View PDF View XML View in Voyant

House of Representatives
21 August 1907

3^rd Parliament · 2^nd Session

SUPPLY BILL (No. 2)
TARIFF: ACTION OF THE. NEW SOUTH WALES GOVERNMENT:
QUESTION
- NEW HEBRIDES
LEAVE OF ABSENCE
QUESTION
- KALGOORLIE TO PORT AUGUSTA RAILWAY SURVEY
PAPERS
QUESTION
- TELEGRAPH COMMUNICATION : WESTERN AUSTRALIA
QUESTION
- TARIFF
QUESTION
- DERWENT INFANTRY REGIMENT
QUESTION
- ACTIVE SERVICE OF MILITARY OFFICERS
QUESTION
- COURSE OF MILITARY INSTRUCTION, SYDNEY
QUESTION
- PILBARRA GOLD-FIELD MAIL SERVICE
BUDGET
- Customs and Excise Tariffs
- In Committee of Ways and Means:

Mr. Speaker took the chair at 3 p.m., and read prayers.

page 2120

SUPPLY BILL (No. 2)

Mr Reid:

– The New South Wales Government would not appeal, if it obtained a judgment in its favour.

Mr GLYNN:

– WiM the Acting Prime Minister have inquiries. made, and inform the House as to the actual position of this - litigation ? Is it not this : that the Supreme Court of New South Wales decided that State imports are not liable to duty, but that the Commonwealth authorities, following the usual custom in these matters, have since been collecting duties on such imports;, and that an appeal was not made, because this Government was waiting for the establishment of the High Court ? If that be so, I should like to know whether the intention to appeal has been abandoned, or whether there is to be an appeal, either to the High Court, or to the Privy Council?

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:

– Before entering the Chamber, I asked the- AttorneyGeneral to have the matter looked up, and to give me full information on the subject as soon as possible. I have not yet received the particulars which I require; but I’ hope to get them during the course of the day.

page 2121

QUESTION

NEW HEBRIDES

Mr JOHNSON:
LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I wish to ask the Minister of Trade and Customs, without notice, has his attention been called to the fact that the Anglo-French Convention agreement regarding trade in arms, ammunition, and intoxicants in the New Hebrides is openly violated by French trading vessels, without interference by the French authorities in the group? Will he communicate at once with the British authorities requesting them to insist on the terms of the convention being observed equally by British and French traders?

Mr AUSTIN CHAPMAN:
Minister for Trade and Customs · EDEN-MONARO, NEW SOUTH WALES · Protectionist

– My attention has been directed to this matter, and a few days ago I gave instructions to have it thoroughly inquired into, so that action might be taken to prevent the continuance of the state of things complained of.

page 2121

LEAVE OF ABSENCE

Motion (by Sir William Lyne), with concurrence, agreed to -

That leave of absence forone month be granted, on account of ill health, to the honororable members for Ballarat, Adelaide, and Mernda.

page 2121

QUESTION

KALGOORLIE TO PORT AUGUSTA RAILWAY SURVEY

Sir JOHN FORREST:
SWAN, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I wish to know what steps the Government propose to take to obtain the formal consent of the Parliament of South Australia to the survey of a line for a railway from Port Augusta to the western border of that State? I would suggest that early action be taken. If the Acting Prime Minister will tell me what the Government proposes to do, and

When it proposes to do it, I shall be obliged.

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:
Protectionist

– It is proposed to communicate immediately with the Government of South Australia, forwarding a copy of the Bill, and a statement of the actual position of affairs’ in regard to the proposal. It was intended that this should be done at once, and if it is not done- today, I shall see that it is done to-morrow.

page 2121

PAPERS

MINISTERS laid upon the table the following papers : -

Public Service Act - Recommendation and Approval of Promotion of Mr. J. G. Cameron, clerk, 4th class, Accounts Branch, Department of Defence, Queensland, to vacancy for an Accountant, 3rd class.

Defence Acts - Military Forces - Financial and Allowance Regulation No. 98. Amended (Provisional) - Statutory Rules 1907, No. 84.

Statistical Methods. - Conference of Statisticians of the Commonwealth and States of Australia and Colony of New Zealand, on Unification of Australasian Statistical Methods and Co-ordination of the Work of the Commonwealth and State Bureaux - Melbourne, November and December, 1906.

Census and Statistics Act - Statistics of the Commonw ealth -

Trade and Customs and Excise Revenue, 1906. - Part I.

Official Bulletins, 1907 -

Trade, Shipping, and Oversea Migration -

No. 1. - January.

No. 2. - February.

No. 3. - March.

Trade, Shipping, and Oversea Migration, and Finance -

No.4. - April.

No. 5. - May.

Population and Vital Statistics -

No. 1 . - Determination of the Population of Australia for each quarter, from 31st December, 1900, to 31st December, 1906, comprising a Review of Census Methods, &c. .

No. 2. - Summary of Commonwealth Demography, 1901-1906.

Lands Acquisition Act - Land acquired under, at Culcairn, New South Wales - As a site for a Post Office.

page 2121

QUESTION

TELEGRAPH COMMUNICATION : WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Mr MAHON:
COOLGARDIE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

asked the PostmasterGeneral, upon notice -

Has his attention been recently drawn to repeated breaks in the telegraph line along the north-west coast of Western Australia?
Is the following statement from the Pilbarra Gold fields News (Marble Bar) correct : - “On one occasion several days’ telegraphic business was lying at’ Geraldton, and was brought by steamer to Cossack, and thence to Roebourne. From the latter place the messages were despatched to their destination a day or two before the line was repaired. Fancy getting telegrams from Perth by a steamer running 10 knots per hour ! “ ?
In view of the increasing population and rapid development of the northern coastal districts of Western Australia, will he consider the advisability of removing the telegraph line further inland so as to avoid these continual interruptions to communication?

Mr MAUGER:
Postmaster-General · MARIBYRNONG, VICTORIA · Protectionist

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

My attention was not previously drawn to this matter, as the practice is for the Central Office to be informed of interruptions to cables and Inter-State lines only.
1. The. Deputy Postmaster-General, Perth, reports as follows in the matter : - “Weather throughout this portion of State extremely severe. Railway line washed away in two places; much damage done by terrific winds and floods. Inquiries made, but no record of messages having been posted by steamer at Geraldton for stations north of that place, and various postmasters who have been stationed at Geraldton state during their term of office covering period from. October, 1897, to date this method has never been resorted to. , Cases, however, have occurred where advantage has been taken of steamer service to carry telegrams to nearest port beyond the interruption, namely, in March last, during interrup-. tion to line between Onslow and , Carnarvon northern traffic was sent from Cossack to Carnarvon by s.s. Burrumbeet, thence by wire to Perth. Removal of telegraph line would interfere with settlement along coast, but extension of line - Peak Hill to Nullagine - about 271 miles, would provide alternative circuit and cut out worst part of coast line. Cost about£11,374.”
Consideration will be given to the question of these lines with the view of minimizing delays through interruption as far as practicable.

page 2122

QUESTION

TARIFF

Notice of New Duties - Duties on British Manufactured Goods.

Mr WILKS:
DALLEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Acting Prime Minister, upon notice -

As the Minister responsible for the fram ing and distribution of the Tariff, has His attention been drawn to the fact that on themorning of Friday, the9th instant, there appeared, in the Rockhampton Morning Bulletin a copy of the Tariff proposals as handed to the representatives of the newspaper by the SubCollector of Customs at that port, and thaton the following morning this correction appeared : - “ The Sub-Collector of Customs (Mr. J. M. Forbes) received a long telegram yesterday from the Comptroller-General, of. Customs (Dr. H. N, P. Wollaston), giving, a list, of the alterations made on the draft of the new Tariff as forwarded to him. The message considerably altered, the original proposal of the Government. We therefore republish in this issue the whole, of the twelve divisions of the Tariff printed in these columns yesterday, with the alterations made in them by the message from the Comptroller-General. We also, give the remainder of the divisions which, as was explained yesterday, we were unable then to furnish to our readers. These were also corrected in accordance with Dr. Wollaston’stelegram “ ? 2. (a) What system was adopted in sending copies of the Tariff to the various Customs officials, throughout the Commonwealth, and what mistakes, if any, occurred in transmission ? (b) Is it’ a fact that the Queensland officials, like those of Tasmania, had not received correct copies of the Tariff on Friday; the 9th instant? (c) Were the preferential rates in favour of British goods determined upon and added to the Tariff only at the last moment?

