not sufficient to induce the capitalists and ironmasters to enter upon the project. There is also a reason for the failure of the proposal made by the See Government, and I shall be able to indicate the way in which it is explained in England. Very recently I received from England a letter dated 17th

October, in which the following cutting from the Ironmonger was enclosed : -

page 10008

THE NEW SOUTH WALES STEEL RAIL PROPOSALS

It did not come as a matter of much surprise that no tenders were received locally, nor by the Agent-General in London, for the supply of 100,000 tons of steel rails, to be entirely manufactured and finished in this State - that is, New South Wales - under the conditions laid down by the Works department. The stipulation that the contractors should pay a minimum wage fixed by Government for an eight-hour day, and that the cost of the rails was not to exceed the lowest selling price in England or America, plus charges of importation, did not meet with the approbation of the ironmasters of England or America, while American trusts doubtless influenced opinions as well. The Minister for Works thinks the likelihood of the American Steel Rail Corporation seeking to extinguish any rival company starting in this way, by temporarily bringing down the price, was the consideration which most influenced British manufacturers. He points out that after he had inserted the minimum wage of 7s. per day, the Blythe River Iron Mines Limited agreed to accept the contract. Why this company did not tender when the contract was thrown open does not appear. Perhaps the much-expected Federal Tariff proposals had something to do with it. Since the tender-box was opened the company have been in communication with the Minister. They say that though the question of starting their projected ironworks at Burnie, in Tasmania, and also on the banks of the Yarra, in Melbourne, is being considered, their representatives in England may think that under certain circumstances Sydney would be the best centre. The Minister states that a local ironmaster representing others has also ottered to take up the matter.

We see from this that the cause of failure was a stipulation that the contractor should pay a minimum wage fixed by the Government for an eight-hour day, and secondly the likelihood of the American Steel Rail Corporation seeking to extinguish any rival company in the way suggested. This seems to me to be a reasonable conclusion. It is part of the policy of these great American trusts to cut in and destroy an industry in its early states. These objections would prevail also against the Government proposal. In New Zealand they have a project which is rather more favourable, I think, for the manufacturer or investor than that now before us. My friends in London have sent out with this letter some extracts from a proposal which was placed before them respecting that particular project. It reads as follows : -

In the Legislative Assembly, on the 17th July, a discussion was raised as to the necessity of initiating an iron and steel industry in the colony, and the fostering of same when the Government provided a subsidy of £20,000, representing £1 per ton on the first 20,000 tons manufactured, provided a company would furnish , £200,000 for necessary appliances, buildings, plant, &c. In addition to above the Government will give a contract for the supply of 50,000 tons of necessary material as an initial support of the project, at an extra profit of £1 5s. per ton over the prices quoted at present sources of supply representing the freight of same, which amount of extra profit £62,500, together with the afore-mentioned subsidy of £20,000, makes £82,500 a nucleus indicative of practical support to the company or syndicate undertaking the project.

N.B. - It is believed that this subsidy or contract, or both, can be increased to at least £100,000 as soon as the company is formed. The valuable deposits of million tons of iron sand at Taranaki, which give a very high percentage of over60 per cent. of iron, so excellently situated for establishing works adjacent to railway and shipping ports, has been looked upon for years by the colony as capable of utilization by projected works, at only a very nominal cost of delivery, viz.,6d. per ton. The Government has granted the option of lease and working under mining laws of the Government reserve at Parapara, a huge deposit estimated at 30 millions of iron (hematite) ore, containing an average of about 52 per cent. iron, on which site works can be erected.

The proposal of the New Zealand Government is very much more favorable than that of the Commonwealth Government in this respect - that New Zealand offers an advantage of £1 5s. per ton, will offer to be a customer to the extent of an enormous quantity of rails, and a further bonus of £1 per ton, as against the proposal of the Commonwealth Government to give a bonus of 12s. perton. There appears to me very little prospect of the federal project being taken up while that offer is in the market. Thenominal cost of 6d. per ton for the delivery of the iron ore is another very great consideration. That might be considered in conjunction with the statements I have made respecting the cost of bringing ore from the various parts of the Commonwealth. Whether it is brought from Emu Bay, in Tasmania, to the coast of New South Wales, or from the northern coast of Queensland down to the coal supply of New South Wales, or from the distant parts of New South Wales, in which are situated the properties which were formerly held by Mr. Mitchell. These are considerations which weigh very heavily upon the minds, I think, of men who are likely to launch out into this venture, as being an expenditure that will not enable them to compete successfully with the establishment of mines in New

Zealand, where the Government offer a bonus, and advantages so much greater than the bonuses and advantages that the Federal Government propose in their scheme. Further, the New Zealand Government offer the option of a lease of Government property, with hematite ore of 52 per cent. iron, and where there is said to be a deposit, and it is not disputed, of 30,000,000 tons. This honorable members have to consider with my statement as to certain properties which I have had tested, to the extent of thousands of tons, where the ore is not produced at so low a figure by any means, and which could not possibly compete with the establishment of such an industry in New Zealand. I think I ought to let honorable members know what the opinion in England is of this particular project, and of the proposal of the New South Wales Government. I have a letter which reads as follows : -

With reference to the iron and steel industry, I have had before me a much more liberal scheme from the New Zealand Government than even Victoria. I enclose you a list of some of the points, also a cutting from the Ironmonger, re the New South Wales Government scheme. The Blythe River people are only trying to book the Government order, and then rely upon getting further support from them.

This, I believe, is the company which the Government of the Commonwealth are in communication with.

Mr HENRY WILLIS:

– I think this company was referred to by the Minister.

Mr Kingston:

– I referred to two speci ally, the Blythe River and the Eskbank.

Mr Knox:

– Has the honorable member any objection to give the date of the letter ?

Mr HENRY WILLIS:

– It is dated 17th October.

What firm or company are going to be dictated to by the Government as to what rate of wages they are to pay their men unless the Government intend paying them.

– A thoroughly free-trade proposition.

Mr HENRY WILLIS:

– I am talking of a few years ago. Suppose that the bonus which, the Government propose is given, and that one man or one syndicate gets in first with his plant and machinery, will the first comer eat up the whole bonus 1 If so, where will cbe Tasmanian people come in ?

Mr Fowler:

– There is not room for more than one.

Mr O’MALLEY:

– Pardon me ; I do not know exactly the quantity of iron that is required every year to carry on business in the Commonwealth of Australia, but I believe that we consume about 180,000 or 200,000 tons. There is ample room for more than one manufactory of the kind. Another consideration is this : Suppose an English company puts its money into plant and machinery and that by the time it gets half ready the bonus is exhausted, what will its position be then? I can only see one really business-like way of attaining our object, and that is to guarantee a 15 per cent, duty straight out to those who establish iron works in Australia when once they get their plant started, and are making iron in the country. No doubt the bonus proposal looks plausible, but at the same time if a man like Andrew Carnegie came along he would take the whole of that bonus in three months. A firm like, the great Steel Company of America would earn the whole of the bonus which the Government offers in a few weeks. Another consideration is the supply of pig iron required every year in Australia. Suppose this country were surrounded by a foreign fleet for a year. Could we carry on 1 Suppose we were surrounded for five years as the southern States of America were 1 Could we keep our railways in repair and transport our troops 1 Have we enough pig iron in Australia to enable us to continue manufacturing the requisite iron’ goods for carrying on the country, and developing it and keeping our railways in good repair? These are questions which the Minister for Trade and Customs ought to be in a position to answer. We have been talking a good deal about war lately, and those who talk fight must expect to have to fight some day. I never saw a prize fighter who did not one day meet his match ; and when a country starts out to do battle, she is bound to get some one jumping on her byandby. Every country should endeavour to lay down plant for the production of the various commodities that are requisite for supplying the requirements of its people. Progressive countries to-day rest their prosperity upon progressive development. It should be our ideal to establish works to make Australia a selfcontained country. It will be found as we do so that the establishment of great industries leads to the creation of various other works. Take the case of the west coast of Tasmania. Suppose the great Mount Lyell mine had been discovered, not in Tasmania, but in Spain, or in Cuba, or in the United States. Would the people of the Commonwealth have benefited from it as they have done 1 Would the merchants of Sydney and Melbourne have shipped the goods that they have shipped? Not a bit of it. That is where the theory advocated by our freetrade friends fails. It fails because they want to have only one kind of industry. The opening up of an industry such as the Mount Lyell mine has created, has taken the surplus population from the various communities of the Commonwealth, and enabled them to send money back to the States from which they came. If the mine had been discovered in some other part of the world we should have lost these people for ever. Every industry that is established in the country, whether in Tasmania, Western Australia, Queensland, Victoria, or New South Wales, is a benefit to the whole of the Commonwealth. If the Government had the pluck to establish these iron works themselves, and to conduct the enterprise from the very foundation - having their own mines, their own smelting works, their own rolling mills, supplying their own people and paying a legitimate wage - there would be no possibility of a difficulty hereafter.

Sir Edward Braddon:

– Except to their revenue.

