View PDF View XML View in Voyant

House of Representatives
15 October 1907

3^rd Parliament · 2^nd Session

JUDICIARY BILL
PETITIONS
QUESTION
- WOMEN’S WORK EXHIBITION
QUESTION
- PAPUAN LAND SETTLEMENT
QUESTION
- DELAYS IN TELEGRAPH DEPARTMENT
QUESTION
- INDIGENT AUTHORS’ FUND
QUESTION
- SPANISH IMMIGRANTS
QUESTION
- EXCISE TARIFF (SPIRITS) ACT
QUESTION
- COMMONWEALTH OFFICES IN LONDON
CLERICAL DIVISION, PUBLIC SERVICE : PROMOTIONS
QUESTION
- OVERTIME : SYDNEY POST OFFICE
QUESTION
- ADDITIONAL EMPLOYES, SYDNEY POST OFFICE
QUESTION
- POSTAL. TELEGRAPHIC, AND TELEPHONE REVENUE, VICTORIA
QUESTION
- PATENT MEDICINES
QUESTION
- BUTTER GRADING
QUESTION
- WIRE NETTING ; REFUND OF DUTIES
TARIFF
- Import Duties
PAPERS
ADJOURNMENT
- Conductof Business

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

page 4646

JUDICIARY BILL

Assent reported.

page 4646

PETITIONS

Delay in the receipt and despatch of interstate telegraphic business is, so far as Brisbane is /concerned, assuming a seriously chronic state. Almost every night last week, last night, and this evening again, business was subject to consider, able delay. Complaints are numerous, and it is held that the department should immediately take steps to remedy a state of affairs which is both irritating and costly to business firms, and the press alike.

Will the Postmaster-General take steps to remedy the state of affairs therein complained of, and to prevent future serious delays in the transmission of telegrams?

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

– I recognise the seriousness of the complaints, and shall have full inquiries made in respect of them. Anything that can be done to prevent delay will be done.

page 4647

QUESTION

INDIGENT AUTHORS’ FUND

Mr MAHON:
COOLGARDIE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– Last year a sum was voted for the relief of indigent authors. I should like to know from the Prime Minister whether grants have recently been made from the fund so created, and to be informed in respect to other particulars concerning it?

Mr DEAKIN:
Protectionist

– No grants have been made, the undertaking having been given that no money would be distributed until a proposition for its distribution had been laid before Parliament. Since last session a scheme has been drawn up by the Committee to which the question waa remitted, and I will lay it upon the table for the information of the House.

page 4647

QUESTION

SPANISH IMMIGRANTS

Mr BAMFORD:
HERBERT, QUEENSLAND

– I wish to ask the Prime Minister whether his attention has been drawn to a paragraph in this morning’s Argus under the heading of “ Dissatisfied immigrants, Queensland,” and referring to Spaniards? Perhaps I may be permitted to explain that a short time ago a reference was made to this matter in the press of Northern Queensland, and that it was then stated that the Spanish immigrants intended “ to appeal to their Consul for relief. I ask the honorable -and learned gentleman whether an appeal has been made to his knowledge, and, -if so, whether he has taken any action in connexion therewith?

Mr DEAKIN:
Protectionist

– I have not had an opportunity of reading the paragraph, nor received such a statement from- anyother source. On the contrary, when visiting Cairns, I took the opportunity of speaking, wherever possible, to the recent arrivals, although all those I met were of British parentage and spoke English. These were all thoroughly satisfied with the conditions of the work which they were then carrying on. I heard of Spaniards, but had no opportunity to meet them.

Mr Bamford:

– The honorable gentleman has heard no complaint from the Consul?

Mr DEAKIN:

– I have heard nothing from the Consul. From this paragraph it appears that the dissatisfaction of the men is- with their work, although they have tried both cane-fields and railway work. If thev are dissatisfied with both classes of work- _

Mr Page:

– They say that they are dissatisfied with the “ tucker ‘.’ ‘and the quarters.

Mr Fairbairn:

– And with their sleeping accommodation.

Mr DEAKIN:

– If the men were provided with the food and accommodation which I saw at a number of places, and were yet dissatisfied, they must have possessed much more comfortable lodgings in their own country than, so far as my knowledge of it goes, are generally available for men of their class.

– As I told the honorable member just now, I shall be very glad if he will give notice of a definite question, so that I can furnish him with a definite answer.

Mr Hutchison:

– What is the Government policy?

Mr AUSTIN CHAPMAN:

– I may tell the honorable member for Hindmarsh that inquiries have been made, . and that a notification’ has been sent out to each distiller. I shall be happy to furnish a copy of the notice to any honorable member. I am not in a position to say what replies have been received unless I am afforded an opportunity to obtain them from the Department.

page 4648

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH OFFICES IN LONDON

Mr WISE:
GIPPSLAND, VICTORIA

– I beg to ask the Treasurer if he can inform the House what steps are being taken towards securing a site in the Strand for Commonwealth Offices?

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

– Sinqe the matter was dealt with by the House and the Senate, telegrams have been despatched making an offer, but up to the present time no reply has been received. We have decided that if we do purchase the site, the building shall be erected in such a way that we shall be able to offer to each. State a section of it without making any charge.

page 4648

CLERICAL DIVISION, PUBLIC SERVICE : PROMOTIONS

Mr. POYNTON (for Mr. Thomas

Brown) asked the Postmaster-General, upon notice -

How many officers in the 5th Class Clerical Division in the Postal. Department in New South Wales were recom mended for promotion to the 4th Class for the year 1906-7?

How many such recommended promotions were provided for in the Estimates for that year ?

How are these recommendations arrived at, and who are responsible for them?

Who reports on those recommendations, and what is the special information on which these reports are based, and how is it obtained ?

In cases, if any, where recommendations, were disallowed, what were the general reasons for such disallowance?

How many promotions from Class 5 toClass 4 have been recommended for theyear 1907-8?

How many such recommended promotions have been’ provided for in the Estimates for 1907-8?