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:
Protectionist

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

The press paragraph referred to was not brought under notice. The Sub-Collector had no authority to hand the copy of the Tariff to the press, and exceeded his instructions in doing so. 2. (a) Sealedproofs of the Tariff were forwarded to the principal ports, with instructions not to open till further advised; also that alterations might be made subsequently, and that such would be: wired at the same time as instructions to open..
1. No.
2. No.

page 2122

QUESTION

DERWENT INFANTRY REGIMENT

Mr McWILLIAMS:
FRANKLIN, TASMANIA

asked the Minister of Defence, upon notice -

If it is the intention of the Defence authorities to make the Derwent Infantry Regiment (Tasmania) a partially paid regiment, and, if so, on what date will the change come into operation ?

Mr EWING:
Minister for Defence · RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · Protectionist

– The answer to the honorablemember’s question is as follows: -

The question of re-organization of the Forces is now engaging the attention of the Government. To convert the Derwent Infantry Regiment into Militia would cost about£2,500 per annum, which would forman obligation, on the State.

page 2122

QUESTION

ACTIVE SERVICE OF MILITARY OFFICERS

Mr REID:

asked the Minister of Defence, upon notice -

Whether he will be good enough to state the number of actual military battles or engagements in each case in which the Inspector-General of the Forces and the officers commanding the State Forces respectively have taken part during the term of their service, whether Imperial or Colonial ?

Mr EWING:
Protectionist

– The answer to the honorable member’s questions is as follows

The.War Services of the Officers referred, to, as extracted from the Imperial Army List, are as follow : - .

Major-General J. C. Hoad, C.M.G., InspectorGeneral. - South African War, 1899-1900 - Special Service Officer (including service in command of 1st Australian Regiment, which heconverted into Mounted Infantry, and as Officer Commanding, Enslin) (10th December, 1899to 30th January, 1900). Advance on Kimberley. Operations in Orange Free State, including actions at Vet River (5th and 6th May) and Zand River. Operations in Transvaal in May and June, 1900, including actions near Johannesburg and Pretoria. Operations in Cape Colony, south of Orange River, including action at Colesburg. Assistant Adjutant-General Mounted Infantry Division. Despatches, London Gazette, 16th April,1901. Queen’s medal with three clasps. C.M.G.

Brigadier-General J. .M. Gordon, CB. - Commandant, New South Wales, South African War 1 goo. Attached to Staff of Base Commandant, Cape Town, as Staff Officer for Australasian Forces (Graded as an Assistant AdjutantGeneral). Operations in the Transvaal. Orange River Colony and Cape Colony. Despatches, London Gazette, 16th April, 1901. Queen’s medal with 4 clasps. C.B.

Colonel J. Stanley, Commandant, Victoria. - No War Service recorded.

Colonel J. S. Lyster, Commandant, Military District of Queensland. - South African War, 1902. - Commanded 1st Australian Commonwealth Horse. Operations in the Transvaal. Queen’s medal with 3 clasps.

Lieut. -Colonel J. H. A. Lee, Commandant, Military District of South Australia. - South African War, 1902. - Served with ist Battalion Australian Commonwealth Horse. Operations in the Transvaal, January to May, 1902. Queen’s medal with 2 clasps.

Lieut.-Colonel H. Le Mesurier, Commandant, Military District of Western Australia. - South African War, 1900-01. - Served with 6th Regiment, New South Wales Imperial Bushmen as Adjutant, 12th April to nth May, 1900, in command 12th November, 1900 to July, 1901. Also in command of 8th Battalion Australian Commonwealth Horse. ‘Operations in Rhodesia (17th to 25th May, 1900). Operations in .the Transvaal, west of Pretoria, July to November, 1900. Operations in . the Transvaal, Orange River Colony and Cape Colony, November, I000 to June, -1901. Queen’s, medal with 4 clasps.

Colonel H. D. Mackenzie, Commandant, Military District of Tasmania. - Soudan Expedition, 1885. - Suakim. As Brigade-Major of the New South Wales Contingent. Advance on Tamai Despatches London Gazette, 25th August, 18S5. Medal with clasp ; bronze star.

I have taken the information supplied, with regard to some of these officers, in the Imperial Army list. If there is any further information the right honorable member desires, I shall be glad to supply it.

page 2123

QUESTION

COURSE OF MILITARY INSTRUCTION, SYDNEY

Mr JOHN THOMSON:
COWPER, NEW SOUTH WALES · PROT; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

asked the Minister of Defence, upon notice -

What are the names of the officers who are chosen for the Sydney class of instruction next October ?
Upon what grounds was the selection made, and by whom ?
Is it true that officers from the reserve and unattached lists were selected, and why were they preferred before officers on the active list?
Was any, and, if so, what opportunity given to all officers to apply, and what publicity was given to their right to apply to attend ?

Mr EWING:
Protectionist

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

The names of the officers selected are as follow : -

New South Wales.

Colonel C. M. Ranclaud. V.D., Commanding ist Infantry Brigade.

Lieut.-Colonel G. R. Campbell, V.D., Commanding Garrison Troops, New South Wales’.

Lieut.-Colonel J. M.- Onslow, A.D.C. to H. E. the Governor-General, Commanding and A.L.H. Regt.

Victoria.

Lieut.-Colonel J. Burston, V.D., Unattached List.

Lieut.-Colonel the Hon. J. W. McCay, V.D., Commanding 8th Australian Infantry Regt. -

Major R. ?. Courtney, Commanding Victorian Rifles.

Queensland.

Lieut.-Colonel J. F. Flewell-Smith, V.D.; Commanding Garrison Troops, Queensland.

Lieut.-Colonel W. G. Thompson, Commanding 15th A.L.H. Regt.

Major W. T. Deacon, CB., Unattached List..

South Australia.

Major J. F. Humphris, D.S.O., Commanding* 17th A.L.H. Regt.

Major S. P. Weir, 10th Australian Infantry* Regt.

Major J. Hay, 16th A.L.H. Regt.

Western Australia.

Major H. B. Collett, nth Australian Infantry Regt.

Major H. Pope, Commanding Western Australlian Infantry Regt.

Officers were selected to whom instruction, would be most useful, and also on the ground of seniority. The selection was made by the Military Board, on the ‘ recommendation of the respective District Commandants.
No officer from the reserve list has been selected. Two officers of the unattached list have been selected. The unattached list is part of the active list.
Military Order, number 151, of 25th June, 1907, directed Commandants to submit the names, of officers they recommended should be selected to attend the course. It stated that the coursewas designed primarily for the instruction of officers of- the citizen Forces, and that, as far aspossible, officers of the field rank should be selected. Attention was directed in District Orders to Military Order, number 151, and applications were invited from officers desirous of attending the course. I may add that it is gratifying to me to find that officers are availing themselves of this opportunity of extending their military knowledge, and I will endeavour to arrange for similar opportunities to be afforded other officers at an early date.

page 2123

QUESTION

PILBARRA GOLD-FIELD MAIL SERVICE

Mr MAHON:

asked the PostmasterGeneral, upon notice -

Will he cause inquiry -to be. made respecting the mail conveniences between the Pilbarra gold-field and Port Hedland?
Is it correct that recently a mail arriving at Port Hedland on the Thursday was not delivered at Marble Bar, little over 100 miles- distant, until the .following Friday, nine days after its arrival at the port; and, if so, and ir? view of the growing importance of the Pilbarra gold-field, will he consider whether the frequency of this mail service should not be increased ?

Mr MAUGER:
Protectionist

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

I have made inquiry respecting the mail service referred to.
It is reported that the statement is substantially correct, and that proportionate delays occur whenever steamers arrive at Fort Hedland between Wednesday and Monday. To obviate similar delays in the future, arrangements have been made for a special coach to be run from Port Hedland to Marble Bar on such occasions during the currency of the present contract.

page 2124

BUDGET

Customs and Excise Tariffs

In Committee of Ways and Means:

Mr Mahon:

– That is a good argument in favour of a land tax.