Mr O’MALLEY:

– It would be to the benefit of their revenue, because thousandsof pounds worth of goods would be manufactured here in consequence of the establishment of the iron works, and thousands of pounds worth of goods would be shipped to Australia through the Customs. That is the position we have to look at. However, I am not going to vote against this proposal, because it seems to be the best thing to do under the circumstances. If we cannot get anything better we must take what we can get. When one has his hand in a lion’s mouth he should not kick the animal until he gets it out. But I am hoping for more. Bad as this proposition is–

To make a happy fireside clime

To weans and wife,

That’s the true pathos and sublime

Of human life.

That is what we are here for.

Mr.F. E. McLEAN (Lang). - Honorable members must be agreed that this has been one of the most interesting discussions that we have had in connexion with the Tariff, and that the question of the best means of establishing an iron industry in Australia is one of the largest questions that is likely to be discussed by this Parliament. It appears to me that the disadvantage of the discussion at the present time is that it hardly comes within the scope of the consideration of the Tariff. We are now dealing with the first Tariff for the Commonwealth. That, after all, is a very practical and businesslike matter which should be settled, apart from questions that rightly do not come up for immediate consideration, and which cannot be determined even if the proposals of the Government are accepted. We have herewhat I consider to be a very extraordinary proposal, to give the Government power by proclamation to impose, at some future time, a duty upon certain goods after resolutions have been agreed to by Parliament. In the first place, I do not think that the committee should be asked, at this stage, to deal with the imposition of duties which it is admitted will not be required for years to come. I object also to give the Government power by proclamation to impose duties, even after resolutions have been passed by Parliament. It seems to me that we might very well defer, for some years to come, the question of imposing a duty upon iron imported into Australia, and that if the Government wish to bring down any scheme for granting bonuses to the manufacturers of iron, that matter can be dealt with entirely apart from the Tariff proposals. Therefore, this discussion, although an exceedingly interesting one, dealing with a very large and important question, appears to me to be somewhat out of place while we are considering the matteroffact and business-like proposal to establish a Tariff for the immediate requirements of the Commonwealth. A great deal has been said as to the advantage of giving bonuses for the establishment of important industries. I am not very much in favour of the system of bonuses, and I am not prepared to recognise the distinction, that some honorable members have put forth, between the general system of protection, and the system of establishing industries by means of bonuses.

Mr Isaacs:

– There is no distinction in principle.

Mr F E McLEAN:
LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT

– Really none. I am willing to admit that there might be very important public reasons for going out of the way to establish an industry of the magnitude and importance of the manufacture of iron. Looking at the iron industry as being to a large extent the foundation of a great manufacturing system, and looking at the importance, for very grave national reasons, of making a country independent of outside resources, in regard to the supply of a staple article of that kind, I am willing to admit that very good reasons might be advanced for going out of the way to give bonuses for the establishment of such an industry. I do not admit, however, that this is the right time or the right place for the discussion of a question of such great national importance, which is entirely apart from the general question of framing a Tariff for the Commonwealth. I am willing to admit that there are questions involved in the establishment of an iron industry which do not come up for discussion in general fiscal proposals.

Mr Kingston:

– On account of its greater importance ?

Mr F E McLEAN:
LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT

– Yes. To my mind the question of establishing an iron industry in Australia is one of the highest national importance, and it demands treatment apart altogether from our general treatment of the fiscal question. Although I cannot go with them, I can understand that in relation to an industry of this kind, certain honorable members may be prepared to make concessions to some extent upon their general principles ; but I do say that we are to-night, and have been for two days, discussing a question that does not demand immediatesettlement by this Parliament. I go further, and say that we are not in possession of information sufficient to enable us to deal with this matter finally ; and, therefore, while the discussion may have its advantages in educating both honorable members and the public, on the great question of establishing an iron industry in Australia, it cannot be finally settled in this Parliament at this time. There are very good reasons why its consideration should be deferred. The honorable member for Robertson, who delivered a very interesting and able speech on this subject, and furnished the committee with much valuable information, struck the very kernel of this matter, if I may so put it, when he pointed out, that the failure of all previous attempts at the establishment of the iron industry in Australia, has been due to the fact that we have not been prepared to guarantee to any persons establishing the manufacture here, a sufficient demand for their product. The attempts made in New South Wales failed, simply because the guaranteed orders were not sufficiently large to induce the establishment of a ° first-class iron industry. While we remained as separate communities it was impossible to guarantee sufficient orders to secure the establishment of a first-class iron manufactory. We are not in a very much better position at the present moment ; the only difference is that, if we chose to do so, we could impose a duty such as the Government propose to impose at some future date, for the purpose of encouraging the industry, that is, if it would have any effect. But the Minister himself knows that to propose such a duty to operate immediately would be ridiculous. We are not in a position to put all our ironworkers in the Commonwealth under the great disadvantage of having to pay higher prices for their raw material at the present time. We recognise that in order that manufactured articles may be produced in our iron foundries and engineering establishments, we must give them all the advantages of free raw material. That being so, the Government do not propose to impose immediately an import duty on iron, which is the only advantage, if any, that the Commonwealth could offer for the establishment of the industry at this time.

Mr Kingston:

– Would the honorable member vote for such a proposal %

Mr F E McLEAN:
LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT

– No; I say that it is the only advantage, if any. I do not believe that the imposition at this stage of a duty of 10 per cent, on iron would have the effect of establishing the iron industry in the Commonwealth, and I am not prepared to vote for the imposition of such a duty, which would put a tax upon the raw material of so many large and important industries. We are not in a position to guarantee orders to those who might establish ironworks here. The Commonwealth Government have not the control of the railways ; nor have they the control of any great services in which the product of an iron mill would be required. Therefore ‘ unless the Commonwealth Government could enter into an arrangement with the States to guarantee orders, they would really not be in a position either to establish iron mills themselves or to give any substantial guarantee beyond a bonus to any iron manufacturer who might see fit to establish the industry in Australia. The question of giving a bonus to the manufacturers of iron, or of any other commodity, is one that should not arise for discussion during the consideration : of the Tariff. It is a distinct question, which should be introduced by the Government at another time, and one which will have to be introduced on another occasion, even although the Government carry their present proposals. Thus we are engaged, after all, in what must be, so far as all practical purposes are concerned, an idle discussion. I admit, as I have said before, that it has its advantages in educating honorable members and the public on this great question, but the demands made on the committee for the settlement of the Tariff, and for the establishment of a proper financial system, at the earliest possible date, arn too great to warrant us in occupying a considerable amount ‘ of time in the discussion of what, after all, is merely an abstract proposition. No advantage can be gained by bringing forward proposals such as these at the present time except that they indicate the policy of the Government. It is easy for the Government to indicate what are their proposals in this direction without embodying them in the Tariff. If their proposals are carried as they stand now, they will have no practical effect. Subsequent legislation will be necessary. Further action on the part of both Houses will be necessary, and administrative action will be necessary on the part of the Government in years to come. It will be seen, therefore, that we are discussing prematurely a proposition which might be discussed with very much greater advantage, and with much greater fairness to the committee, at some future date. There are honorable members who have condemned these proposals, but who do not want to vote against bonuses if they are proposed in another way at some future time. I do not think that the Government place honorable members in a fair position in calling upon them to vote on these Tariff proposals for or against a bonus on locally produced iron, when, as a matter of fact, it is not necessary to put honorable members to that test now. The Minister for Trade and Customs would not dream of imposing or collecting now a duty of 10 per cent, on iron ; because, although he is very anxious to establish the industry in the Commonwealth, he knows that it would be impossible to impose such a duty at this juncture without inflicting great hardship on a large number of manufacturing industries. The duty is not required for revenue purposes; nor can it be used for protective purposes at this stage so that we might just as well postpone the consideration of these proposals until some more convenient season. I shall have to vote against the proposals, because, although they would not be operative immediately, they are distinctly protective in their character, and, so far as I can see, they are intended only to indicate the policy to which the Government are pledged. They can have no practical effect from any point of view ; therefore, I would join with other honorable members who have preceded me, in urging the Government not to put the committee to the test of voting on these proposals at the present time, but to give honorable members the fairer opportunity of dealing with the question of imposing a duty when either the revenue or other interests compel them to ask for the duty, and of voting upon the question of bonuses when they are prepared to bring forward definite legislative proposals upon that subject. At present the committee has not the information at hand to guide it in this matter. I would also suggest to the Minister in charge of the Tariff that before definite proposals for the giving of bonuses in connexion with the iron industry are submitted, the Commonwealth Government should obtain at any cost the opinions of the ablest experts in the world in regard to the deposits of iron ore in these States. We have heard a great deal of conflicting testimony as to the value of these deposits. We are told that some of the deposits in Tasmania are very rich, and are workable, and that with a guaranteed output for an extensive iron mill the industry could be established profitably there. We have heard that contradicted with equal force, and I believe with equal authority. Before the committee or the Commonwealth is asked to adopt the system of establishing the iron industry by bonuses, I would urge upon the Government the importance of securing the best expert testimony in the world not only as to the iron deposits in all parts of these States, but also as to the possibility of establishing the industry on a sound commercial basis. There is the question of the possible requirements of the Commonwealth at the present time, and in the immediate future. We require some distinct testimony as to what the actual requirements of the State Governments and general consumers in Australia are likely to be within a reasonable terra of years. That evidence is not before us in such a way as to justify us in accepting these bonus pro.posals; but it could be furnished by properly qualified experts appointed to inquire into the whole subject. And further evidence as to the value of these deposits, and the practicability of working them on sound commercial principles, could also be obtained for the benefit of honorable members. We should then be in a very much better position to approach the whole question, dealing with it, as I hope we should, as a great national question that calls for consideration apart from all ordinary party interests. Of course honorable members on this side of the chamber are opposed to the establishment of industries which would impose heavy burdens on the great masses of the people. We have taken up a position in regard to the Tariff which is very clear and definite. Therefore, whether by way of bonuses, or by way of protective duties, we may be expected to oppose the attempted encouragement of an industry on lines which we think to be unfair to the great masses of the people. But we are all actuated by an earnest desire to see an important industry like this established in Australia, and we shall all be prepared to receive definite proposals when the proper time comes, and to approach the consideration and discussion of them in a fair spirit. But we are not in a position to consider these proposals at present. We have not the necessary information at our disposal. We are not prepared to commit ourselves to the bonus system while dealing with the fiscal policy of the Government. Therefore I would again urge the Government, however little effect it may have upon them, to reconsider the whole question, and not to put the committee in the unfair position of having to vote practically against the bonus proposals, when as a matter of fact we are only considering the Tariff, and there is no immediate need for the imposition of a duty upon iron for either revenue or protective purposes.