Mr MAUGER:
Protectionist

– The Public Service Commissioner has furnished the following inf ormation-

Seven officers.
All the officers recommended were provided for on Estimates 1906-7.
The recommendations were made by the Chief Officer and Permanent Head of the Department, who are responsible for them.
Recommendations for class promotions are reported upon by the Public Service Inspector, who, from his knowledge of the work performed, is able to advise whether or not there is justification for raising the classification of an officers position.
No recommendations were disallowed.
Eighteen officers were recommended, and, in addition, forty-three officers whose duties and work are not considered as warranting more than fifth class classification, and to promote whom to a higher class would inflict injustice on a large number of other officers.
Out of the eighteen above mentioned, it was found that eleven of the positions justified a higher grading, and provision has been made on the Estimates for this number of promotions from 5th to the 4th Class.

page 4649

QUESTION

OVERTIME : SYDNEY POST OFFICE

Mr J H CATTS:
for Mr. Webster

asked the Postmaster-General, upon notice -

Whether it is a fact that 32,000 hours of overtime have been worked by the clerical branches in the General Post Office, Sydney, no compensation being allowed, either in money payment or “ time off “ ?
Is he aware that such overtime represents 800 official weeks of labour, and that 396 weeks of accumulated annual leave were due?
Does the Minister propose to pay for the overtime worked? or
Does he intend to grant “time off” to com pensate the staff?
Is it a fact that he has issued orders that overtime must cease forthwith ?

Mr MAUGER:
Protectionist

– The information necessary to enable these questions to be answered is not yet complete. Answers will be furnished as early as possible.

page 4649

QUESTION

ADDITIONAL EMPLOYES, SYDNEY POST OFFICE

Mr J H CATTS:
for Mr. Webster

asked the Postmaser - General, upon notice -

Whether it is a fact that the Deputy PostmasterGeneral, Sydney, asked for an additional 600 hands to insure an efficient working of the Postal Department in the State of New South Wales?
Is it also a fact that the Estimates only provide for an additional 267 hands?
How does the Minister propose to reduce overtime - or grant leave long overdue?
Does he propose to increase the nonpermanent hands, and so agrravate the cause of the (present undesirable condition of the service?

Mr MAUGER:
Protectionist

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

Yes.
Yes.
and 4. The number of hands asked for was recluced by the Treasurer because he considered it undesirable to largely increase, permanently, “the staff required to deal with the business in a time of great activity which might not be constant, and because he thought that the immediate pressure could be adequately met by the employment of temporary hands, for which he was willing to make provision, vide his statement (page 3310 of Hansard). .

page 4649

QUESTION

POSTAL. TELEGRAPHIC, AND TELEPHONE REVENUE, VICTORIA

Mr McDOUGALL:
WANNON, VICTORIA

asked the FostmasterGeneral, upon notice-

Whether the amount of revenue earned by the postal, telegraph, and telephone services last year was greater in Melbourne and suburbs than in the remainder of the State of Victoria?
If so, what was the difference?

Mr MAUGER:
Protectionist

-The Acting Deputy Postmaster-General, Melbourne, has furnished the following information -

Yes.

page 4649

QUESTION

PATENT MEDICINES

Mr THOMAS:
BARRIER, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister of Trade and Customs, upon notice -

Whether definite instructions have been given to the importers of patent medicines to have placed on their boxes and labels a full description of the contents?

Mr AUSTIN CHAPMAN:
Protectionist

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

Instructions could only be conveyed in the form of regulations. As the Crown Law Officers advise that regulations of a general nature could only be framed, a Bill has been prepared to amend the law so as to accomplish this object.

page 4649

QUESTION

BUTTER GRADING

Mr SINCLAIR:
MORETON, QUEENSLAND

asked the Minister of Trade and Customs, upon notice -

Whether it is intended to alter the system of “ grade-marking “ butter by putting corresponding numbers on the goods and certificates to a system of “grade-marking” the boxes?

Mr AUSTIN CHAPMAN:
Protectionist

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

No, but it may be mentioned that if specially desired by exporters, it is the practice to place the grade mark on the boxes.

page 4649

QUESTION

WIRE NETTING ; REFUND OF DUTIES

Mr KNOX:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice -

In view of the decision of the Committee of Ways and Means to reduce the General Tariff on’ wire netting to 10 per cent., and United Kingdom 5 per cent., and in view also of the Government’s own voluntary proposal to reduce their

Tariff of 30 per cent, (general), and 25 per cent. (United Kingdom), to 15 per cent, and 10 Der cent, respectively - Whether, under these exceptional circumstances, the Government will agree to refund the excess duty which has already been collected ?

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:
Protectionist

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

It has been frequently pointed out that the refund of duty dbes not lie within the discretion of the Government, who have no power in the matter. Should Parliament decide that refunds shall be made, they will be made accordingly, but if Parliament decides otherwise, no refund can be given.

page 4650

TARIFF

In Committee of Ways and Means (Con sideration resumed from nth October, vide page 4645):

Import Duties

Mr Glynn:

– I occupied onlyfive minutes; and if the honorable member follows my precedent we shall have dealt with the matter in an hour.

Mr FISHER:

Mr MAHON:

– At a conference of sugar-growers held at Townsville in Februarv last, the chairman, evidently a very intelligent man. after referring to the Output of the Australian planter as being likelv to overtake the local consumption, said -

We are thus confronted with the novel experience in the history of sugar growing in Australia of being in the position of having a surplus to dispose of. Now. anv production in excess of the demand within the Commonwealth, can only be converted into money hy our competing in the world’s markets. In no’ country on the face of the earth, with the sole exception of Australia, is it attempted to grow sugar cane with other than coloured labour. In dealing with any surplus over the Australian demand, we are, therefore, at once brought into competition with those sugar countries which produce their sugar at a cheaper rate than we can do on account of the smaller cost of labour.

Mr MAHON:

– I think the growers are very lucky. I should like to be in their places.