REID. - That may be so, or it may not. But it is of advantage tous all to recognise the facts of the situation, whatever may be our remedies for them. These are facts which ought not to escape the. attention of any man who wishes well to Australia. I think that one of the most lamentable positions that ever obtained under any Government in any civilised country exists in regard to the matter that Iwish to bring before the House. Any country which has an Executive power possessing no continuity of policy is in a position which shows that Executive to be unfit to occupy the Treasury benches. In the case of ephemeral . Governments such as that of which I was the head, or that which was led by the honorable member for South

Sydney, the opportunity of developing any; policy did not present itself. Butmostof the leading members of the present Government have been in office nearly the whole of the time which has elapsed since the inception of the Commonwealth Parliament. Notwithstanding the efforts of the ex-Treasurer, the right honorable member for Swan - and, I think, we must all give him praise for the great industry and ability which he brought to bear upon a number of important questions connected with the Commonwealth, and, especially in regard to its financial relations with the States - in what positiondo we find ourselves to-day?

Mr Frazer:

– Does the right honorable member approve of. the ex-Treasurer’s scheme regarding the adjustment of the financial relations between the Commonwealth and the States ?

Mr.REID. -I am not at present referring to that matter, and I hope that I shall be allowed to choose my own line of observation. It is inconvenient to adopt that ofany other honorable member upon, the spur ofthe moment. I wish to point out that - upon the authority of the right honorable member for Swan when he was Treasurer - theGovernment had arrived at decisions upon some very important measures affecting the Commonwealth and the States. The approval of the Government to those measures was announced. In thisconnexion, I should like to make a quotation from Hansard of the last session of the last Parliament. Upon page 2032 the right honorable member for Swan, who was then Treasurer, is reported to. have said -

The proposals submitted have - as I have already said - received the approval of the Government.

That was the approval of the present Go-‘ vernment. The right honorable member was speaking of the present Government, and he announced to the people of Australia that his proposals in regard to taking over the debts of the States, the amount to be taken over, the continuance of the Braddon section, the amount and basis of the annual payments to the States, the bookkeeping system, and future borrowings by the States had been considered and approved by the Government. A very short time ago the Treasurer had represented the Government at a conference of Colonial! Premiers, and in passing through Sydney the righthonorable member is reported to have said -

The Brisbane Conference has approved of these ‘proposals -

I have referred to the nature of them - and I think that has been a great advance, for, subject to the approval of Parliament, the financial arrangements between the Commonwealth and the States have been settled until1920. This is the fifth conference at which this matter has been discussed, and it is gratifying that, at last a mutual arrangement has been arrived at..

These are all comparatively urgent matters, and yet there is not a single word relating to them in the Budget Speech of the Treasurer. It is of no. use for the Treasurer to say, “ I have only just come into office,” because he was a member of the Government which discussed, considered, and decided these matters.

– Why did the right honorable member exempt existing municipalities from his Local Government Bill?

Mr REID:

Mr.REID. - Then the Government have given a real preference to the old country at last. I am obliged to the honorable member for directing my attention to it. How much does . that preference represent?

Mr Mauger:

– According to the right honorable member, it represents 100 per cent.

Mr REID:

– That is splendid. I object to this abjectly mean business of going to the British people and saying, “We have built half the arch, you build the other half, and drop the keystone in, and we will have a perfect union between the mother country and Australia through the medium of this Tariff.” Notwithstanding that this Tariff, with very few exceptions, doubles the rate of duty previously imposed, a message was despatched by the Prime Minister to England announcing that it represented “ the first step in a great and effective measure of preference” to the mother- country. What is the Government giving us? The British people must have an extraordinary idea of the cheek of Australians. I would like to quote what a strong Unionist newspaper - an advocate of preferential trade - says upon this question in discussingthe visit of our Prime Minister and the present Treasurer. The Daily Graphic writes -

The idea that there ever was a possibility of a concession on the Tariff question is the rankest hypocrisy, and we are amazed that men of intelligence like the Colonial Premiers should have been taken in by it. However much we may sympathize with preferences it would be idle and dishonest topretend, after the last general election, that the nation is disposed to consider them. In egging on the Colonies to intimidate the Liberals and Free-traders in the mothercountry the authors of this campaign have simply driven a double wedge into that fabric of Empire which ever since 1843 has, by its own internal elements of sympathy and patriotism, been pursuing unhindered so happy and successful a process of unification and consolidation. They have sown distrust of the Imperial connexion in the Colonies, and they have created irritation and stimulated Little Englandism at home. This is an achievement which our pseudo-Imperialists will one day bitterlyregret. Of the indecency with which some of the Colonial visitors have abetted these proceedings we prefer not to speak. We, at least, cannot forget that they are still our guests.

– And even that was much higher than the Acting Prime Minister wished for six years ago.

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:

– That is not correct. The honorable member ought to know that all my life I have desired a protective Tariff, and not merely a revenue Tariff. Australia has the greatest, possibilities of any country in the world. She has more latent power and resources, and greater scope for the development of industries - she has the raw material to a greater extent than any country to which we can point. When Federation took place, the only really, self-contained State was the protective State of Victoria, while the free-trade State of New South Wales was the least self-contained.

Mr Wilks:

– At Cootamundra the honorable gentleman said the same thing of the last Tariff.

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:

– I did not, and I denied the statement at the time.

Mr Wilks:

– This is the first occasion upon which I have heard the statement denied by the honorable gentleman,, and, ofcourse.Imustaccept his denial. .

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:

Sir JOHN QUICK:

– When the adjournment hour arrived I was drawing attention to the importance of the woollen industry, and to the necessity of protecting the woollen factories which have already been established under States law. Under the old Commonwealth Tariff the duty upon woollen piece goods was 15 per cent., and the manufacturers of the several States complained of the utter inadequacy of that impost. They suggested that it should be increased to 30 per cent. With my protectionist colleagues upon the Commission I felt that if we were to make any change whatever in the rate of duty levied, it ought to be one of a substantial character, and that it ought to proceed upon the same lines as we followed in connexion with the engineering industry. Therefore, we proposed that the existing duty should be doubled. In other words, we recommended that the duty upon piece goods should be increased to 30 per cent., and that upon blankets to 25 per cent. We thought that these were fair increases, which were justified by the circumstances. We believe that it will be impossible for the woollen industry in Australia to hold its own - much less to make any progress - unless it is. shielded, by substantial Tariff duties, from inferior shoddy goods, the product of the cheap labour and lower industrial conditions of other countries. We found that there was strong reason for believing that Australia had become the dumping ground for the sweepings of the world’s markets, and we were of opinion that a supreme effort should be made to make the woollen industry a national one, of which the people might be justly proud. If we fail to do that it will not be the fault of this Parliament should it adopt these recommendations - it will be owing to circumstances over which we have no control. But I consider that it is the duty of Parliament to give every support to this great industry. I believe that I am justified in saying - as the result of the evidence presented to the Commission - that many woollen mills have been dragging out a bare existence during the past few years, and have not realized the expectations of their founders or of those who have invested their money in them. Many persons have spent fortunes in attempting to develop the woollen industry of Australia, and few have obtained any adequate return for their outlay. If, under a united Australia, they cannot obtain better protection than was granted to them by the several States, it is just as well that they should be made aware of the fact, and the sooner the better. They will then know that the struggle is hopeless, and that there are limitations to their prospects. With reference to the future of the woollen industry, I frankly admit that we have recommended these increases, not for the purpose of enabling manufacturers to carry on their present operations and to produce medium or lower class goods, but to assist them to launch out into a wider field, and to lay clown plants for the production of high-class tweeds. The members of the Commission were informed toy a leading Collins-street tailor that if we wished to establish the woollen industry in Australia upon a sound and permanent footing, we must recommend the adoption of an almost prohibitive duty, and make it operative for at least twenty years. It is idle to adopt a small measure of protection. We must grant the industry substantial protection and guarantee its continuance for some time, otherwise men will not invest” their money in it. If it is to succeed at all it will succeed under the Commission’s proposals. Of course woollen piece goods constitute the foundation of the whole industry. They represent the starting point in the scheme of duties relating to apparel and textiles. Some honorable members have expressed surprise that the duty upon ready-made apparel and attire has been increased to- as much as 40 per cent. But if we place a high duty, such as 30 per cent, upon piece goods which are the raw material out of which clothing is manufactured, we must necessarily increase proportionately the duty upon the finished product in the shape Di ready-made clothing. If we increased the duty upon piece goods, and did not raise that upon the finished article, the whole of the trade would naturally be driven in the direction of the importation of the finished article. Although it was with very great regret that I felt compelled to ‘recommend an increase in the duty upon ready-made woollen clothing to 40 per cent, I saw no logical escape from that position. That duty represents 10 per cent, in excess of the impost upon the raw material. If we are to establish the woollen industry, and if that course requires substantial protection, we must allow a margin of 16 per cent, between the duty upon the raw material and that upon the finished article. Otherwise the entire trade, will be driven in the direction of increased importation, and the duty will prove a total failure. Therefore the duties upon piece goods and upon the ready-made article form part of one scheme. They dovetail into each other - they are inseparable. At the same time we did not desire to recommend an increase of duty upon all ready-made articles to 40 per cent., and therefore we suggested that the duty upon non-woollen clothing should be 35 per cent. Reference has been made to the. difference between the duty upon woollen goods and that upon silk clothing and silk piece goods. The cause of that difference is obvious. The silk piece goods, which are charged only 15 per cent., are not goods made, or at present capable of being made, in Australia. It would be an outrage on common-sense to increase the duty on silk piece goods to the same extent as that upon woollen piece goods. For a similar reason there is no necessity to increase the duty upon garments made of silk to the same standard as the duty upon garments made of wool. A similar remark is applicable to velvets, which are dutiable at 15 per cent. They are differentiated “from woollen piece goods for the reason I have indicated. Velvets are not made in Australia, and there is no prospect of them being made here, consequently they are charged a lower rate of duty, namely, 15 per cent. The same reasoning applies to other items in the piece goods list. Just as wool is the produce oi- an animal, so also is leather as a raw material. I am glad indeed to be able to give to the House a better account of the progress of the boot, shoe, and leather industry than I have been able to give with reference to the woollen industry. I am pleased to be able to say that my colleagues and myself representing the protectionist members of the Commission did not feel called upon to recommend any increase in ‘the present duty of 30 per cent, upon boots and shoes generally. We have, however, suggested an increase in the duty upon infants’ shoes from 20 per cent, ‘to 30 per cent, for the purpose of establishing a common range of duty upon the whole of these articles of footwear. J. am glad to say .that the manufacture of leather in Australia has proceeded very satisfactorily of late years, and that even- in the production of some of the high-grade leathers, such as glace kid, there has been a distinct improvement. Although some of the boot and shoe manufacturers desired certain other alterations in the Tariff, we were not able to recommend them. We did! not feel called upon to recommend everything that we were asked to indorse. We exercised our deliberate judgment in respect of the various items, and if we were of opinion that a strong case had not been made out we declined to recommend any increase. Other items connected with the raw materials proceeding from beasts are those of candles and soap. In reference to candles we found that the manufacture of candles from stearine, which is the product of tallow, had been established in various States such as Victoria, New South Wales, and South Australia. But of late years the stearine candle-making industry has had to encounter a very formidable rival in the shape of candles made from paraffine wax, which is a by-product of petroleum. These candles are brought from America, and also from Rangoon. The candle-makers of the States to which I have referred complained of the undue competition of these paraffine wax candles. We felt that their case had been, sustained, and accordingly recommended an increase in the duty upon paraffine wax candles of id. per lb. At the same time we recognised that there were candle-makers in Tasmania and New South Wales who were making composite candles - that is, candles composed partly of stearine and partly of paraffine wax - and we declined to accede to the request to increase the duty upon paraffine wax, as the raw material, because any such action would oppressively affect the manufacturers in question. I draw attention to other by-products of beasts, in the shape of glue and gelatine. They are also important’ and valuable manufactures which ought certainly to be stimulated in Australia. I see no reason why in a country abounding in cattle and animal life generally we should need to import glue and gelatine. I frankly admit that we have recommended a substantial, and what we hope will prove an effective, duty on those commodities. Passing from animal life to the forest and field, I should like to draw attention to the scheme of duties upon timber, woodware, and furniture. I have read and heard of a great outcry against some of the timber duties. The starting point of our duties on timber is founded on the necessity of promoting and encouraging the use of timber existing at the present time in Australia, and also the maintenance and continuance of our forests for use in future years.

Mr Hutchison:

– Can we grow such timber as we now import largely from New Zealand? Take, for example, Oregon?

Sir JOHN QUICK:

– The honorable member will obtain that information on perusing the evidence taken before the Commission. Meanwhile I am giving the Committee merely a sketch of our proceedings. I should take up too much time if I were to go’ into details. If there are any complaints in reference to the timber duties they may all be traced to the starting point, namely, -the duty on undressed timber. The object of that duty is to induce the manufacturers of woodwork and makers of furniture to use the Australian-grown article. I was surprised and delighted, iri the course of my travels and investigations, to hear and learn of the splendid timber resources of our continent. The timber supplies of Western Australia are almost illimitable. There we find jarrah, karri, tuart, and other timbers of great service for building and other purposes. In Tasmania we have hardwood, such as stringy-bark and bluegum; iri Victoria we have messmate, bluegum, and blackwood ; in the great State of Queensland we have hoop-pine, soft woods, cedars, silky oak, and other most beautiful timbers, samples of which would surprise and delight honorable members. I deeply regret that the wonderful forest resources of the great State of Queensland are not properly known and appreciated by the people of Australia. I am absolutely convinced that if the value and utility of those splendid timbers were known by the workers and manufacturers of Victoria we should not hear so much here about the necessity for the importation of

Sir JOHN QUICK:

– No. I have here a second statement showing the Government increases of duty without British preference. That is to say, ona number of items the Government have proposed, increases of duty in excess of the recommendations of the Tariff Commission without granting British preference.. The table is as follows : -