Mr ISAACS:
Indi

– I very cordially agree with the honorable member for Lang, that this subject is of intense national importance. I do not think that any of us will grudge the attention which has been given to it, and I believe that the committee will see that, with one modification, the Government’s proposals ought to be passed. That modification is more or less 28 i’ important, but it is one I would ask the Government to accede to, and if that is done I do not see why we should not, especially in view of some of the observations just made by the last speaker, agree unanimously to pass this division. From whatever aspect we may regard this question of the iron industry - whether from that of internal development, the advancement of our manufactures, and our industrial population generally, or that of defence - it is highly important that we should not be guilty of any delay in doing all we can to promote a thorough development of the production and manufacture of iron in Australia. What is the State that most of all is going to benefit by the advancement of this industry? I am sure that Victorians cannot be accused of any selfishness in this matter. We know perfectly well that if there is more than one State in Australia which will profit by any energy we may put into the advancement of this enterprise, it is New South Wales, which stands pre-eminent in its possibilities and in its promise in this regard. I quite agree with what has fallen from my honorable friends, that before anything like definite proposals for the practical working out of this question are placed before Parliament, the Government should obtain the fullest and most reliable information. But I take it that if this declaratory division is passed - and it is nothing more than that - it offers an announcement of policy on the part of the Commonwealth that will at once justify the Government in going to the trouble and expense of making those inquiries ; and it will also have, I think, an immediate stimulating effect on those who have any idea of embarking in the enterprise. If the Commonwealth announces, as it ought to announce at this early stage, that it is prepared to give encouragement to the production of iron, and to its subsequent manufacture, I take it that those who are hesitating about embarking in the industry - those who are weighing in the balance the question of whether they should put their capital into it or not, will have one important factor to determine them in that direction. We know perfectly well from our mutual friend, Mr. Coghlan, that the ore as it exists in New South Wales is not only plentiful and well distributed, but is in many places of the highest possible class, in close juxtaposition with the coal measures, and happily very close in many instances to existing lines of railway. From a practical stand-point there is, therefore, no reason, so far as we can discover, why the iron industry should not have made greater headway in that State. Coghlan sums up the position in his Wealth and Progress of New SouthWalesfor 1898-9, at page 463, in these words -

The iron trade should in time form one of the great staple industries of the colony. Every natural advantage possessed by the great iron and machinery-producing countries of the world - such as England and Belgium - is also present here. Not only are iron and coal deposited in abundance, and in positions easily accessible and readily worked, but, as pointed out in the chapter on mines and minerals, the local iron ore is exceedingly rich. Scarcely any progress, however, has been made in iron smelting, and nearly the whole stock of pig and wrought iron required for the local manufactories is imported. The other descriptions of metal works, both for smelting and manufacturing, are in a more forward state.

With that great promise before us, why should we not lend a helping hand to the development of this great natural possession of New South Wales ? We all feel that what is beneficial to New South Wales will be beneficial to the whole of Australia, and I cannot see how any one can doubt for an instant the truth of the observation which the honorable member for Lang gave utterance to, that the iron industry is of such importance to us all, as lying at the root of so much of our material prosperity in that direction, that we ought to give it special attention. I was glad to hear the honorable member make that remark, because the whole protectionist cause rests on this point, that by assisting production we assist the present and the future welfare of the Commonwealth. It is only a matter, of degree between the view expressed by my honorable friend and those expressed by protectionists generally. He applies it to one industry, we apply it to many industries. In this particular instance we agree with him most cordially. I. agree with him, too, when he says that subsidies and bonuses are only a branch of the protective system. It all depends on the nature of the particular industry or enterprise how we should apply the various protective modes of assistance, and to what extent we should apply them. I agree, therefore, that there should be an announcement by the committee on behalf of the Commonwealth that we are prepared to encourage manufactures, and particularly the manufacture of iron.

Sir William McMillan:

– What proclamation?

Mr ISAACS:

– The honorable member must know that that interjection is not at all relevant to the point to which I am addressing myself. I was speaking of the objection of some honorable members to bind themselves down to a bonus. I am not prepared at this stage to say that I do not agree with the Government with reference to the bonus, but I think there is an immense amount of force in what has been urged in various quarters that, before definitely deciding that we shall grant a particular bonus, we ought to know much more aboutthesubject than wedo. The Government will not be giving up any portion of their policy if they adopt my suggestion. They will not commit themselves to the abandonment of the bonus proposal, but will leave themselves free to consider the whole matter in the light of any information they may obtain.

Mr Thomson:

– The Minister for Trade and Customs has committed himself to the granting of a bonus.

Mr ISAACS:

– He will be quite free to adhere to that policy if he adopts my suggestion. Whilst he has declared his present belief in bonuses he will be left free to follow any conscientious course that may subsequently suggest itself to him. If he concludes that bonuses are right he can adopt them wholly, or if he thinks they are right in some cases, whilst in others a different course would be preferable, he will be free to do that which he thinks best.

Mr Thomson:

– He would come into the committee with a policy, and go out without one.

Mr ISAACS:

– I do not think so. Ministers have been appealed to by honorable members not to bind them down to something that they have not had an opportunity to consider, and I now ask the Minister to amend the proposal as I have suggested. If the words are not struck out I shall still be prepared to vote with the Government. I cordially approve of making some such provision in the Tariff in order to indicate in the most effectual way possible that it is our intention to encourage the manufacture of iron. I want to see that done, and if the Government proposal is carried it will not only give heart and spirit to those who are anxious to embark in this particular form of industry, but it will also afford justification of the highest character to the Government to undertake that investigation which we all think is necessary before we finally make up our minds. No one can suggest that Victoria seeks to derive any advantage from this proposal. The support the representatives of Victoria give to this policy is purely unselfish - if we can claim any merit for that. The proposal is one that I believe will work for the advancement of Australia, and for the benefit of the whole industrial population. Those who desire to promote the interests of the workers of Australia can find no field in which they can so advantageously work as in this, because there is no possible line of industry which confers benefit on labour to the same extent as does the iron industry. Directly and indirectly it offers the widest possibilities for the improvement of the status of labour. We know that fully 95 per cent, of the value of iron is represented by the labour employed in its manufacture. We must remember that the establishment of the iron industry will not merely find employment for labour in the mining of the iron ore, but will enable us, as the honorable member for Lang has pointed out, to become self-resourceful in the must urgent matters of State. Not only will labour be engaged in the secondary working of the iron ore that is brought to the mouth of the pit, but the coal workers, sailors, carriers, and people in almost every department of life, and in every branch of manufactures will be benefited by the development of this industry. On all these grounds I urge that we should not hesitate to support the Government, in furthering what must be regarded not only at present, but for all time to come, as one of the most important industries. There may be no precedent for this proposal, but it is all the more praiseworthy for that, and it is certainly to be regarded as one of the most beneficial provisions in the Tariff.

Sir EDWARD BRADDON:
Tasmania

– Owing to my unfortunate absence from the committee during the last three or four days I have been seeking such light as could be afforded by honorable members who have spoken from time to time until the honorable and learned member for Indi convinced me that I had better not listen anymore. The honorable member has told us that he is in favour of everything that everybody has said, whether for or against the Government proposal or the granting of bonuses. He agrees with the honorable member for Lang who, I understand, is opposed to the Government proposal in this clause, and is also, to a mitigated extent, averse to the granting of bonuses. The honorable and learned member for Indi is also entirely in accord with the honorable member for Bland, who is opposed to bonuses, and he was opposed to bonuses himself up to the time when it seemed that he would have to oppose the Government if he did not agree with them, and then he expressed himself as ready to support them. I am sorry that the Government have thought proper to confuse the issue by proposing the duties provided for in this division before taking the committee into their confidence as to their bonus scheme.

Mr Kingston:

– The honorable member was not here yesterday.