Colonel Foxton. - I understand that that rebate is only allowed on imported sugar.

Mr MAHON:

– I can give the honorable member an official contradiction of that statement. I have here a paper which I received from the Comptroller-General of Customs, who will be recognised as an authority.

Colonel Foxton. - It was the ComptrollerGeneral or his representative who informed me this morning in the presence of three witnesses that such . was the case.

Mr MAHON:

– I will read the information supplied to me, and then the honorable member will be able to read any information that has been given to him. I am informed that -

When imported sugar is used, a draw-back’, of the import duty on sugar is allowed upon the exportation of Australian jam, but so that no allowance shall be made for sugar contents in excess of one-half of the total weight of the jam. This means that the whole duty is practically given back.

That is the position with regard to imported sugar -used in jam exported from Australia, but -

When excise sugar is used - by that the Comptroller-General of Customs means Australian sugar - a drawback is allowed up to 30s. per ton of the weight of the jam.

The full drawback is withheld, apparently, because the Department found itself unable to distinguish whether the sugar in the exported jam was grown here by white or black labour. According to the evidence of Mr. Peacock, a well-known jam manufacturer; ‘the. sugar contents of jam ‘ average about 50 per cent. Therefore, 30s..drawback per ton of jam means£3per ton of sugar; and it is the. practical equivalent of an export bounty on sugar.

Mr Fisher:

– It is less than . the average of the Excise from black-grown and’: whitegrown sugar.

Mr MAHON:

– I cannot followthe honorable member’s interjections Mycontention is that as the jammanufacturer obtains ‘a refund, of 36s. ‘per, tonof jam, the effect, is’ that,, so far as’.the exported jam- isconcerned, - we are’ giving.a, 25per “cent. export rebate’ on- the sugarcontents.

Mr MAHON:

– The total value of the jams exported during the past five years, as recorded by the Customs Department, was £419,530. I have not the tonnage. I can only estimate that by assuming that the wholesale price of a ton of jam would be about £16. The honorable member for Wide Bay was formerly under the impression that the sugar-grower paid his own bounty.

Mr Fisher:

– So he does.

Mr MAHON:

– Surely the honorable member does not hold . that view now ? It was exploded long ago. Yet I admit that the honorable member is not singular in holding this mistaken view. Newspapers which assume to be authorities on such matters propagate the delusion most industriously”. Not long ago, a Melbourne evening newspaper published what was intended to be an informative article to dispel popular misconceptions on this point. Here is its conclusion -

Now, to get away from fine phrasing and financing, and consequent confusing of the public mind in respect to the facts, the matter stands thus : At present a man who grows sugar in Australia has to pay£3 a ton for the privilege of doing so. If, however, he use only white labour, he pavs £1 instead of £3 - the so-called “bounty” of £2 being simply the arfount that is’ not taken from him.

The writer forgot to mention that, though the grower paid for the “-privilege” of producing sugar, he obtained £6 from the community by wayof an increased price for his crop. Then . the Sydney Bulletin, quite as recently as the 3rd inst., disseminated the same fallacy.

Mr Wilks:

-the Bulletin is the bible” of a good many persons.

Mr MAHON:

-It is not my bible. In rebuking the Sydney Morning Herald for having stated that the maintenance of the sugar industry was costing the people of Australia hundreds of thousands of pounds annually, the Bulletin says : - “

Yet -the fact is that so far from the sugar business costing anything Australia collects an Excise duty from the sugar producer of£3 per ton.

Evidently the writer is not up to date, because the present Excise is £4 per ton - not £3 per ton.” He continues -

If, however, the sugar is “white” grown a rebate equal to 4s. per cwt. of 10 per cent, sugar-cane (£2 per ton of sugar) is paid.

Here, again, the writer is somewhat belated, because the bounty now paid to the sugar grower is £3 per ton, and not £2 per ton. He then publishes a table showing the rate of Excise and of bounty pay: able in respect of sugar produced By white labour, and also containing a column which is headed “ Special Taxation Paid by the Sugar Industry.” There is intrinsic evidence in this paragraph that the writer knew better, and that he had some object to serve in concealing the real facts. He must have known the effect of the import duty in giving the planter £19 to £20 for a ton of sugar when its normal value in any free market would be from £12 to £14. Of course, there is some warrant for confusion on the point. If the authors of this complicated scheme of import duty, Excise duty, and bounty, designed to mystify the public, they could not have devised anything more successful. Hardly anybody outside understands the operation of this scheme, and there is some reason to believe that it is not fully understood in Parliament. The first fact to be gripped is that the import duty raises the price of locallygrown sugar by £6 per ton. Out of that enhanced price for his crop, the grower pays the Treasury an Excise duty of £4 per ton. But if his crop is produced exclusively by white labour, the grower is paid by the Treasury a bounty of £3 per ton. The white grower, therefore, receives a net advantage of £5 per ton on his crop. The grower who uses black labour also pays the £4 Excise, but he receives no bounty. His net advantage is the difference between the Excise duty, which he pays to the Treasury, and the increased price for his crop due to the import duty, and this difference amounts to £2 per ton. These are the exact facts, stated in the plainest terms at my command. Fortunately, even in Queensland, an effort has been made to dissipate the sophistry surrounding this question, and to state the real truth. A journal, known as The Commonwealth, ‘ published by exSenator Drake, has. had the fairness to give this convincing exposition of the point at issue -

Mr Tudor:

– That journal has since died.

Mr MAHON:

– Dead or alive, it was a courageous thing to stand up for the truth when connivance in falsehood might have been profitable. Upon the 24th March, 1.906, this journal published the following -

The bounty is not “ a rebate of Excise duty.”. It is very important to remember this, as it is by means of juggling with this and other items that interested persons have made some mosc ridiculous fallacies to bear the appearance of truth. A rebate, according to the dictionary, is “ a deduction from a gross or normal amount or sum; a’ drawback; discount.” The payment to the growers of sugar by white labour never came within this definition, or could come within miles of it. It is quite true that when the Excise Tariff Bill was passed in 1902 the payment was, with doubtful propriety, referred to as rebate; but that error was amended by the Sugar Rebate Abolition Act of the next year, which swept all” mention of rebate from the previous Act.