I wish to deal in detail with a list of upon which the Government have proposed raw materials and parts of finished pro- Customs duties in excess of those recom- ducts, as well as a number of useful mended by the Tariff Commission. They, articles not generally made in Australia, are as follow : - These constitute a very important group of itemson which there havebeen in my opinion unnecessary, unreasonable, and unwarrantable increases. Most of them are what may be called the raw materials of other industries-, such as paraffine wax, refined fats, sausage casings, mustard seed; carpets, mats and rugs, and so forth. {: .speaker-KIN} ##### Sir William Lyne: -- Any quantity of paraffine wax is obtainablein Sydney. {: .speaker-KYJ} ##### Sir JOHN QUICK: -- No. {: .speaker-KIN} ##### Sir William Lyne: -- I saw **Mr. Kitchen** yesterday, . and learned that he had as much as any one would like to buy from him. {: .speaker-KYJ} ##### Sir JOHN QUICK: -I desire to be fair in my comments on the duty on paraffine wax. Although I am a representative of a highly protectionist State, . where an increased, duty on paraffine wax as desired, in order that it may be shut-out and a monopoly secured in the manufacture of candles fromsterine, Irecognise thatthe interests of allthe States have to be considered. {: .speaker-KIN} ##### Sir William Lyne: -- The paraffine wax of which Mr.Kitchen spoke yesterday is produced in Sydney. {: .speaker-KYJ} ##### Sir JOHN QUICK: -- The quantity produced in Sydney is certainly notsufficient to be utilized in the manuacture of candles. {: .speaker-KX9} ##### Mr WATKINS:
NEWCASTLE, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP; FLP from 1931 -- It is at all events a cheap and nasty material to be used in the manufacture -of . candles. " {: .speaker-KYJ} ##### Sir JOHN QUICK: -- If the representatives of New South Wales desire an increased duty on paraffine wax, then upon them must rest the responsibility. {: .speaker-KIN} ##### Sir William Lyne: -- The higher duty was knocked out for the" sake of five boys when the firstTariff was under consideration. {: .speaker-KYJ} ##### Sir JOHN QUICK: -- I come now to the item 6f "curtains and blinds." The inincrease of duty -proposed bytheGovernrnent in this case- is most unfair. The original duty was 15 per cent., and the Tariff Commission, . with the desire to make. -a concession to householders, -recommendedthat it should be reduced to10 per. cent.that, it was considered, was a fairlysubstantial revenue duty. The Government, -however^ have not accepted that recommendation, but: have- increased the duty to theextent of from 20 to 25 per cent. The duty on gloves,. which was formerly 20 ' per . cent., now ranges from 20 per cent. to 30 per centThen, again, fancy denims were originally dutiable at 5 per cent., and the Commission recommended that the duty should remain. The reason for this may be briefly explained. Fancy denims are required intropical parts of Australia, where they arehighly popular. There is a great demand for them in some parts of the Common-, wealth at times when woollens could notbeused, and when they could not possibly come into competition with woollen garments. It was for this reason that the Tariff Commission, considered that the duty should not be increased, but that thesedenims, in common with other cotton, aswell as linen piece goods, should remains liable to a duty of 5 per cent. {: .speaker-KIN} ##### Sir William Lyne: -- Does flannelettecome within that category? {: .speaker-KYJ} ##### Sir JOHN QUICK: -- No. Flannelette is contained in another line of goods. The Government, in its wisdom, has seen fit toraise the duty on denims from 5 per cent.. to the enormous rates of from 30 to 35 percent.That is a fairly stiff proposal. I -should like the Acting Prime Minister *to* point out a line of evidence in the whole of the vast volumes submitted by the Commission to the Parliament wherein any witness asked for such a duty. {: .speaker-KIN} ##### Sir William Lyne: -- I think that a lot of witnesses refrained from coming forward. " {: .speaker-KYJ} ##### Sir JOHN QUICK: -- One would think that if the woollen industry were endangered by the use of denims some of the witnesses on woollens would have made out a big case for a higher duty. I should have been one of the first to realize that.. In reference to the item " Velvets, Ribbons,Tucked Linens, and Cottons," the duty has been raised from 15 to 20 per cent. I see no reason for that increase, even in regard to British imports. The next item is " Cotton, Linen, Jute, Other. Piece Goods." Under the old Tariff jute was free, whilst cotton piece goods were liable to a revenue duty of 5 per cent. The Commission recommended the continuance of the 5 per cent. duty as a revenue tariff, but I find, to my utter amazement, that the Government propose that these raw materials - " cotton and linen and other piece goods" - shall be subject to a duty of 20 per cent. in the case of British imports, and to a duty of 25 per cent. in the case of imports from the rest of the world. Cotton and linen piece goods are raw materials used in all the clothing factories in Australia. They are also the raw material of tent and sail manufacturers, and are likewise used by bag and sack manufacturers, as well as in various other departments of trade. {: .speaker-KIN} ##### Sir William Lyne: -- The honorable member is referring to jute goods. {: .speaker-KYJ} ##### Sir JOHN QUICK: -- No. Some bags and sacks are made out of calico, and, as a matter of fact, calico bag manufacturers asked for a reduction of the old duty of 5 per cent. The Government, . however, instead of reducing the duty on this raw material for bags and sacks, have increased it to 20 per cent. in some cases and 25 per cent. in others. That is a great mistake. These new duties will be found very oppressive. They will be oppressive to every dressmaker, tailor, and clothier in Australia. I should not be surprised if there Were a general outcry against this proposition. {: .speaker-KIN} ##### Sir William Lyne: -- Did the honorable member expect that the Government would adhereto every recommendation made by the Commission and would not exercise its own discretion?. {: .speaker-KYJ} ##### Sir JOHN QUICK: -- I hold that there isno justification for imposing such enormous revenue duties as these. The Commission thought that towels, handkerchiefs, and serviettes, except, such as are made of silk-all articles of common domestic and personal use - should be treated -in the same way as curtains and blinds, and recommended: a reduction of the duty' from. 20 per cent, to 10 per cent.; but the Government, instead of accepting that reduction," proposes the enormous rates of 25 and' 30' per cent; {: .speaker-L1R} ##### Mr Wynne: -- We seem to be expected to do what the Japanese do - use pieces of paper. {: .speaker-KYJ} ##### Sir JOHN QUICK: -- Coming . now to flannelette, an article of common use throughout Australia, I at one time thought it a very dangerous material, and a member of the last Parliament went so far. as to suggest that its use should be prohibited. {: .speaker-KIN} ##### Sir William Lyne: -- I think that it should. {: .speaker-KYJ} ##### Sir JOHN QUICK: -- The Commission, having obtained the views of the trade throughout the Commonwealth, arrived at the conclusion that it would be most unjust, unfair, and improper to prohibit the use of so universally popular an article. It may be dangerous, but so are many other articles of clothing, and if we prohibited the use of all dangerous materials, the list of importations would be very small. We were informed that flannelette is used by thousands of persons belonging to the poorer classes for the making of under garments, and that the duty of. 15; per cent, was an oppressive one. We, therefore, considered ourselves justified in recommending a duty of 5 per cent., treating flannelette as linen and cotton piece goods were treated, because it is. a piece good, Wemadethisrecommendationasaconcession to the drapery trade andtoconsumers. In launching a big Tariff,itisa mistake to make toomanyenemies Duties, however, havebeenraisedover such a wide area that auniversaloutcry has been caused. SirWilliamLyne.-Idonotcarefor that a bit.IfIthinkathingright,Ido it. {: .speaker-KYJ} ##### Sir JOHN QUICK: -- Weoughtnotto Unnecessarily tax raw -material. The duties, on trimmings and ornaments have been fixed at from . 15 to 20 per cent. {: .speaker-KLB} ##### Mr Mahon: -- I am afraid this speech will not suit the *Age.* {: .speaker-KYJ} ##### Sir JOHN QUICK: -- I am speaking about duties on raw materials ; no question of protection is involved.Itis an outrage to impose revenue duties of 25 per cent. **Sir William** Lyne. - The honorable member is a fine protectionist ! {: .speaker-KYJ} ##### Sir JOHN QUICK: -- I have beenreferring to revenue,not to protective duties.' The duty on incandescent mantles has been increased from 15 to 30 and40 per cent.-: I- should like some explanation for that increase. Then, miners', safety lamps,formerly admitted free, are now dutiable at 10percentIfimportedfromcountries other than Great Britain, as are also agricultural implements and parts, which also were formerly admitted free of . duty. Mixed metal and plated-ware was, under the first Tariff, dutiable at 20 per cent., a very substantial revenue duty,' which affected a very large number of items; but the rate is now 25 per cent, against British goods and 30 per cent, against goods from other countries. Screws, formerly on the free list, are now dutiable at 5 per cent., and the rate on machines and machinery n.e.i, has been raised from 12J to 20 and 25 per cent., and that on china-ware from 20 to 25 and 35 per cent. Carbide of calcium, the raw material from which acetylene gas - which is used as an illuminant - is made, was formerly free* but is now dutiable at 10 per cent. I know of no justification for that duty. There was a fight over the question when the last Tariff was under discussion, and I shall see that it is renewed. I feel very strongly about the raising of duties on the list of articles which I have read, which are all raw materials, or parts of finished products. With regard to protective duties, I do not take so much exception to the proposals of the Government, as they present fair ground for difference of opinion; but I regard it as a deplorable departure from sound principles of taxation to impose high rates of duty on raw materials and parts of finished articles not made in. Australia. The action of the Government will greatly prejudice the Tariff, and do much to prevent its settlement on a fair and enduring basis. I wish to refer to one other matter before I sit down - the question of wages and conditions. In recommending the substantial increases which I have enumerated, amounting to upwards of forty-seven' on large items, the protectionist members of the Commission report that - We consider that where protective duties are substantially increased, provision should be made to secure payment of reasonable wages to persons engaged in the industries benefited by such duties. That proposal seems to be one which is likely to receive recognition from honorable members generally, the only difference of opinion being as to how best to give effect to it. The method suggested by the Commission is that adopted last session in connexion with the imposition of higher duties on stripper-harvesters, namely, that manufacturers who are benefited by substantialincreases in import duties shall be compelled to pay fair and reasonable wages to their employes, on pain of being liable, if they fail to do so, to pay excise duties equal to the import duties. I admit that therewill be a certain amount of inconvenienceand difficulty in enforcing such a provision.. The best thing would be for the Federal Parliament to acquire, if it could, completecontrol of industrial conditions. At pre-, sent we have not that control, and can dealonly with industrial disputes extending beyond the borders of a State. It must beremembered, however, that in Victoria at the present time there are Wages Boards which have a limited jurisdiction in connexion with labour conditions in a large number of trades and industries, and similarBoards, with very limited powers, in South* Australia, .and that in New South" Wales, and in Western Australia there is an Arbitration Court. I admit that the present machinery for the determination of industrial conditions is imperfect, and I hope that the Parliaments of the States, in view of the high protective duties which have been imposed, will re-organize and improve it, with a view to securing fair treatment to the workers. {: .speaker-KJ8} ##### Mr Hutchison: -- We must be sure that they will do so before we' grant too much: protection. {: .speaker-KYJ} ##### Sir JOHN QUICK: -- We cannot wait for that, and must, therefore, in the meantime make some such provision as that to> which I have referred. {: .speaker-KJ8} ##### Mr Hutchison: -- It has already proved" a failure, and is being violated shockingly. {: .speaker-KYJ} ##### Sir JOHN QUICK: -- The Government is responsible for the administration of the law. If it be proved a failure, I shall be prepared to consider any alternative that may be proposed in its place, even that suggested by the Labour Party - the constitution of a tribunal with jurisdiction to deaf with disputes arising in connexion with protected industries, and to deal with selling prices. The time has arrived when weshould make .adequate, comprehensive, and permanent provision for dealing 'with this class of industrial disputes, and we should make it a condition precedent fo,- or associated with, any increase of protection that thf workers as well as the manufacturer* shall secure substantial advantages therefrom. I have now covered most of the* ground which will be gone over in detail when we come to deal with the separateitems of the Tariff. The good temper and business-like spirit which 'has been shown by the Committee to-night is an evidence- that honorable members are disposed to deal with this matter in a fair and business-like way, and to dispose of it as expeditiously as possible. I concur in the view that has been expressed in this Chamber, and in the press, that we ought to obtain a settlement of the Tariff question which will remain for some years. I should be very sorry to think that we are to have fiscal battles every four or five years. Such a thing would be a calamity to Australia. Let us, therefore, try to secure a settlement which will last at least ten years. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 -- Matters cannot be settled in a way which will satisfy one State only. {: .speaker-KYJ} ##### Sir JOHN QUICK: -- I am anxious fo secure a settlement which will give fair consideration to all the States. In the performance of the difficult and onerous task imposed on me as Chairman of the Tariff Commission, I refused to be a party to any recommendation, or to submit any report, until I had heard the particular case stated from the point of view of those interested in each State, and in dealing with the Tariff I shall endeavour to deal with all proposals from the Australian stand-point. I shall be as ready to do justice to an in-, dustry in Western Australia or in Queensland as to an industry in Victoria. I wish also to protect consumers from traders who are taking advantage of a duty to charge extortionate prices, and, therefore, shall be prepared to vest the tribunal to which I have referred with authority to investigate unwarrantable increases in prices, and, where the public are being fleeced, to report to Parliament, which should be able to suspend the duty by the adoption of an address to His Excellency the Governor-General. {: .speaker-F4P} ##### Mr Reid: -- It is a matter of quality, as well as of price. {: .speaker-KYJ} ##### Sir JOHN QUICK: -Certainly. I should be very sorry, indeed, to be a party to any protectionist scheme or system that violated justice to the consumer, or did not provide the consumer protection against rings, combinations and trusts of every kind. {: .speaker-F4P} ##### Mr Reid: -- And shoddy. {: .speaker-KYJ} ##### Sir JOHN QUICK: -- And shoddy. A proposal has already been indicated for a permanent tribunal - a standing, watching tribunal, so to 'speak - to promptly deal with such questions as they arise, and to report to Parliament, .and place us- in possession of grievances and anomalies as they arise. If that proposal were carried out it would prevent those periodical revolutions or convulsions which accompany such a Tariff revision as that on which we are now entering. One cannot help recognising the difficulties ' which traders and merchants have to encounter when Tariff changes are proposed. A great many matters have. to be taken into consideration at such a crisis ; and it is of no use regarding harshly men who have to look after their own interests and protect themselves. Merchants and traders do not know what is going to happen - whether these proposed duties will be permanent, or whether they will be raised or lowered - and we have to be very careful not to be unjust to them. Above all, we can help those merchants and traders by dealing with the Tariff promptly and expeditiously, so that, as soon as possible, trade and commerce may resume its normal course. A number of merchants, storekeepers, and retailers, who are now up in arms with complaints, will, I believe, patriotically adapt themselves to such changes as Parliament may eventually authorize, and will deal with this new Tariff as they did with the last Tariff. After the spasm, so to speak, of the change was over on the last occasion trade and commerce adapted itself to the new conditions, and, eventually, the storm passed away; and I hope we shall have the same experience on this occasion, only in a shorter time. It would greatly facilitate matters if honorable members, while insisting on debating all points fairly and exhaustively, would aim at an early solution and settlement of the Tariff question. In conclusion, I may, perhaps, be permitted to say a word on behalf of myself and colleagues on the Tariff Commission, both free-traders and protectionists, who worked together harmoniously for two years and a half. We held 'and represented different fiscal views, and each of us, in his respective sphere,, had his duties to perform. We have done our duty, and we have presented to His Excellency the Governor-General, to Parliament, and to the people of Australia, our respective conclusions, which we believe to be founded on, and justified by, the evidence laid before us. We hope and trust that the result of our labours will be fairly considered on both sides, and that, as a result, we shall receive the approbation of the people of Australia and of this Parliament. {: #subdebate-12-1-s4 .speaker-K99} ##### Mr JOHNSON:
Lang .- I had hoped we should have the advantage of hearing other members of the Tariff Commission, so as to have, obtained a little more light than we possess at the present time. Unfortunately, the members of the Tariff Commission do not seem prepared to proceed; and, consequently, unless we are willing to allow the debate to lapse i* must be continued under somewhat disadvantageous circumstances. Every one will agree that the labours of the Tariff Commission! have been very exhaustive. The work of taking evidence was proceeded with in the most painstaking manner ; and no one will grudge the members of the Commission every meed of the praise which is their due for the earnestness and conscientiousness which they exhibited in the performance of a most arduous and intricate task. It is a disadvantage that we should have to consider the Tariff in connexion with the Budget, and thus be forced into placing the latter in a secondary place. The Budget is most important, and must occupy a considerable portion of our time. However, under the circumstances, we have no option but to deal with both at one and the same time ; indeed;, as they are both more or less interrelated it is almost impossible to en!tirely separate one from the other. When the 'Tariff Commission was appointed, it was for the purpose of trying to satisfactorily adjust anomalies in the existing Tariff. It was never contemplated for a moment that the investigation would lead to any Government introducing such a drastic measure of protection as is now before us. The Tariff Commission, so far as its original, intention is concerned, has "been absolutely abortive. After two years and a half of exhaustive effort - after the taking of evidence running into tens of thousands of pages, and after carefully sifting that evidence, and reporting the result ot their investigations - we find the Government of the day ignoring the recommendations of the Commission in many of the most important items. {: .speaker-KIN} ##### Sir William Lyne: -- The Government have accepted the recommendations of the Commission in 542 cases. {: .speaker-F4P} ##### Mr Reid: -- That is, ibo cases more than there are item's in -the Tariff! {: .speaker-K99} ##### Mr JOHNSON: -- There are 444 items iri the Tariff, and the Minister says he has accepted 542 of the Commission's recommendations. {: .speaker-KIN} ##### Sir William Lyne: -- The figure I have given does not represent individual items, but different rates which the Commission recommended.. In some of the items several articles are grouped'. {: .speaker-K99} ##### Mr JOHNSON: -- Quite so; but the Chairman of the Tariff Commission has pointed Out-.'a number of instances in which the Government have absolutely ignored the recommendations of himself and colleagues, and -have' imposed .duties entirely in opposition to those recommendations,and .these were protectionist recommendations, too. On the fiscal question generally, honorable members know that I am a strong free-trader, and that I have never disguised that fact from either the House or my constituents. My esteemed leader refused to make the fiscal question an issue ' at the " . last general elections. He deemed it necessary to try to. combine protectionists and" free-traders into one strong element antagonistic to the socialistic, doctrine. ' The result was that, outside Victoria, the fiscal question was not an issue, at the general election. The real issue was Socialism *versus.* antiSocialism; and protectionists and freetraders' were invited' to stand on one common platform in opposition to the Socialistic proposals of the Labour Party. {: .speaker-L17} ##### Mr Wilks: -- Thousands of protectionists did not' respond. {: .speaker-K99} ##### Mr JOHNSON: -- That is so; nevertheless the invitation was extended. The leader of the Opposition toured various electorates throughout Australia, and invited all to sink the -fiscal issue, so- that moderate ' protectionists . and ' free-traders could oppose themselves as one body against Socialism. Largely as a result of that invitation- {: .speaker-JNV} ##### Mr Bamford: -- No. {: .speaker-K99} ##### Mr JOHNSON: -- I think I may fairly say that as a result of that invitation a number of protectionists were returned, but not as protectionists. They were returned largely on free-trade votes pledged to fiscal ' peace ;' and I do not see how such honorable members can be expected, to support the present Tariff proposals of the Government. These members were returned for the express purpose of fighting against the' encroachment of socialistic " legislation ; and!, therefore, it cannot be claimed' that, outside Victoria, the general election was a victory for the protectionist party.' 'In Victoria,' however, the fiscal issue was put plainly before the people, and a demand was raised for effective protection ; arid, therefore, Victorian protectionists "are quite right in supporting higher duties. If the re- suit is, as we are told, a victory for protection, I cannot understand why protectionists are growling about the present Tariff proposals. The nearer protection approaches to prohibition the more effective it must necessarily be. If T 'were, a protectionist, 'I should hail these- proposals with delight, and where they did not reach the point of prohibition I should endeavour to make them do so, because anything short of that will not represent effective protection. Any duty which yields a . -revenue must permit of goods being imported into the Commonwealthgoods against which our local manufacturers have to compete. So long as goods can be imported, it cannot be argued that protection has reached the point of thorough effectiveness. Consequently I am somewhat' amused when I see avowed protectionists carried away with indignation at the proposals of the Government. Personally I do npt wonder that the Acting Prime Minister should be entertained at dinner, and eulogized by our manufacturers, who- will reap the rich harvests of monopoly prices at the expense of the unfortunate people. What is the position today? We find that throughout Australia industries are flourishing. But I do not believe that they are flourishing as the result of the Tariff. We have had the advantage of splendid seasons, and people are prosperous not because of the Tariff but in spite of it. It is one of the most hopeful signs of which we must take cognizance, that our natural resources are so great that, with bountiful seasons, we can overcome the disadvantages of almost, any kind of mischievous legislation. But such' seasons cannot always continue. We shall have our lean years as well as our fat years, and I venture to say that if we had experienced lean reasons instead of fat ones, the effect of the existing Tariff would have been felt much more severely than it has been. The members of the present Government and the protectionists who sit behind them in this House occupy a very peculiar position. They point with immense satisfaction to the fact that the removal of the fiscal barriers between the States has had a beneficial effect in extending the markets of our local producers. Yet. prior to Federation, we were accustomed to hear them inveighing against the manufactories of all the other States. In those days, their whole object was not to secure protection against the outside world but to secure themselves from the competi tion of their neighbours across the borders. The Acting Prime Minister, the PostmasterGeneral, and the Minister of Trade and Customs used to adopt that attitude. Yet now they aire forced to admit the beneficial effects of the removal of those fiscal barriers between States which before Federation they insisted were necessary to insure prosperity. Prior to Federation, it must be recollected, that very high protectionist duties were levied in Victoria. Under' their operation, its industries were languishing, and population was leaving the country at the rate of thousands per annum. Indeed, this State, immediately before Federation, seemed -to be threatened with a complete exodus of its adult male population. Its factories were filled with children, and the wages paid therein were very low. An inquiry into the industrial conditions which obtained here resulted in shocking disclosures' in regard to sweating. We have' also to remember that whenever a strike occurred- in freetrade New South Wales, Protectionist Victoria was - always able to send blacklegs there. These were the conditions that obtained in this State prior to Federation. The honorable member for Bendigo declared that the object of this Tariff was to prevent- the industries of the Commonwealth from having to compete against the 'cheap