Sir EDWARD BRADDON:

– I was not present when the right honorable gentleman explained his proposals, but no explanation could have altered the fact that the legislative cart is being put before the legislative horse. Instead of our first considering the proposed bonuses, we are discussing what shall happen in the event of these bonuses being brought into operation. Ministers place me in a peculiar position, inasmuch as I favour the bonus system, but have to oppose their present proposal. I. shall support the granting of a bonus for the encouragement of the iron industry, as I think it is in the first interest of the Commonwealth that our iron resources should be developed. It cannot be cast in my teeth that I am advocating something that freetraders may not support. The strongest opponents of the bonus system in Victoria are the protectionists, who have denounced it again and again.

Mr Isaacs:

– That is news.

Mr Mauger:

– Who has done that?

Sir EDWARD BRADDON:

– I think Mr. Trenwith has.

Mr Mauger:

– No, he is a strong advocate of bonuses under certain conditions.

Sir EDWARD BRADDON:

– I can show that Mr. Trenwith has expressed himself as opposed to bonuses. However that may be, bonuses which are intended to confer benefit upon the whole of the people of the Commonwealth, may very well be granted for a time, and for a time only, so as to secure the establishment of an industry. After that object has been attained, the industry may be allowed to rest upon its own foundation. With bonuses it is not a question, as with protectionist duties, of continuing the drain upon the public year after year, and decade after decade, and century after century, as it would be if the honorable members representing Victoria had their way. Let us support the establishment of this great industry by means of a bonus. If those who establish the industry succeed, well and good. They may then be allowed to run alone. If they fail, the industry may be allowed to drop. There has been some misapprehension as to the value of our iron deposits, especially as to those of Tasmania. The honorable member for Robertson spoke in disparagement of the Blythe iron mines. I venture to say that those mines are about the first in extent and wealth in the whole wide world. There is a mountain of iron extending for a considerable distance on both sides of the River Blythe, and the ore is of singular purity. Instead of the iron deposits being a long way from a port, they are within 6 miles of a port, and already connected with it by tramway. I think the honorable member was confusing the Ironcliff mines at Penguin with those which are on the Blythe River. The deposit of iron ore now being worked at Penguin bears no comparison for wealth, extent, or purity with that at the Blythe River. I wish the Minister would see his way clear, even at this late hour, to postpone the consideration of this division in order that we may have the Government proposals with regard to bonuses before us, and, I hope, adopt them. If the Minister will postpone the division he will relieve me from the necessity of voting against the Government on this division as a matter of principle, whilst I am willing to support them in their bonus proposals. In connexion with this matter, I can quite understand the Government desiring to legislate five years in advance. They have had such a “sickener” of the Tariff as would make them desire to postpone everything for the next twenty years.

Mr Kingston:

– I can assure the right honorable member that we have not been sick, and we are very sorry that he has been.

Sir EDWARD BRADDON:

– I shall be sorry if the Minister for Trade and Customs does not see his way clear to do what is the proper thing, both in the interests of the Government and of the Commonwealth.

Mr FOWLER:
Perth

– I think I have exercised a reasonable amount of patience in respect to the length of time that I have had to remain in Melbourne to discharge my duties as one of the representatives of a distant State. But I am bound to confess that that patience is being rapidly exhausted, and to-night, the finishing touch has almost been supplied by the honorable and learned member for Indi. He seriously asks this committee to vote for a proposition which, in effect, simply means that some day or other the Federal Parliament - not this Parliament, but a future Parliament - will do something to encourage the iron industry. This is put forward seriously as a statesmanlike proposal by a gentleman who undoubtedly enjoys a reputation for state craft throughout Australia. His excuse for urging the adoption of such a proposal is that it will do no harm. Has the Commonwealth Parliament actually reached such a low ebb that honorable members are to be asked to pass resolutions simply because they will do no harm ? I do not think that the honorable and learned member is in earnest in inviting the committee to adopt the amendment, or in urging the Government to accept it. I trust that the Ministry have sufficient self-respect to adhere to their original proposal, which means something, rather than agree to the adoption of a proposition which is simply meaningless, and which, if passed, can tend only to lower the dignity of this House’.

Mr. BATCHELOR (South Australia).I think that by this time the Government must be convinced that they would have acted more wisely if they had agreed to postpone the consideration of this item. We have been discussing it now for a good many hours, and still occupy much the same position as we occupied when the debate commenced. We have now arrived at a most delighful situation. The honorable and learned member for Indi declares that several honorable members who are opposed to the bonus will vote with the

Government, whilst on the other hand the right honorable member for Tasmania, Sir Edward Braddon, who favours the granting of a bonus to the iron industry, threatens to vote against them.

Mr Ewing:

– He will not vote against the Government upon this occasion.

Mr BATCHELOR:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– From my knowledge of him it would not be wise to dare the right honorable member too much. Yesterday I stated that I was not prepared to commit myself to the bonus system. I declared that rather than give a few manufacturers an opportunity of controlling the whole of the iron output of Australia, and thereby creating a monopoly which would ultimately control our State railways, I should prefer to see the iron industry nationalized. I see no reason why some of our great railway systems, especially if they were federalized, should not go in for the production and manufacture of their own iron, just as they at present undertake the manufacture of their own locomotives. All the large railway systems throughout the world now manufacture their own locomotives. I do not think that the idea of nationalizing the iron industry is as chimerical as it sounds. At any rate I should like an opportunity for a test vote to be afforded upon this question.

Sir William McMillan:

– Is not the proper time to take a vote upon that when we get the Bill 1

Mr BATCHELOR:

– Yes ; and that is why I cannot vote with the honorable member. The result of excising Division VIa will be that no Bill will be submitted to Parliament.

Sir William McMillan:

– Will the honorable member again state for my information exactly what he proposes ]

Mr BATCHELOR:

– Certainly. I propose to add after “ manufactures” the words “ or the establishment of such manufactures under Govermental control.”

Sir William McMillan:

– Where does the ad valorem duties come in under such a proposal 1

Mr BATCHELOR:

– That would be a matter for subsequent discussion. The proposition of the Government is that, contingent upon the committee approving of certain bonuses, these rates of duty shall become operative.

Sir William McMillan:

– But the whole scheme is simply a preamble to the imposition of the duties.

Mr BATCHELOR:

– I quite agree with the honorable member.

Sir William McMillan:

– Then I understand that the honorable member is willing to vote for the proposed duties if his amendment is carried ?

Mr BATCHELOR:

– Exactly. All I desire is that those who prefer that the industry should be under Government control, shall have an opportunity of saying so. Under such circumstances it would be absurd for me to vote for the excision of the whole division. Is it likely that the Government will come down with a proposal for the granting of bonuses if we omit this division?

Mr F E McLEAN:
LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT

– Why should not they?

Mr BATCHELOR:

– Why should they?

Mr F E McLEAN:
LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT

– Because it is an unheard of proceeding to put such a proposal as this in the Tariff.

Mr BATCHELOR:

– If honorable members, who have listened to the debate, are reasonable, they must admit that the objection all along has been to the wholebonus system.

Sir William McMillan:

– That is not correct. Several honorable members, while they object to putting “ the cart before the horse,” are in favour of bonuses. We are not against the free discussion of the bonus system hereafter.

Mr BATCHELOR:

– I admit that that is the view of two or three members, but it would be absurd for us to expect the Government to come down with a bonus scheme if we defeat this item. I hope the Government will agree to add the words I have suggested, my only object being to give honorable members an opportunity later on of expressing an opinion on the question.

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

– It is perfectly nauseating to listen to the absurdities which we hear from time to time from honorable members on the other side, who pretend to believe in the establishment of industries by means of protective duties. Why is this industry singled out for this peculiar treatment ? Why is this industry not treated in the same way as the beetsugar industry of ‘Victoria’? The latter industry is not in existence, but honorable members on the other side had not the slightest scruple in imposing a heavy duty. The honorable and learned member for Indi treated us to an admirable little homily on the advantages of the manufacture of iron, and with all he said I thoroughly agree. Since the honorable and learned member did not tell us whether or not he was prepared to give a bonus or a duty I cannot disagree with him. But with regard to the honorable member for South Australia, Mr. Batchelor, and his latest proposal, I should like to know whether he thinks it is fair to put these two alternatives in the same broad proposal. He asks us to vote either that the Government shall take this industry into their immediate control, or that there shall be a bonus.

Mr Batchelor:

– No.

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

– We are asked to vote for either of these alternatives.

Mr Watson:

– That is not the honorable member’s suggestion ; he merely wishes the question to be open for debate later on.

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

– Nothing of the kind ; we commit ourselves to one or the other.

Mr Batchelor:

– No, we do not.

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

– I shall be thankful to know I am wrong. Honorable members need not trouble their heads as to the data regarding this industry. It has been established for some years that there is every requisite in the Commonwealth for the successful manufacture of iron. Particularly is that so in New South Wales, and with the portion of the speech of the honorable and learned member for Indi which deals with this point, I agree the more readily because I know from actual experience that what he states is true. Honorable members need not suppose that we want any more expert advice. We have had expert advice sent, from England, and we have had advice from our own experts. This subject has been in the process of investigation by experts for-the last ten or twelve years, and even before then we had actual experience of the making of iron. In reference to the sand deposits in New Zealand, and the possibility of making iron from them, tests have already been made, and have failed. A great number of ironworkers went from Lithgow to the ironworks which have been in existence at Onehunga, in New Zealand, for many years. Practical experience is better than theorising, and these men, who were to all intents and purposes bankrupt, came back with the verdict that iron could not be successfully manufactured there to compete with iron manufactured elsewhere.