The bounty is paid, not out of Excise nor from any special ear-marked fund, but out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund. This is also important because persistent efforts have been made to represent’ the payment as connected . in some way with the Excise duty. There is no connexion whatever : and, further, the Act itself provides that allpayments’ that have pre-, viously been made under the heading of rebate shall bc taken to. have been paid as bounties. The bountv is paid by the whole of the people of Australia upon a capitation basis. Whether they live in a -sugar-growing State or not, whether they consume sugar or not, or what quantity of* sugar they do consume, matters nothing. The whole cost of the bounty is charged to the States exactly in proportion to the num ber of people in the State at the last count.

Mr Wilks:

– Whom is the honorable gentleman going to quote?

Mr MAHON:

– We cannot exclude the bounty.

Mr MAHON:

– If the import duty is reduced by £2 a ton, the growers will still have 25 per cent, protection.

Colonel Foxton. - Against the cheapest labour in the world.

Mr Watson:

– What will the survey of the railway to Western Australia cost?

Mr MAHON:

– Like the honorable member for Swan, I shall take that fence when I come to it.. I would remind the honorable member for Bass, as one who fully understands the position of Tasmania, that the total cost of this policy to his State, which financially is rather badly off, has already been £254,113, while the total cost to Western Australia has been £362,609. The following is the table from which I have just quoted : -

I think I can fairly appeal to the representatives of the smaller States to assist me in mitigating the common burden by reducing the import duty from £6 to £4 a ton.

Mr Archer:

– Since Federation, the people of Tasmania have paid less for their sugar than they did before.

Mr MAHON:

– That remark discloses another of the fallacies which the sugar-growers and their advocates are continually putting before the people in order to mislead them. When Tasmania paid an enhanced price for its sugar before Federation, . the people had the satisfaction of knowing that the whole of the revenue from the. duty went into the Treasury and relieved them fromtaxation in other directions.

Then one L. C. Horton referred to the workers as “ beer swimmers and generally useless workers.” He said that “ they included the worst loafers and the skimming of the scum of the universe.”

Colonel Foxton. - They were a pretty seedy lot who came up from the south:

Mr Archer:

– Anyhow, individuals can always be found who talk like that.

Colonel Foxton. - The men were quite unsatisfactory.

Mr MAHON:

– That language did not exhaust the resources of this gentleman’s vituperation; and it cannot be denied that he reflected the whole tone of the Conference - depreciation of the local working men.

Mr Archer:

– Not local men.

Mr MAHON:

– Well, the men who went up there to work.

Colonel Foxton. - From the south.

Mr MAHON:

– Well, they are the men who, though good enough to be taxed for the sake of the sugar industry, were not considered fit to work for the Queensland planters. This Mr. Horton went On to denounce the men as a “ nomadic, nondescript, makeshift crowd,” who were “ demanding exorbitant wages for getting in each other’s way in their hurried efforts to shirk their work.” After he had recovered his breath, he said the workers were “ dissolute loafers,” “ lovely specimens of rotters,” and “ free rations and beer seekers.”

Sir John Forrest:

– Who were these men ?

Mr MAHON:

– Those who went up to Queensland to work for the sugar-growers. To these workers the terms quoted were applied by the planters. I suppose that in this House there is no more estimable or impartial man than the honorable member for Herbert; and yet this is what a Mr. Gibson, a member of the Conference, said in denying the honorable member’s statement that there was sufficient labour in the Australian market for this work -

The sooner Mr. Bamford and others “of . his sort are removed from Parliament the better it will be for the country.

At which there were loud cheers.

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

– Is that such a terrible thing to say ?

Mr Archer:

– It is not a personal attack on the honorable member for Herbert.

Mr MAHON:

– But the language shows the tone of the Conference. In considering this subject, it is desirable to have a local view of the Queensland planter; and I shall quote a few sentences, written by the editor of the Brisbane Worker and published on the 30th March, 1907 -

The traffic in the kanaka was one of the vilest things of which history had record.

Sugar was literally grown in blood, and the cane-fields were manured with the bones of a murdered race.

Referring to the threat of the plantersto leave Queensland if they did not get cheap Labour, the article went on tosay -

If the Worker were Premier it would en-‘ courage them to clear. It would offer to helpthem move the furniture. We would be better without such incorrigible gluttons, who, feed them asyou may, have never enough.

That is very plain speaking - as true as it. is frank -

Already we have found them cheap labour,, bv. giving them a bonus to pay wages with. We have taxed ourselves, moreover,’ to insurethem a monopoly of the Australian market.

I ask the attention of honorable members; to this sentence -

We have fostered their industry until to-day it is the most profitable in the Commonwealth,, and the price of sugar lands has doubled and) trebled. Last year, with most df the cane harvested by White Australia labour, was a record’ for prosperity. And still they are not satisfied. Australian labour is not cheap enoughor servile enough for them. No word indeed is too hard to fling at it. The land rings with their insults and Tevilings. An ultimatum is now presented, “ Get us cheap immigrant labour quickly, at the cost of. the State, or out wego !” For our part,, we would let them go. The land will not go with them. The art of growing cane won’t go either. Thefertility of the soil is not an emigrant. Nature will stay with us. Go by all means. Only we know you won’t.

This is the local view of the planter andof the benefits conferred on him by legislation. Now, it strikes me that a good deal! of objection might be made to this differentiation in favour of these two. States, on the ground of constitutionality, seeing that sugar is -not grown elsewhere in AustraliaSection 99 of the Constitution is as follows -

The Commonwealth shall not, by any law or regulation of trade, commerce, or revenue, give preference to’ one State or any part thereof over another State or . any part thereof.

Mr MAHON:

– Copper, tin and other minerals.

Mr Archer:

– ls copper produced in South Africa?