labour countries of the old world. Germany was instanced as 'a shocking example in this connexion. What the honorable member forgot to "lel 1 us was that the labour of the very countries to which he referred was the most highly protected in the world. The Government now tell us that they intend to go in for what is known as the "new protection." They propose to introduce a system by which a portion of the increased duties shall go towards insuring the payment of a reasonable wage in protected industries. It was to secure that end that a proviso relating to the payment of Excise was inserted iri the Bill dealing with harvesters which was passed by the last Parliament. But singularly enough we can obtain no official information as to whether* reasonable wages have been paid in that ' industry. Nobody has been appointed to investigate the matter, and for aught we know to the contrary sweating may 'be practiced in that industry at the present time. The Acting Prime Minister has told us that he proposes to secure the same result in connexion with all other industries, either by inserting' a similar provision in the Tariff, or by adopting another scheme which, has been outlined by a Committee of the Labour Party. I venture to say that that scheme, plausible as it appears on the surface, will prove equally a failure with that adopted in connexion with the manufacture of harvesters'. There is only one way by which we can insure the payment of a reasonable rate of wages. The rate of wages payable in any industry is governed by the laws of supply and- demand, just as is everything else. Any artificial means that we may adopt for raising wages, without having regard to natural laws, must of necessity ultimately fail of its object. The Acting Prime Minister advocates still another scheme in this connexion, namely, the appointment of a Board of Trade, or Inter-State Commission, whose function it shall be to protect, not only the workers in all industries, but also the consumer. What a farce is the whole proceeding ! Once they seek to reduce prices in the consumers' interest the demand for a reduction of wages is inevitable, to make up the difference to _ the manufacturer, or the dutv will fail fromthe manufacturers' stand-point. The proposal must break down, because it fails to recognise the one natural law which governs this question, just as it governs every other question connected, with production and exchange. It was evident from the speech' delivered by the honorable and learned member for Bendigo that the whole purpose of the Tariff was directed to counteracting the cheapness of imported goods. He " instanced the case of glass bottles as a shocking attempt on the part of importers to bring in cheap goods to the detriment of the Australian glass bottle producer. Cheapness was the principal ground of his complaint. Yet, shortly afterwards, the honorable and learned member adopted an entirely different" line of argument. He told us that the effect of imposing a duty upon salt would not be to make that commodity dearer, but to make it cheaper. So that, simultaneously, we are asked to believe that the effect of protective duties will be to increase prices and also to lower them. When the honorable and learned member made this statement, I asked him to explain his paradoxical proposition, but he was conveniently deaf to my interjection. Upon the ground that we ought to be a self-contained community - that is a favorite expression of the Acting Prime Minister - we are told that we should pro- duce everything that we require. The United States has been pointed to as a great example of what can be accomplished in this direction. But the honorable and learned member for Bendigo, and others who entertain a similar view, always forget that there is a vast difference between the population of Australia and that of the United States. In Australia, we have a population of only about 4,250,000 as against a population of something like 82,000,000 in the United States. That which is possible in America, which is practically a world in itself, possessing, at variety of climatic conditions and soils, and natural resources of great variety and almost unlimited extent, is not necessarily possible in Australia, with its more limited population. Scattered all over the Commonwealth, we have a population considerably less than that of London. Would the Minister, and- those who agree with him in making these proposals, say that London should be self-contained - that it should produce everything it needs, and refuse to trade with the outside world? Would not such a proposition De scouted as unreasonable? It would be no more unreasonable, however, than is the proposition of the Acting, Prime Minister regarding what the people of Australia should do. If the Tariff is required to protect Australian industries against the cheap labour productions of Great Britain and foreign countries, how can such a statement be reconciled with the assertion that under it prices will not be increased? If prices are not to be increased as the result of this Tariff, then the proposed protection must fail. If locally-produced goods are to be sold as cheaply as imported goods, then there is nothing to fear from foreign competition, and there is no reason for the Tariff. But do .we not know, in the light of Victoria's long experience of protection, that the inevitable result of that policy is to increase to the consumer , the price of goods coming under it. It is ali very well to say, " We shall regulate prices by the appointment of an Inter-State Commission or a Board of Trade." But if we are going to regulate and bring down the prices of local articles to those of the imported article, a protective Tariff must be absolutely useless. {: .speaker-KIN} ##### Sir William Lyne: -- I did not say that we should do such a thing. {: .speaker-K99} ##### Mr JOHNSON: -- The honorable member, and others who share his view of. the fiscal question, have said again and again that the internal competition resulting from a high protective Tariff will effectively prevent the raising of prices to the consumer. {: .speaker-KIN} ##### Sir William Lyne: -- What I say is that the increased output would enable local manufacturers to carry on with a smaller margin of profit. {: .speaker-K99} ##### Mr JOHNSON: -- That necessarily means that they must sell at a reduced price. The argument of the protectionist anxious to throw dust in the eyes of traders invariably is that protection will not raise prices. A moment's consideration must show any reasonable man that protection would be absolutely useless unless it did. That is the purpose and object of a protective policy. Therefore, when protectionists profess to be indignant at the suggestion that prices have beenrasied because of protective duties, I very much doubt the sincerity of their protestations, or else am forced to the conclusion that they are unreasoning beings. When we aretold of the advantages which have followed the removal, consequent upon Federation, of Tariff restrictions as between the States, we are naturally tempted to inquire whether a farmore beneficial result would not attend the removal of the barriers to trade between Australia and other countries. If the principle is right in itself it must be right all along the line. If it is right that Australia as a whole should be a self-contained community, that it should manufactureeverything that it requires for itself, and try to shut out the products of other countries, then we must contract the sphere of. operations, and apply the same principle to any division of Australia. . If it is right and . beneficial for the whole of Australia, it must be right and beneficial for any one State in the Commonwealth. Then again, if it be beneficial to any one State, it must be beneficial to any one country,, village, or household in Australia. When we come down to this - the -logical conclusion to the argument of the Protectionist Party - we find that we are reduced to the condition of primitive savages who have to manufacture everything for their own use, and have no opportunity or inclination to trade with others. We reach a condition of absolute barbarism. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 -- Where the people clothe themselves with, fig leaves. {: .speaker-K99} ##### Mr JOHNSON: -- That proposition was hailedwith satisfaction by one of the shininglightsinthevictorianworldof protection; I refer to **Mr. Joshua',** who said, I believe, that he would prefer to see every one in Australia, clothed with the primitive fig leaf, rather than that they should wear any article not made in the Commonwealth. What a narrow provincial feeling such a statement displays ! A man who has expressed such a view needs to travel and learn something. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 -- Is **Mr. Joshua** a manufacturer of whisky? {: .speaker-K99} ##### Mr JOHNSON: -- I believe he is. He now describes himself as the " top dog," and boasts of the power he possesses under the Tariff to take advantage of the unfortunate public. The consumers of any of the goods, dealt with in the Tariff are the last to be considered. What does it matter to him and those who share his view if the wife of a working man finds when she pays her grocer's bill at the end of the week that her husband's wages will not go as far as they did before this Tariff was imposed? What does it matter if she finds she has to pay morefor her children's clothing? What does if matter if she cannot afford to buy boots for her boys and girls? She may not have the money, but she should rejoice to know that though her children go naked and hungry, the food and clothing as well as the money are all still in the country. Throughout Australia there is an outcry against the Tariff. But for the fact that as freetraders we have a duty to perform in seeking to reduce these duties to normal proportions, it would be well for us to allow the Tariff to pass as introduced. **Mr.** Mathews__ I wish the Opposition would give us the chance of passingitin that form. {: .speaker-K99} ##### Mr JOHNSON: -- I am pledged to fight for a reduction of the duties, and intend to do so. But for such a pledge I should say that the best thing that could happen to the cause of freedom and rationalism in this country would be the passing of the Tariff in its present form. If we let the people feel the pinch of it we should not have again to. appeal to them, as we have had to do, togo to the poll at a general election. The merchants, and, unfortunately, a good many of the women who have to make their husbands wages go as far as possible, as' well as women in other spheres of life who would feel the pinch of this Tariff, cannot be persuaded to go to the poll. {: .speaker-KXO} ##### Mr Page: -- The honorable member's crowd would not let them. {: .speaker-K99} ##### Mr JOHNSON: -- Many of them did not do so at the last general election, but IfeelconfidentthatifthisTariff were tobepassedasitstandsthepinchwould be felt by thesepeople ; so keenly that at the next general election we should have such a revulsion of feeling, against protection that we might look forward to an era of free-trade placidity and real prosperity. We should not hear very much about protection for at least another decade. Mr.Austin Chapman.- Can the honorablemember tell us . if the workers, would secure any wages under the policyof which he is in favour? {: .speaker-K99} ##### Mr JOHNSON: -- I will undertake to say . that employment would be more plentiful and wages more satisfactory. The seasons of late have been so prosperous that had Parliament imposed no artificial barriers against commercial development, the people would be better off than they are now. When the leader of the Opposition was in power in . New South Wales, and ; the import duties affected only, . half-a-dozen items, and were . merely revenue producing - in their ' incidence, wages were . higher and industrial conditions better than in any other period in the history of the State. Unfortunately the Labour Party, in a -moment . of . madness, turned that Administration out- of office because of a paltry detail,andput into power : a. protectionistGovernment, which forthwith launched into the greatest extravagance, and increased the public debt by £15,000,000 before it could be got rid of. {: .speaker-JX7} ##### Mr Austin Chapman: -- The honorable member admits that the Labour Party kept the right honorable member for East Sydney in power for. five years. {: .speaker-K99} ##### Mr JOHNSON: -It suited the Labour Party, to support him, becausethey got moredemocratic legislation from him than they had ever had before. He was the only man occupying a responsible position in politics who had the courage to face the big landholders, and propose a tax on land values, the -results of which were very beneficial, and' would have been more so had it not been for the exemptions insisted onbythe leader of the Labour Party. {: .speaker-F4R} ##### Mr Watson: -bytherighthonorable member forEastSydney. {: .speaker-K99} ##### Mr JOHNSON: -- I have thehonorable member's speech. {: .speaker-F4R} ##### Mr Watson: -- I rememberthe Bill. {: .speaker-K99} ##### Mr JOHNSON: -- Western Australia, South Australia, Tasmania, and Queens land will suffer severely under the newTariff, and the cost of mining operations-' at Broken Hill will be increased by something like , £40,000. {: .speaker-F4S} ##### Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 -- Surely we might adjourn now. Progress reported. House adjourned at10.19p.m.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 21 August 1907, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1907/19070821_reps_3_38/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant

House of Representatives21 August 1907

SUPPLY BILL (No. 2)

TARIFF: ACTION OF THE. NEW SOUTH WALES GOVERNMENT:

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:Treasurer · HUME, NEW SOUTH WALES · Protectionist

Mr McDonald:

Mr Tudor:

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:

Mr GLYNN:ANGAS, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:

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

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:

Mr Reid:

Mr Groom:

Mr Reid:

Mr GLYNN:

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:

QUESTION

NEW HEBRIDES

Mr JOHNSON:LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr AUSTIN CHAPMAN:Minister for Trade and Customs · EDEN-MONARO, NEW SOUTH WALES · Protectionist

LEAVE OF ABSENCE

QUESTION

KALGOORLIE TO PORT AUGUSTA RAILWAY SURVEY

Sir JOHN FORREST:SWAN, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:Protectionist

PAPERS

QUESTION

TELEGRAPH COMMUNICATION : WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Mr MAHON:COOLGARDIE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Mr MAUGER:Postmaster-General · MARIBYRNONG, VICTORIA · Protectionist

QUESTION

TARIFF

Mr WILKS:DALLEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:Protectionist

QUESTION

DERWENT INFANTRY REGIMENT

Mr McWILLIAMS:FRANKLIN, TASMANIA

Mr EWING:Minister for Defence · RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · Protectionist

QUESTION

ACTIVE SERVICE OF MILITARY OFFICERS

Mr REID:

Mr EWING:Protectionist

QUESTION

COURSE OF MILITARY INSTRUCTION, SYDNEY

Mr JOHN THOMSON:COWPER, NEW SOUTH WALES · PROT; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr EWING:Protectionist

QUESTION

PILBARRA GOLD-FIELD MAIL SERVICE

Mr MAHON:

Mr MAUGER:Protectionist

BUDGET

Customs and Excise Tariffs

In Committee of Ways and Means:

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:Treasurer · Hume · Protectionist

Mr REID:East Sydney

Mr Watson:

Mr REID:

Mr Watson:

Mr REID:

Mr Hutchison:

Mr REID:

Mr Fisher:

Mr REID:

Mr Fisher:

Mr REID:

Mr Fisher:

Mr REID:

Mr Mahon:

Mr Frazer:

Sir William Lyne:

Mr REID:

Sir William Lyne:

Mr REID:

Sir William Lyne:

Sir John Forrest:

Mr REID:

Sir John Forrest:

Mr REID:

Sir John Forrest:

Mr REID:

House of Representatives
21 August 1907

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:
Treasurer · HUME, NEW SOUTH WALES · Protectionist

Mr GLYNN:
ANGAS, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

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

Mr JOHNSON:
LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr AUSTIN CHAPMAN:
Minister for Trade and Customs · EDEN-MONARO, NEW SOUTH WALES · Protectionist

Sir JOHN FORREST:
SWAN, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:
Protectionist

Mr MAHON:
COOLGARDIE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Mr MAUGER:
Postmaster-General · MARIBYRNONG, VICTORIA · Protectionist

Mr WILKS:
DALLEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:
Protectionist

Mr McWILLIAMS:
FRANKLIN, TASMANIA

Mr EWING:
Minister for Defence · RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · Protectionist

Mr EWING:
Protectionist

Mr JOHN THOMSON:
COWPER, NEW SOUTH WALES · PROT; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr EWING:
Protectionist

Mr MAUGER:
Protectionist

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:
Treasurer · Hume · Protectionist

Mr REID:
East Sydney

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