Mr Ewing:

– For what reason ?

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

– The reason is, I believe, that these sands are of a peculiar nature, and the problem of properly treating them chemically has not yet been satisfactorily solved.

Mr Ewing:

– It may be ; there is no finality in a matter of ‘that sort.

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

– I do not say that there is finality. I am talking of the progress up to date ; and at present it has been found impossible to make the treatment of these sands a commercial success. The sands have been sent to England for treatment in the steel works there ; but even that did not give satisfactory results, and the ironworks at One.hunga are to-day absolutely idle. Moreover, the figures quoted by the honorable member for Robertson show that the resources of New Zealand in this respect are not very great. Estimates are usually rosy, but the honorable member’s estimate of 30,000,000 tons of available ore does not offer too great a prospect for the employment of a big modern plant. But in New South Wales, to say nothing of Tasmania, excellent ores are available. Experts tell us that in New South Wales alone, so far as investigations have gone, there is abundance of ore in sight, thoroughly tested and proved to be suitable for making the best steel, capable of competing at satisfactory commercial prices. It will be seen, therefore, that we need not trouble our heads as to the data concerning this important industry. I do not know that I should ‘ have . risen had it not been for some remarks last night by the honorable member for Mernda, who traversed some statements I had made, and accused me of misstating figures in reference to Canada and the United States, of making false inferences, and misleading the committee. These were pretty “ tall “ charges, and I thought at the time that I should have been permitted to reply. However, the Chairman, in his extreme impartiality, decided otherwise, and I have had no opportunity to reply until now. The Minister for Trade and Customs also suggested that I had incorrectly quoted figures.

Mr Kingston:

– I did not mean that the honorable member personally incorrectly quoted figures, but that the figures were incorrect. .

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

– The honorable member for Mernda cast some doubt on figures I quoted in regard to Canada.

Mr Harper:

– That was in reference to the United States.

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

– And in reference to Canada also ; and the honorable member went on to give his own opinion - he had nothing more substantial - that somebody in Canada had undertaken to compete with the great Carnegie industry

Mr Harper:

– A statement to that effect appeared in the press quite recently.

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

– But the honorable member would not give any authority at all last night.

Mr Harper:

– I did ; but the honorable member’ was too excited to hear me.

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

– I have here figures regarding Canada, and they are very instructive, proving, if they prove anything, that all the coddling in Canada has not resulted in an increase in the manufacture of iron from the native ores of the Dominion. That is the very point we are discussing at the present time. The proposal of the Government is that we shall do something to encourage the production of iron from the native ores of the Commonwealth, and we are considering how far we ought to go in encouraging that production. According to the figures which I have here, the production of iron in Canada in 1884 was 29,000 tons per annum, and after seventeen years of the operation of bonuses and duties, the production to-day is only 34,000 tons. There has been practically no increase in consequence of the bonuses and duties. Of course the iron requirements of Canada have increased ; the figures go to show that. And I do not want honorable members to believe that no more iron is manufactured in Canada than was the case seventeen years ago.

Mr HUME COOK:
BOURKE, VICTORIA · PROT

– Those are the very figures that the honorable member quoted last night. Why repeat them ?

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

– Because the honorable member for Mernda said I was misleading the committee. I am quoting from the Statistical Year-Hook of Canada, and I do not know that I can get a better authority than that. I think it is even a better authority than Curtiss on protection. It is the only reliable authority I can think of for the moment ; and it shows that notwithstanding seventeen years of encouragement to this industry in Canada, there are imported 65,000 tons of iron annually whilst only 34,000 tons are raised from the native ores. That is the result of seventeen years of high protective duties, as applied to the Canadian industry. In regard to the United States, the remark I made was that, in spite of the high duties in the early part of the century, the production of iron had not proceeded very rapidly, and that it was only in the latter part of the century that iron production had assumed the gigantic proportions we know to-day. My point was that during the early part of the century, while high duties were imposed, the increase in the quantity of manufactured iron in the United States was not considerable. Strange to say, the honorable member for Mernda, in the figures he quoted, practically confirmed what I said, but he seemed to doubt whether the duties were in operation in the early part of the century. Let me quote what one of the historians of the United States says. I remind the honorable member that this is not Curtiss on protection. I do not go to sources that are tinged with party bias, when I wish to quote the history of a subject. In the History of the United States, by Andrews, there is this passage, as to duties in the early part of the century -

Iron duties were put up in 181 S, and again in 1824, from which date for 40 years they ranged between 40 and 100 per cent.

If those rates are not sufficiently high for the most rabid protectionist, I do not know what more can be wanted. But notwithstanding that they had these rates throughout the early part and down even to the middle of the last century, the manufacture of iron proceeded only at a very slow pace indeed ; and it is true, as the honorable member pointed out last night, that a great increase in the production of steel in America has taken place during the last ten or twenty years. Why has it taken place in that period ? Owing to the immense population of America, and the increased ingenuity and skill that have been displayed in connexion with the manufacture of steel - an ingenuity and a skill which have so lessened the labour cost in America as to make iron the most cheaply produced article in the whole world. I pointed out, last night, that the cost of making a ton of pig iron to-day in the United States is only 2s. per ton in Carnegie’s works.

Mr Isaacs:

– It is a singular coincidence that the imposition of the McKinley Tariff was almost synchronous with the advance in the production of iron in America.

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

– The honorable member is quite wrong there.

Mr Isaacs:

– It is substantially right.

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

– The Carnegie Trust was in existence long before the McKinley Tariff was introduced. Andrew Carnegie was worth £40,000,000, made out of steel, before the McKinley Tariff was imposed.

Mr Isaacs:

– Did he not make that under comparatively free-trade conditions ?

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

– I do not see how that could be the case. All down the last century there has been protection. It is not correct to say, as some honorable members have done, that no country in the world has ever established an iron industry except with the aid of protective duties. America itself is a case in point. For 100 years before the revolution there were iron industries in America.

Mr Glynn:

– There were ironworks there in the year 1740.

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

– -The honorable and learned member for Indi will find that the first blast furnace in America was built by Penn in Pennsylvania, and since that time the iron industry has obtained in America, and had assumed great proportions there before the first Tariff was introduced in the 18th century. So that the fact is that the iron industry in America was established and was going along quietly with the growth of the population, and keeping up with it yearly, before there was any talk of the imposition of protective duties to the extent to which we see them now. Honorable members must not suppose therefore that there has never been an iron industry established anywhere except by the direct interposition of the State in the shape of customs duties or bonuses. Canada supplies a case to the contrary ; so does America. In both those cases the industry was living and thriving before customs duties were imposed. In the case of Canada, as I have shown, the imposition of duties has not led to the slightest stimulation as far as the utilization of native ores is concerned, and the manufacture of iron in America had assumed titanic proportions before the McKinley Tariff was introduced. Why has Andrew Carnegie prospered so greatly? Not entirely because of the protective duties, although they have enabled him to do it latterly. He has prospered because of the aggressive course he has pursued in connexion with the development of his works and the supply of his material. I remember the case of Tom Johnson, who, a few years back, had the best plant in the world at the time it was put up for the manufacture of iron. The capital put into the plant, machinery, and buildings was estimated to be worth £15,000,000 sterling, and it certainly was the best plant in the world at the time. What happened ? These works depended for their source of ore supply upon some iron mines about thirteen miles from the place where the works were situated. What Carnegie did was to buy out the sources of ore supply, and compel the firm to sell their plant to Carnegie and Company. He continued this policy until he monopolized the whole manufacture of iron in the United States. It must be remembered that the manufacture of iron is not a business that lays itself open so readily to competition within a country as is the case in reference to other articles of production. For instance, there are only one or two places in Australia where there are proved deposits of iron in commercial quantities. Clearly, therefore, those who possess these sources of supply need not fear competition from outside, because the supply of raw material is not available for competitors. This industry is in that respect peculiar, and does not rest upon the same basis, so far as concerns competition, as do other industries. That is one reason why we ought to be careful as to what we do in the way of building up a monopoly. If there have to be bonuses for the establishment of an iron industry, I am inclined to think, since the Government is the greatest customer of all for iron, and since the industry when established must depend very largely upon the Government, which will be its principal customer, that the Government itself might make the experiment instead of giving bonuses to private companies. That, however, is a matter for careful consideration later on.

Mr Thomson:

– And it should not be decided by a side-wind.