Mr MAHON:

– Gold, at all events, is produced there. Whilst I admit that gold always maintains its price, we cannot lose sight of the fact that the cost of extracting an ounce of gold in the Rand, where Chinese labour is employed, must be less than is the cost of winning an ounce of gold in Kalgoorlie or Coolgardie, where white labour is employed.

Mr Archer:

– There is no competition in the product.

Mr MAHON:

– There is competition in the sense that the speculator on the Rand obtains a larger return in respect of equal capital. His gold is won by means of

Chinese labour, while the shareholder in the mines of Kalgoorlie pays fair wages to white men.

Mr Archer:

– It may mean that the speculator on the Rand can work a lowergrade proposition.

Mr MAHON:

– It does mean that also ; yet gold is produced in Western Australia, owing to the high efficiency of the workers, at a cost which compares favourably with the outlay in the Transvaal. If it be necessary to apologize for having delayed the Committee unduly, the apology is found in the nature of this tax as an unwarranted impost on a universal and wholesome article of diet, levied in the interest of a small class, who have established no claim to exceptional treatment. I now move -

That the words “ and on and after 16th October, 1907, per cwt, 4s.,” be added.

Mr FISHER:

– The honorable member for North Sydney is in error. Long before this Parliament was in existence, we maintained the position which I have just stated. Many white men sacrificed themselves and their families struggling against the competition of the coloured labour over the fence. I am glad that they did so, because they . established the fact that white men could do the work ; although they could not continue to do it against the competition of the coloured labour alongside them, because of the fact that this is largely a manual-labour industry.

Mr Sampson:

– What is the percentage of expenditure on labour?

Mr FISHER:

Mr ARCHER:

Mr DUGALD THOMSON:
NORTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906

– Even if £12 per ton is paid’to the mills.

Mr WATSON:

– The Colonial Sugar Refining Company pays less than that without the Excise. But I am certain that the difference between the cost of raw and refined sugar is never less than £6 per ton on an average. It seems to me, however, that the only possible way to’ put the industry upon a decent footing, and to enable white growers to compete against the outside world with a moderate import duty, would be to nationalize the refinery. Of course, if Queensland would erect a national refinery, it would prove of very great benefit, not only to the people of that State, but also to those of the Commonwealth. In the absence of any opposition to the Colonial Sugar Refining Com- pany, both the growers and the consumers are at its mercy. Of course, it may be urged that if we reduce the import duty, sugar will be imported from the outside world. I admit that. To permit of ‘that being done under present conditions would be to sacrifice the industry so far as the employment of white men is concerne’d. I do not feel justified in taking that course. I should much prefer to see the works of the Colonial Sugar Refining Company taken over by. the Commonwealth, or, as an , alternative, I should like the Queensland Government to erect its own refinery to deal with the raw sugar. In view of the understanding which was arrived at some time ago, it would be altogether improper to alter the incidence of the duty at the present time. If the import duty were reduced by the amount suggested, namely, £2 per ton, an irresistible demand would at once be created to free the industry from the Excise conditions that now obtain. I do not see how it is possible to continue a barrier against the prosecution of this particular industry that we do not attempt to impose upon other industries receiving a similar degree of protection. For these reasons I trust that the amendment will not be carried.

Mr KNOX:
Kooyong

.- While I am somewhat in sympathy with the representations of the honorable member for Coolgardie, I do not think that the Committee would be justified under present circumstances in declining to accept the proposal of the Government. I quite agree with the statement of the honorable member for South Sydney, that if any material change were made in the import duty, a demand would at once be created for a reduction in the Excise, and that, as a result, the conditions surrounding the industry would be entirely deranged. But the more one considers the question of the duty, the Excise, and the bounty, and their incidence from the point ‘of view of revenue, of protection, and of the consumer, the more it will become apparent that the whole subject is such a complicated one that, -sooner or later, it will demand new and special legislation. We know that past legislation had for its object the preservation of the White Australia ideal. The results achieved so far show that, in a measure, that legislation has been successful. But I venture to think that its success has not been proportionate to the amount which the Commonwealth has been called upon to expend in this connexion, because

I hold that the same object might have been attained in a different way. I shall support the Government in the belief that we ought not to -disturb the existing condition of things until we are prepared to reconsider the whole situation. There is ‘no doubt that on the termination of the operation of the Braddon section a reconsideration of the whole question will be forced upon us. . I hope, however, that we shall not have to wait until that time before something is done in the matter, and that if the present Government should remain in power, we shall in the next session of Parliament-

Mr Fisher:

– It might be the honorable gentleman’s own Government.

Mr KNOX:

– The honorable gentleman is quite right, and if it is he may rest assured that the country will have a commonsense Government, who will deal with these things in a manner which will not complicate the situation as - from the industrial, commercial, and financial stand-point - it is complicated now by the way in which the sugar industrv is dealt with. When discussing the Budget statement, I directed the attention of the Committee to the fact that had we dealt with the sugar industry on a business basis, and had we not the obligation to return three-fourths of the net Customs and Excise revenue to the. various States, and to pay the whole of the sugar bountv out of the Consolidated Revenue, we should have been in an entirely different financial position. I do not propose to ask the Committee to consider the tabulated statement I have prepared, but it will be within the recollection of honorable members that the Treasurer anticipated a surplus on the year’s transactions of £103,000. I have made out a statement in which it is shown that if the various charges were proportionately made and the Excise charged in its real, proportion to the bountv even on the . figures which the Treasurer laid before the Committee, we should have a surplus of £533,000, instead of £103,000. I feel, therefore, that the subject is deserving of serious consideration by the Government at the proper time. I venture to think that the present is not the proper time to deal with it, and that however complicated the position is, by attempting to deal with it now we should rather increase the complication. I do not feel myself justified, in the circumstances, in supporting the proposal submitted by the honorable member for Coolgardie, to whom every member of the Committee is indebted for having laid before honorable members a most instructive statement of the whole financial position.