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

– That is the remark I was about to make. In voting against this proposal, as I intend to do, I am by no means opposed to doing anything to assist in the establishment of this mining industry. I wish still to be free, as I hope I shall be, to assist in any proposal which this Government may make for that end. I say again that if the Government were as earnest in connexion with this industry as they have been in connexion with others, they would have brought down a concrete proposal instead of this empty, bluffing proposal which we have to consider at the present moment. What would it mean if we carry what the Government propose ? Does any honorable member suppose that any hard-headed business man would take the slightest notice of it ? Is it to be supposed that any practical business man would be ready to find the capital to put down a plant for this purpose merely upon the passing of a resolution in connexion with which there is no guarantee ? Governments may change, and no one can tell what the opinion of the next Parliament may be upon the subject. It is not likely that business men would proceed to the establishment of such a business without a direct guarantee from the Government. As to the possibilities of the industry, reference has been made to Tasmania and to the Blythe River Company. We have been told by the honorable member for Kooyong that the industry cannot be established with any capital short of £1,000,000. That may be the case so far as the Blythe River Company is concerned, but I should like to remind the honorable member that at Lithgow, in my electorate, there is already an extensive plant in operation for the manufacture of -iron. They are there making thousands of tons of iron every year, the only difference between what they are doing and what is proposed being that at Lithgow the basis of the manufacture is imported pig, steel blooms, scrap-iron, and things of that kind, instead of the raw material being obtained within the country. All that is required there to begin producing iron in its manufactured state from the raw ores is to put down, say, a single blast-furnace to feed the manufactory with the raw product.

Mr Knox:

– It. would not be on a sufficiently large commercial scale.

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

– I am inclined to disagree with the honorable member as to that. The honorable member himself has told us that one of the best furnaces in America can be put down for about £200,000, and that furnace would have a capacity for turning out 2,300 or 2,400 tons a week. Practically one blast-furnace will give us 10,000 tons of pig iron per month ; that means that one or two blast-furnaces will give us nearly, but not quite, as much iron as we consume throughout the Commonwealth in a year. I believe that Mr. Sandford is going on with his blast-furnaces in New South Wales. He has an English expert out here now, whose report is that there is no difficulty in the way, except that the expert and Mr. Sandford both say that a bonus is required, which is a very natural thing for them to say. Honorable members may make up their minds that this industry will be in operation whatever this committee may do about the matter. It will be in operation because there is in the district an abundance of the requisite material for the cheap production of iron and steel. Therefore I am inclined to think that the industry will grow, as others have done, and I do not think there is any insuperable difficulty at all in putting down a blast furnace there where the works are established for turning the raw pig iron into the finished article. In that way the industry would begin by easy stages and develop with the growth of population, and with the growth of the industrial activity of the continent. That seems to me to be the natural and rational way in which this industry will be introduced and continued for some years to come. However that may be, competition is said to be good, and if these two companies compete with each other, no doubt they will bring down the price of the product, as all competition does, unless they pool their interests, in the way in which that is done in America, and keep up rates. We need not be concerned for the fate of these companies. What we are concerned in is the establishment of this industry. I believe it will be established in the Commonwealth, and have a very prosperous career. If I had time, and the committee cared to hear the details, I could tell honorable members why I hold this belief. I could tell them that in Lithgow the cheapest fuel in the world is to be obtained. The fuel - used there to-day by the iron workers does not cost them more than 2s. 6d. per ton. It is to be found in proximity to the iron mines and limestone quarries, and, therefore, there is at hand all the raw material requisite for the building up of a huge national industry. I cannot vote for this empty proposal of the

Government, but if they will come down with a concrete proposition in the shape of a bonus proposal I shall be prepared, to consider it. Whether I shall vote for a bonus or not will depend upon the kind of proposal the Government make. We have had proposals of this kind before us in the Legislature of New South Wales, so that we are not entirely in the dark in regard to them. This is a new experience to honorable members sitting at the table, but legislators in New South Wales have been working at the idea for many years. We have not made any progress with it, for the simple reason, I am afraid, that the companies which, it is said, are going to spend all this money do not intend to do so unless the Government will guarantee them against loss. If the Government are to give a guarantee to an industry of this kind, ought they to give it to private individuals or undertake the experiment themselves, since they are the largest consumers of the finished product. I apprehend that it matters not to those engaged in the industry whether it is conducted by the Government or by private individuals. They are concerned only in the expenditure of their labour, and the return which their labour will bring them. There is a great deal to be said for the view put forth to-night, that if the State is to step in with a gift of a quarter of a million of money to secure the establishment of the industry in the Commonwealth, there should be at least some guarantee as to the way in which the distribution of the money will be made. Whether the bonus is given or not, my own impression is that before long we shall see a blast-furnace in the western district of New South Wales. I am certain that that will take place with or without a bonus or a duty. Doubtless, if they can get a duty, Mr. Sandford and the expert from home will be all the more pleased. Instead of bringing down an empty proposal of this kind, which amounts to nothing - and as proposed to be modified by various honorable members, would be even more absurd - the Government ought to make at least an intelligible proposition. And better than all, if they are so firmly convinced that there ought to be an iron industry in the Commonwealth, they, as protectionists, should treat this industry as they have endeavoured to treat every other industry during the progress of this debate.

Sir WILLIAM McMILLAN:
Wentworth

– I thought we were going to hear from the Minister on this subject, but I am very much afraid that if he is going to follow me there will be -another lengthy debate as to the carrying on of business. I think that our proceedings during the last <18 hours have shown very clearly’ the impropriety of the course adopted by the Government. What have they done ? According to the Minister for Trade and Customs, he has been preparing an elaborate Bill dealing with the giving of bonuses .to encourage the iron industry, and he insidiously inserts in the Tariff a corollary to that proposition. In effect he has asked us to pass the corollary before we know anything of the proposition. Evidently that was done with a certain amount of. intent, because it was not until honorable members of the Opposition asked certain pertinent questions that the Minister condescended to place an outline of his scheme before us. The most serious part of his proposal is the attempt to carry legislation through this House in a thoroughly unconstitutional manner. Whoever heard of a great scheme like that now proposed for the establishment of a national industry by means of bonuses, which was not embodied in a Bill with all the conditions connected with it fully explained, so that honorable members could see at a glance the conclusions at which they might arrive ? We are asked to pass, in Division VIa., a corollary to the proposition of the Government of which we know practically nothing. We are asked to say that five years hence we will put a duty of 1 0 percent, upon iron, when the industry is established here ; but as a salve to honorable members the Minister is willing to deal with this proposal as with a previous item of the Tariff, by providing that effect shall be given to it only by resolution passed by both Houses of Parliament. Honorable members should look at the absurdity of the proposal and the awkwardness of it. We are to determine now that a duty of .10 per cent, shall be imposed, and when the matter is brought before Parliament by resolution honorable members will have to vote practically for 10 per cent, or nothing, that duty being embodied in the Tariff. How can we foresee what will be the duty necessary to maintain this as an established industry? It might require a duty of 20 per cent., or it might require only a duty of 5 per cent. The Ministry are entering upon a great experiment. At the end of five years the bonuses might be so effectual that with the iron ore and the coal lying side by side, and the price of that coal only a fifth of that paid in England, no import duty would be required. Even certain honorable members of the Opposition have committed themselves to the bonus system. The Minister has put the whole committee in a most awkward and unpleasant position. When he finds that some honorable members on his own side see the awkwardness of the situation he says what I consider is not a right thing to say. He declares - “If you do not pass this proposal you will not get any bonus system.” That is simply a threat. What is the proposal made by the honorable member for South Australia, Mr. Glynn ? He points out that the Government have put the cart before the horse ; that they have put in the Tariff a corollary to their own proposition, and asked us to decide the whole of this momentous question upon a corollary which is only a contingency. The Government have no right to do that. It is simply a mode of exercising coercion over honorable members in an unfair way. What is the meaning of the attitude taken up by the honorable member for South Australia, Mr. Batchelor ? He urges the Minister, as other honorable members have urged him, to postpone this item. He considers that we ought not to discuss it. Practically he said in effect yesterday that he would vote against it, but he wants to insert a proposal for an alternative scheme connected with the bonus. In other words, he goes further than the Minister. By the ruling of the Chair we ought to be confined to a large extent to a consideration of what will be the import duty five years hence ; there is nothing in the division under discussion which gives us a right to go intimately into the question oi bonuses, if the Chairman chooses to keep us within certain limits. The question of bonuses is coming up in another Bill, but the honorable member wants to intrude a discussion on the important question of whether or not the iron industry shall be a great national one, carried on by the State. Then we have the honorable and learned member for Indi. I wonder whether he was smiling on the other side of his mouth when he made his proposal. Has he ever, in the whole of his experience - which is longer probably than mine - seen introduced into a Tariff a mere nebulous assertion of the opinion of a Parliament ? When we deal with the Tariff we deal with a practical business principle ; we mean business. If an honorable member, desires the House to proclaim that the iron industry ought to be encouraged - that the Government ought to introduce a Bill at some time or other to carry out the bonus system - he tables a motion to that effect ; that motion is passed or rejected by the House, and no one is hurt. But is an affirmation embodied in a Tariff? Never! On the few occasions upon which we obtain the opinions of honorable members on the other side in support of our views, they adopt marvellous and tortuous ways of getting out of the position. The honorable and learned member for Indi, in the same breath as that in which he said he approved of our views on this question, said - “ I see a way out of the difficulty which will not hurt the Government.”

Mr Isaacs:

– When did I say I was in favour of the honorable member’s view of the question ? His view is not to encourage the manufacture.

Sir WILLIAM McMILLAN:
WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT

– I want to condemn the honorable member out of his own mouth. The Minister will say that he wants to confine the discussion more or less to the particular proposal in Division VIa. But now I shall read what he did say, and it shows that he recognises the fact that it is impossible to debate the question without the whole concrete scheme being before us.

– Why did not the Minister provide for that in the Tariff 1

Mr KINGSTON:

– Because I made a mistake, of course. When I make a. mistake I acknowledge it, and do not harden my heart as other men do. I am inclined to think that we made a mistake, and honorable members know that I am not making this admission on the spur of the moment. I discussed this matter before when the point was raised by the honorable member for Parkes. Apart from the intention of the convention,. I find that the Canadian Constitution, which confers larger powers upon the Federal Government than does our own Constitution, contains this provision : -

No land or property belonging to Canada, or any province, shall be liable to taxation.

These are almost the same words as are contained in our Constitution, and it has been the practice to tax State imports under the Canadian Constitution. Having regard to the declared intention of the Convention, and also to the way in which the Canadian Constitution, which contains very similar words to our own, is construed, I venture to think that there is a great possibility of it being held that State imports can be taxed by the Federal Parliament. However, that is not a matter for us to decide at present. We cannot decide it, for the only authority that can deal with it is the High Court, and the sooner that court is brought into existence and disposes of the matter the better.

Mr Watkins:

– What does the Minister propose to do for existing industries ?

Mr KINGSTON:

Mr KINGSTON:

– Yes.

Mr. JOSEPH COOK (Parramatta).The Minister for Trade and Customs has made a very remarkable speech to-night, such as he can make on occasion. He indulged in a good deal of pathos ; and I use that word rather than “bathos,” because the former is more respectful. At any rate, it is a speech such as he only can make when he has some awkward corners to dodge; and he is an adept in dodging corners. I want to bring the Minister back to the hard figures concerning the Canadian industry, figures which appear on the same and subsequent pages of the Statistical Year-Book from which he quoted. The Minister has told us that the bonus and duty in Canada have been a success, but he has shown that the effect of all this stimulation in the country has been to employ not the Canadian in mining ores but the foreigner outside.

Mr Kingston:

– I do not call the Newfoundlander a foreigner.

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

– The Minister has told us that the ore all comes from Newfoundland, but I take leave to doubt the information which the honorable member has furnished the House on that point. But supposing it does come from Newfoundland, why is that the case ?

Mr Kingston:

– Because Canada has not got it, whereas you have told us Australia has.

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

– The Minister told us that the ore was imported from Newfoundland into Nova Scotia. Hear what is said about Nova Scotia -

In Nova Scotia some of the richest ores yet discovered occur in boundless abundance. The iron manufactured from them is of the very best quality, and is equal to the finest Swedish metal.

How is it that with these magnificent ores in Nova Scotia, and the stimulation given by the Government, the bulk of the ores used in Canada are imported from outside the Dominion? The same authority goes on to say that there are the richest ores all over Canada ; and yet the Minister admits that the duties there have only succeeded in encouraging men who mine them in other parts of the world. Do honorable members seek to establish a similar condition of things in Australia? The Minister told us that in England some of the ore used is imported from Spain. It is true that a small proportion is imported, but nothing like the proportion of one-third, as stated by the Minister. These ores are imported into England, and also into America, simply for blending or fluxing purposes, staple ores being won within the boundaries of each country. In Canada the contrary is the case. While 34,000 tons are manufactured from native ores, 67,000 tons are manufactured from foreign imported ores. On page 152 of the Canadian Year-Book, a very remarkable state of things is exhibited. Before the introduction of this ore from outside, ores were exported very largely from Canada. As far back as 1868, 25,000 tons per annum were exported. In 1880 there were exported 50,000, and 54,000 tons in 1885 ; but in 1900 the export had dwindled down to 5,000 tons. Miners used to be employed by the thousand, winning ores for export, and in 1884 practically as much iron was made in Canada as is made to-day from native ores. According to these figures the only effect of the stimulation of the iron industry of Canada has been to make the production of iron ores more and more a matter for the foreigner. We are told that it is desirable to establish the industry here on Canadian lines, in order that we may have more miners to mine the ore and the requisite coal ; but the result in Canada has been to drive these miners out of employment, and, I suppose, out of the country.

Mr KINGSTON:

– I do not think that the honorable member for Parramatta would willingly accuse me of misrepresenting facts.

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

– I do not suggest that.

Mr KINGSTON:

– But the honorable member has challenged my figures on insufficient data. The honorable member first challenges my statement that England imports one-third of her ore ; but Mr. Jacquet’s report says at page 16 : -

The total amount of iron ore consumed in Great Britain during 1899 was as under : - Mined in Great Britain, 14,46.1,330 tons; imported ores, 7,580,458 tons; total, 22,041,788 tons. So it would appear that over 30 per cent, of the ore was imported from foreign countries, chiefly from Spain, The imported ores are far superior to the majority of those obtained locally. They are used to produce pig iron for the manufacture of steel by the acid processes.

I think that extract disposes of that question. As to the importation of ore from Newfoundland to Canada, I can refer to a speech by Mr. Wallace, when this Bill was discussed in the Canadian House of Commons, in 1899, as follows : -

As to making the bounties payable on the iron ore brought in from Newfoundland, I can heartily indorse the statement made by the leader of the Opposition, that we should pay a bounty on the iron ore brought in from Newfoundland, and for this reason : We are told there is in that colony a kind of iron ore that is not to be found in Canada, or, if found in Canada, then at such a distance away from our smelters that it would be economically impossible to transport it.

I fortified my information in this respect by converse with the best man in Australia to convey information in regard to Canada, namely, the Canadian representative.

Mr GLYNN:
South Australia

– The debate has lasted so long, and has been so exhaustively, as well as ably, treated, that I do not now propose to discuss the merits of the question. I rise merely to draw attention to the amendment suggested by the honorable member for South Australia, Mr. Batchelor.I was perfectly certain when I asked the honorable member what his suggested amendment was, that the Government were going to adopt it. The Government, when they find themselves in a difficulty, owing to a certain amount of wavering on the part of their usual supporters, cling to anything likely to pull them through.

Mr Kingston:

– The Government will adopt any reasonable amendment, even if proposed by the honorable and learned member.

Mr GLYNN:

– I know ; but the Governmentaccept evenan unreasonable amendment when in extremis. The suggested amendment of Mr. Batchelor does not make the matter better or worse. It does not get over the difficulty to which the honorable member referred, with, I think, a considerable amount of conclusiveness, namely, that a monopoly will be created under the operation of these bonuses and import duties. It is proposed to cure that difficulty by declaring that the proclamation is to issue, not only when private individuals start the industry, but the Government engage in a monopoly. That will not cure private monopoly ; in the first place, because the Federal Government, as the Minister admits, cannot start this industry and become ironfounders, and, in the next place, because it is not likely, for many years to come, that any State Government will be induced to pass a resolution making the production and manufacture of iron a State monopoly. In the meantime, the amount voted for bonuses will have been exhausted. Then, again, it is doubtful whether any State can adopt, under the Constitution, a monopoly of the iron industry. They cannot, for instance, without the consent of the Federal Government, or of the two Houses, by resolution, grant bounties for the encouragement of industries. If the States themselves engage in industries, the very evil which is sought to be prevented by denying the right to give bounties without consent, will be created in the very worst form, because a State which engages in the production of iron will be doing what a State bounty would seek to encourage. But it would be worse still, because then these State productions could not be taxed, inasmuch as no excise can be placed on any of them ; and we shall then be doing what we seek to prevent, by not allowing the State, without the consent of the Federal Parliament, to engage in any monopoly. By doing that we shall be allowing the -State to secure freedom from an excise that will be placed upon the private individual. When these aspects of the case are impressed upon the High Court of Judicature, it is open to question whether the court will not declare that any State engaging in these industries is acting contrary to the spirit, if not the letter, of the Constitution. So that I am sorry that the honorable member for South Australia, Mr. Batchelor, has somewhat confused the issue which we sought to put in a clear-cut shape before the committee, by indicating that if this amendment is negatived he will propose a further amendment. That further amendment might render the proposal of the Government more or less palatable to some members of the committee ; but I say that, by indicating such an amendment, which in the long run would be futile, we shall not get rid of the evils about which the honorable member himself has spoken, but shall be preventing honorable members from giving a clear-cut decision upon the issue of whether this power should remain or not. I do not wish to refer to the argument urged by the Minister, and dealt with by the honorable member for Parramatta, with regard to the Canadian industry. The Minister himself has destroyed the case which he himself sought to set up in regard to the alleged success of the bonuses in Canada. In Canada they do not make the duties against which my amendment is directed a condition of the bonus. The bonus by itself is the cause of the success of the industry, if it has been a success. The Minister for Trade and Customs says - “If you reject my scheme in regard to the duties the bonus goes to the wall,” although the pure bonus system, according to his inference from the statistics, is a success in Canada. The Minister has sought to show that in Canada the bonus system alone has produced a certain measure of success, and that there is no dependence of one system upon the other. But yet he tells us here that unless we keep up the interdependence of the two he will abandon the bonuses. I think honorable members are scarcely seized of the fact that the Minister, by his own argument, and by his answer to the honorable member for Kooyong, has destroyed the argument with reference to success which he sought to draw from the Canadian precedent; because there the bonus system stood alone, and according to his own statement is a success, whilst hera he says - “ I am not prepared to adhere to the bonus system alone, and unless you buttress it up by a duty I shall have nothing to do with it.” There is, however, a main argument which should particularly strengthen the support to my amendment. Parliament ought not to pass any system of duties to come into operation some years hence. Taxation is a matter principally - and in every other respect its object is incidental - -for the purpose of raising revenue year by year ; and in England they pass most of their taxes merely as. annual supplies.