Mr BAMFORD:
Herbert

– I had hoped that this item would have passed without any discussion, and I am rather sorry that the honorable member for Coolgardie should have made a speech which has brought so many honorable members to their feet. I have some excuse for taking part in the debate, because, as honorable members are aware, I represent the bulk of the sugar-growing country of Australia. As from 60 to 70 per cent, of the sugar produced in the Commonwealth is grown in my electorate, I may be pardoned for addressing myself to the question perhaps at greater length than I should otherwise have done. I wish to place my position fiscally clearly before the Committee. When T came to this Parliament first I received a letter from the free-trade party asking me to attend a caucus - I beg honorable members’ pardon - I had forgotten that honorable members opposite have no caucus. I was asked to . attend a meeting of the party, the presumption, I suppose, being that I was a free-trader. I did not attend the meeting, but shortly after it was held a gentleman belonging to the party, and who, in my opinion, was the only free-trader who has ever been in this House, but who is not a member of the Parliament at present, came to ask me what my fiscal views were. I said that I came here as a protectionist, and that I could not consistently advocate a duty on sugar, which I intended to do, and be a free-trader on every other item.

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

– The honorable member said that he was a “ fiscal atheist.”

Mr BAMFORD:

Mr BAMFORD:

Mr BAMFORD:

– He saw Sir Horace Tozer, the Agent-General, who fold him he could not get men ; and Mr. Hughes never looked for. them. Anyhow, that is beside the question. It is a fact that in Italy he could not get men, because the Socialist newspaper there, which has a large circulation, had published a letter from its correspondent in Sydney in relation to the matter. Mr. Hughes then went to Austria, where he was equally unsuccessful ; but in Catalonia, Spain, he engaged a number of men. The total number of men that he desired to engage was 1,308, but he only got 341 ; and the rest of the ‘permits, at the request, or with the consent, of the company, were cancelled, as the followingparagraph from the return shows -

The Colonial Sugar Refining Company, in advising the arrival of the 341 immigrants, intimated that they do not intend to avail themselves of the balance of the permits granted in their favour. These have accordingly been cancelled.

– The Treasurer would do it at once.

Mr BAMFORD:

– The Government would say, “ We “do not care a straw about what you want.” They would oppose any motion of that sort, and would get honorable members opposite to come to their aid to defeat us. The deputy leader of the

Opposition knows that the Government use the Labour Party to beat the Opposition and use the Opposition to beat the Labour Party ; and so they have a permanent job.

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

– The honorable member charges the Government with using, his party?

Mr BAMFORD:

– I know that they use us and we get nothing for it. Honorable members opposite are continually taxing us with getting concessions from the Government, but what have they done for us ? If the new protection is administered in the future as it has been in the past, I say, “ Heaven help us ! “ We shall get no good out of it. Referring again to the profits of the Colonial Sugar Refining Company, I point out that the cane cut last year amounted roughly to 2,000,000 tons. If 4s. per ton - which is a fair average price - had been paid for cutting that cane, the . amount which the Colonial Sugar Refining Company handed over to its shareholders would have just about paid for cutting. I do not wonder that the people are growling about it. The one effective remedy is nationalization. The only relief for the consumer and foi the farmer lies in the direction of nationalizing the industry. We could then give the farmer a better price for his cane, and the consumer much cheaper sugar.

Mr Sinclair:

– The national mill in Queensland pays the same rate as does the Colonial Sugar Refining Company.

Mr BAMFORD:

– I am not here to criticise the action of the Queensland Government. They do what they consider to be best in their own interest. But I am here to affirm a principle which I think is undeniably sound, that the only remedy is for the people of the country to take the matter into their own hands by nationalization. The profits derived by the Company are largely paid into the pockets of persons who do not even live in the country at all, many being absentees. When I speak of nationalization in regard to the sugar industry I refer only to the refining and distributing. I do not take into consideration the question of manufacture or the growing of the cane. It is from refining and distributing that the profit is principally made. The cane-growers at present are, it is true, making a good tiling out of it, especially in North Queensland. They are better off now than they ever were previously, though they will not admit it. Their profits are much higher. In the annual report of the Mackay Chamber of

Commerce figures are given showing the production for twelve or thirteen years. These figures range from the years 1896-97 to 1906-7. In the Mackay district there is more grumbling about the effects of the . Labour Party’s policy than there is in any other part of Queensland. Yet the sugargrowers there are doing remarkably well. Notwithstanding their complaints about, the shortness of the labour supply and the difficulty of getting the cane off, these figures show, an increase from 16,515 tons in 1896-7 to 34,338 tons in 1906-7 - an increase of over 100 per cent. Yet these people are complaining that, the sugar industry is being ruined, and they have apparently convinced themselves that it is in a parlous state. The figures show conclusively that what they assert is, to say the least of it, incorrect.

Mr Archer:

– They are all right as long as they get the treatment they receive now.

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

– There are nearly 8,000 coloured persons employed in the sugar industry still.

Mr BAMFORD:

– I know that there are many coloured employes, but those who employ coloured labour receive no bounty.

Mr Poynton:

– They get the benefit of £2 per ton protection.

Mr BAMFORD:

Mr Mcwilliams:

– That is the German system.

Mr DUGALD THOMSON:
NORTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906

– I am not prepared to support it. That is the position which we shall have to face, because this year it is anticipated that the production of sugar will be fully equal to our requirements, even if it is not in excess of them, and it may rapidly increase. I do not know whether the Minister has faced that situation yet. But if we are to remit the Excise duty upon exported sugar, and to continue the payment of the bountv which may be demanded, we shall be landed in a very serious financial position indeed. The one remedy suggested for all evils - even if they are deliberately created by ourselves - appears to be the nationalization of industries. In Queensland, we see that as the result of the nationalization of the mills, the latter do not pay as much to the growers for their cane as does the Colonial Sugar Refining Company. When honorable members begin to talk of nationalization all sorts of reasons are given for adopting that policy. One reason given in this case was that the shareholders of the Colonial Sugar Refining Company are largely absentees. Here is what the company says in a statement issued some time ago about their shareholders : They have 1,300 shareholders; 700 represent trustees, executors, single women, and wives jointly with husbands, 31 are employes of the company, while 1,430 members of the staff and wage-earners are interested in the Employes Provident Fund, which holds over 3,000 shares; 113 are professional men; 375 are traders and men actively engaged in business ; and 65 are so-called capitalists, holding altogether 23 per- cent, of the stock. Of these shareholders, 8 per cent, reside outside of Australia, nearly all being Australians who have gone to England to live. The percentage of such holdings to the total capital is constantly being reduced, as the Board have for a long time been unwilling that any stock in the company should be acquired by those living at the other side of the world while all its interests are here. This company has been a very successful commercial enterprise in Australia, and I say that, instead of attacking such companies unnecessarily and unduly, we ought to be proud that we can produce some such successful commercial concerns. As I have shown, the Colonial Sugar Refining Company pays the grower more for cane than do the Government Central Mills, and I am certain that if honorable members . inquired into the treatment and payment of the employes of the company, and the provident provision made for them-

Mr Poynton:

– Does the honorable member not think that we should have some little regard for the interests of the consumers of sugar?

Mr DUGALD THOMSON:
NORTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906

– Certainly; but I prefer to finish my sentence first. I was saying that I believe that if honorable members inquired into the provident provision made for the employe’s of the company, they would find no Government mill making similar provision. I certainly agree with the honorable member for Grey that we should consider the con- sumer. In the statement published by the company, to which I have already referred, I find that they say -

The margin of profit thus secured to us is, notwithstanding wild statements to the contrary, only a moderate one, and we are prepared, if it be necessary, to prove the truth of this statement.

– I do not know, but in reply I should like to relate a little anecdote which the honorable member for Darwin, told on “the election platform. It concerned a nigger who was sent to a post-office in America by his master to fetch a telegram. The nigger could not understand how the telegraph worked, and asked the postmaster to explain it to him. The postmaster scratched his head, and thought how best he could illustrate the working of the telegraph. At last he said that it was like a dog with its head in one town and its tail in another. He said, “ You squeeze the dog’s tail, in the one town, and it barks in the other.” The application, of that story is this. The resolution to which I am referring was manufactured among a number of noodles - nothing more nor less - at a small place called Nerang. The resolution was sent all round the country. The dog’s tail was squeezed at Nerang, and these divisional boards throughout Queensland have barked. Of course, the document has been altered a little so as to give it the appearance of not being the production of one set of people. I agree with the Chamber of Commerce at Bowen that the duties on the necessaries of life should be reduced; and one of the necessaries of life to the people of my electorate is> sugar. I have received another of these communications from a place in the electorate of the honorable member for Capricornia. It is from the Gooburrum, or the ‘“Gone Bung,” Shire Council. I suppose the same communications have been sent to all. the Queensland members. Now, these, people are protectionists of the deepest dye so far as. concerns sugar, but they want the duties to be taken off other commodities. They are free-traders as to everything else. If there is one thing more than another that justifies the honorable member for Coolgardie in bringing forward his amendment, it is these circulars from Queensland. Let me refer honorable members to the report of the Cane-growers’ Conference held in Townsville in February of this year. Of course, the Conference howled for more protection and more Excise so far as sugar is concerned.

Mr Bamford:

– They asked for a prohibitive duty on sugar.

Mr PAGE:

– Yes. We have heard the honorable member for Brisbane on this subject from the point of view . of the “ States Frights “ party. He has been compli- mented by the Premier of Queensland on having asked for the abolition of the sugar Excise.

Colonel Foxton. - That is wrong.

Mr PAGE:

– I listened to what the honorable member said, and that is what it came to.

– Is the land upon which sugar is grown of a rich character?

Colonel FOXTON. - There is no richer land in the world.

Mr Thomas:

– Then why does the industry require protection?

Colonel FOXTON.- Whatever industry may be substituted for that of sugar will require exactly the same measure of protection.

Mr Thomas:

– But we are growing wheat upon poor land without the aid of any protection.

Colonel FOXTON. - Sugar is a commodity which, outside of Australia, is produced by the cheapest labour in the world. So surely as we remove the protective impost upon that commodity, so surely shall we have nothing but black-grown sugar consumed in Australia - sugar which will be chiefly produced in Fiji and Java. This is really a very much larger question than-the protection of one particular industry. If we stifle the sugar industry by removing the protective duty upon that article, we shall certainly have to face the .same problem in * connexion with any other industry which may be substituted for it. Some honorable members have advocated the abolition of the Excise duty. Let me point out what would be the result of that. If the Excise duty and the bounty were removed there would be no incentive whatever to employ white labour. On the contrary, the cheapest of black labour would be obtained, and I need scarcely point out in this connexion that there is an ample supply of Asiatic labour in Australia to suffice for a genera-, tion to come. We have something like 80,000 Asiatics in the Commonwealth. Large numbers of these would gradually gravitate to the north of Queensland, and the last phase of the sugar industry would be worse than the first, inasmuch as Northern Queensland would be overrun, and the sugar consumed in the Commonwealth would be produced by Asiatics, who would be very much more objectionable than were the kanakas. I trust that honorable members in considering this question will bear these facts in mind. I hope that the Committee will agree to the duty proposed by the Government, and that upon) all future occasions the broad aspect of this matter, will be regarded by the Parliament.

Mr BATCHELOR:
Boothby

.- The honorable member for Brisbane has placed before the Committee a very cheerful prospect.

Mr Archer:

– It is just as well that the honorable member should realize it.

Mr BATCHELOR:

Mr BATCHELOR:

– And at the same time to keep the industry going. The experiment has, so far, been comparatively successf ul, but at a huge cost to the community generally, and we must remember that it is our duty here to legislate for Australia, . and not merely for. the benefit of a small portion of it.