What right have we, according to the spirit if not the letter of the Constitution, to fix the fiscal policy of Parliament five or ten years hence - practically to fix the revenue, because these will be revenue duties 1 I do not say that technically it is not constitutional to do so, because the matter has been decided by the Privy Council ; but I do say that it is against the spirit of our Constitution, and on that ground alone we should reject this proposal for conditional protective duties. The Minister for Trade and Customs has also mentioned Canada with regard to another legal aspect. He attempted to get rid of the difficulty pointed out by the honorable member for East Sydney as to State imports being probably free from taxation, by pointing out that in Canada the Federal Government taxes them. But has there ever been a construction of the Constitution on the point ? I do not know, as a matter of fact, whether there has been or not, but I do not think there has been, for this reason, - a very large part of the income of the provinces in Canada is derived from the income of the Federation. As Professor Goldwin Smith has pointed out time after time, men are returned to Parliament on their promises in regard to importuning the Federal Government for further portions of the federal revenue - that is to say, on account of their promises to put pressure upon the Federal Government to get out of them further sums of money for the provinces. This shows that the States are not likely to object to taxation which will pass into the hands of the central body, to be repaid to the States themselves. I very much question whether there has been a judicial interpretation of the matter in Canada, as probably the States do not think it would be judicious to try the point, because if they did it would mean next to nothing in the case of most of them. Now the matter has been thoroughly thrashed out, and I trust honorable members will give .their decision according to their convictions upon the general principles of the case.

Question - That the words “ Division VIa.” proposed to be omitted, stand as printed - put. The committee divided- -

Ayes … … 28

Noes … … 17

Majority … … 11

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Amendment negatived.

Progress reported.

page 10041

ADJOURNMENT

Queensland Japanese Treaty - Immigration Restriction Act

Mr BARTON:
Minister for External Affairs · Hunter · Protectionist

– I move -

That the House do now adjourn.

I think I ought to make a communication with respect to the commercial treaty with Japan, and the agreement made between Queensland and Japan thereunder, and with respect to the Immigration Restriction Act. It will be in the memory of honorable members that in the year 1900 the Government of Queensland, having power to make an arrangement on the subject under a protocol between England and Japan, to which Queensland alone of the Australian colonies had consented, made an arrangement with the Government of Japan - no doubt under

Imperial sanction - under which, there being no Immigration Restriction Act, the immigration of Japanese labourers and artisans was to be allowed to such an extent as not to exceed the number at the time in Queensland, which number, if I recollect rightly, was 3,247. That agreement continued to be acted upon for some time. In the course of investigations after the passage of the Immigration Restriction Act, the AttorneyGeneral of the Commonwealth expressed the opinion that the agreement under the Japanese treaty, and, in fact, the treaty itself, had, by the coming into force of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act, ceased to apply to any partof Australia. That opinion was communicated in the course of correspondence to the Japanese Consul-General, who consulted his Government. It was strongly dissented from by the Government of Japan, who expressed the opinion that the treaty and the agreement both subsisted still. About the end of January, however, probably at about the time when the treaty, just concluded, was entered into with Japan, the Government of that country intimated to the acting Consul-General, Mr. Eitaki, that while they contended that the commercial treaty and agreement continued in force, they were prepared to come to an understanding in the matter. That is to say, that if the agreement were treated as still subsisting with reference to some 208 Japanese, possessed of permits issued by the Queensland Government before the Immigration Restriction Act come into operation - and who had been given passports by the Japanese Government - that Government, while not abandoning their contention as a matter of international law, were prepared to treat the agreement as no longer existing. It seemed to us that that was a fair, considerate, and courteous proposal, and it was accepted. The result is that when the permits and passports, which are now under consideration, have been exhausted, there will be no contention for the entry of Japanese into the Commonwealth by virtue of the treaty or agreement.

Mr Fisher:

– Will the Prime Minister lay the correspondence on the table ?

Mr BARTON:

– I can do that ; but the correspondence will be found to be simply a repetition of what I have said.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

House adjourned at 10.48 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 13 February 1902, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1902/19020213_reps_1_8/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant

House of Representatives13 February 1902

QUESTION

HORSE-BREEDING STATIONS

Sir LANGDON BONYTHON:SOUTH AUSTRALIA

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

QUESTION

TELEGRAPH MESSENGERS

Sir PHILIP FYSH:TASMANIA, TASMANIA · FT

QUESTION

UNPAID ALLOWANCES

Mr CHAPMAN:for Mr. Cruickshank:

Sir GEORGE TURNER:Treasurer · BALACLAVA, VICTORIA · Protectionist

QUESTION

WAYS AND MEANS

Mr TUDOR:Yarra

Mr Mahon:

Mr TUDOR:

Sir George Turner:

Mr TUDOR:

Sir JOHN QUICK:Bendigo

Mr Thomson:

Sir JOHN QUICK:

Sir George Turner:

Sir JOHN QUICK:

Sir George Turner:

Sir JOHN QUICK:

Sir JOHN QUICK:

Mr O’Malley:

Sir JOHN QUICK:

Mr HUME COOK:BOURKE, VICTORIA · PROT

Sir JOHN QUICK:

Mr Watson:

Sir JOHN QUICK:

Sir George Turner:

Sir JOHN QUICK:

Sir George Turner:

Sir JOHN QUICK:

Mr Mahon:

Sir JOHN QUICK:

Mr Barton:

Sir JOHN QUICK:

Mr WILKS:Dalley

Mr Watson:

Mr WILKS:

Mr HUME COOK:BOURKE, VICTORIA · PROT

Mr WILKS:

Mr Barton:

Mr WILKS:

Mr Barton:

Mr WILKS:

Mr KINGSTON:Minister for Trade and Customs · South AustraliaMinister for Trade and Customs · Protectionist

Mr Wilks:

Mr KINGSTON:

Mr Wilks:

Mr KINGSTON:

Mr MAHON:Coolgardie

Mr Tudor:

Mr MAHON:

Sir John Quick:

Mr MAHON:

Sir John Quick:

Mr MAHON:

Sir John Quick:

Mr MAHON:

Mr Ronald:

Mr MAHON:

Mr HUME COOK:BOURKE, VICTORIA · PROT

Mr Thomson:

Mr HUME COOK:BOURKE, VICTORIA · PROT

Sir George Turner:

Mr HUME COOK:BOURKE, VICTORIA · PROT

Mr Mahon:

Mr HUME COOK:BOURKE, VICTORIA · PROT

Mr Mahon:

Mr HUME COOK:BOURKE, VICTORIA · PROT

Mr Thomson:

Mr HUME COOK:BOURKE, VICTORIA · PROT

Mr Mahon:

Mr HUME COOK:BOURKE, VICTORIA · PROT

Mr Mahon:

House of Representatives
13 February 1902

Sir LANGDON BONYTHON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

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

Sir PHILIP FYSH:
TASMANIA, TASMANIA · FT

Mr CHAPMAN:
for Mr. Cruickshank:

Sir GEORGE TURNER:
Treasurer · BALACLAVA, VICTORIA · Protectionist

Mr TUDOR:
Yarra

Sir JOHN QUICK:
Bendigo

Mr HUME COOK:
BOURKE, VICTORIA · PROT

Mr WILKS:
Dalley

Mr HUME COOK:
BOURKE, VICTORIA · PROT

Mr KINGSTON:
Minister for Trade and Customs · South AustraliaMinister for Trade and Customs · Protectionist

Mr MAHON:
Coolgardie

Mr HUME COOK:
BOURKE, VICTORIA · PROT

Mr HUME COOK:
BOURKE, VICTORIA · PROT

Mr HUME COOK:
BOURKE, VICTORIA · PROT

Mr HUME COOK:
BOURKE, VICTORIA · PROT

Mr HUME COOK:
BOURKE, VICTORIA · PROT

Mr HUME COOK:
BOURKE, VICTORIA · PROT

Mr HUME COOK:
BOURKE, VICTORIA · PROT

Mr HUME COOK:
BOURKE, VICTORIA · PROT

Mr F E McLEAN:
LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT

Mr F E McLEAN:
LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sir MALCOLM McEACHARN:
Melbourne

Sir GEORGE TURNER:
BalaclavaTreasurer · Protectionist

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

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

Mr POYNTON:
South Australia

Mr CHANTER:
Riverina

Mr FULLER:
Illawarra

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

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

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

Mr SKENE:
Grampians

Mr POYNTON:
South Australia