Mr CARR:
Macquarie

.- The whole question of our right to control industries in order to prevent the exploitation of the public is involved in this matter. The mere fact that black labour is incidental to the sugar industry does not affect the principle involved. Continental labour, owing to its cheapness, is in this connexion just. as much a menace as is black labour. I take it that black labour is objected to only because of its cheapness. We do not desire to have black people in Australia, of course, but the White Australia policy covers that question. In dealing with this matter it. is cheap labour merely that we object to. The Colonial Sugar Refining Company has enjoyed a considerable amount of protection, which it has taken advantage of to exploit this community. We are faced with the questions : Are we going to. give effect to our professions to, save the public from exploitation? Are we going to justify or stultify ourselves? We are talking of the new protection, and aim at regulating just such impositions on the people as are practised by the Colonial Sugar Refining Company. I think that we can rightly apply the only power we possess in this matter by reducing the duty.

Sir William Lyne:

– That might be rather a good thing for the Colonial Sugar Refining Company.

Mr CARR:

– We could say that as the protection, we have afforded is being abused, we will take it off, and that would bring these people to their senses. We have been told that the Colonial Sugar Refining Company would meet that’ by importing invert sugar from Mauritius, Java, and other places, and refining it in Australia.

Colonel Foxton. - All sugar.

Mr CARR:

– The honorable, member for Brisbane has stated that the sugar which the company would, bring here to refine would be worth £12 per ton. Adding, to that price the proposed reduced duty of £4 per ton, it would be worth £16 a ton landed in Australia.

Mr CARR:

Mr CARR:

– I think that I have proved it. It has been shown that the- Colonial Sugar Refining Company has been taking advantage of the duty, and a clear case for the application of the new protection has been made out. Apparently a duty of ?4 per ton would not allow the cheap sugar of Java and Mauritius to flood this market, but it might have the effect of cheapening the local production without materially injuring the Commonwealth industry.

Progress reported.

page 4704

PAPERS

Mr. MAUGER laid upon the table the following paper-

Post and Telegraph Department. - Papers respecting the appointment of a DeputyPostmasterGeneral from some other State to act temporarily as Deputy Postmaster-General in Victoria.

The Clerk laid on the table

Telephone Line, West Maitland and Sydney - Return to an Order of the House dated 6th September,1907.

page 4704

ADJOURNMENT

Conductof Business

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:
HumeTreasurer · Protectionist

– I move -

That the House do now adjourn.

Business is proceeding so very slowly that I intend, within a few days, to propose that the House meet at 10.30 on every sitting day except Tuesday. That seems to be the only way in which we shall be able to get anything done. If the time thus provided proves insufficient, I shall propose that we sit on six days each week. Unless we make more progress than we have made to-night, the consideration of the Tariff will occupy two years;

Mr Hutchison:

– One or two all-night sittings would do more than meeting at 10.30 in the morning to secure expedition.

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:

– If we are to have as much talk as there has been during the last two or three sittings, something will have to be done to get business through. The subject under discussion to-night has already been twice debated quite recently, and if every item is to be spoken upon at this length, irrespective of whether any change is proposed or not, we shall never make progress unless we sit for longer periods each day. I assure the House that I have no wish to prolong the sittings, but I am desirous . that the consideration of the Tariff shall be more speedy.

Mr Page:

– If we meet at 10.30 in the morning, at what time shall we adjourn?

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:

– At 11 or 12 at. night.

Mr Page:

– Does the honorable member think that members will sit here for those hours ?

Question resolved in the affirmative.

House adjourned at11.2 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 15 October 1907, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1907/19071015_reps_3_40/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant

House of Representatives15 October 1907

JUDICIARY BILL

PETITIONS

QUESTION

WOMEN’S WORK EXHIBITION

Mr KNOX:KOOYONG, VICTORIA

Mr DEAKIN:Minister for External Affairs · BALLAARAT, VICTORIA · Protectionist

QUESTION

PAPUAN LAND SETTLEMENT

Mr PAGE:MARANOA, QUEENSLAND

Mr DEAKIN:Protectionist

QUESTION

DELAYS IN TELEGRAPH DEPARTMENT

Mr EDWARDS:OXLEY, QUEENSLAND

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

QUESTION

INDIGENT AUTHORS’ FUND

Mr MAHON:COOLGARDIE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Mr DEAKIN:Protectionist

QUESTION

SPANISH IMMIGRANTS

Mr BAMFORD:HERBERT, QUEENSLAND

Mr DEAKIN:Protectionist

Mr Bamford:

Mr DEAKIN:

Mr Page:

Mr Fairbairn:

Mr DEAKIN:

QUESTION

EXCISE TARIFF (SPIRITS) ACT

Mr HUTCHISON:HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

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

Mr BATCHELOR:BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Mr AUSTIN CHAPMAN:

Mr GLYNN:ANGAS, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Mr AUSTIN CHAPMAN:

Mr Batchelor:

Mr AUSTIN CHAPMAN:

Mr Glynn:

Mr BATCHELOR:

Mr AUSTIN CHAPMAN:

Mr Hutchison:

Mr AUSTIN CHAPMAN:

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH OFFICES IN LONDON

Mr WISE:GIPPSLAND, VICTORIA

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

CLERICAL DIVISION, PUBLIC SERVICE : PROMOTIONS

Mr MAUGER:Protectionist

QUESTION

OVERTIME : SYDNEY POST OFFICE

Mr J H CATTS:for Mr. Webster

Mr MAUGER:Protectionist

QUESTION

ADDITIONAL EMPLOYES, SYDNEY POST OFFICE

Mr J H CATTS:for Mr. Webster

Mr MAUGER:Protectionist

QUESTION

POSTAL. TELEGRAPHIC, AND TELEPHONE REVENUE, VICTORIA

Mr McDOUGALL:WANNON, VICTORIA

Mr MAUGER:Protectionist

QUESTION

PATENT MEDICINES

Mr THOMAS:BARRIER, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr AUSTIN CHAPMAN:Protectionist

QUESTION

BUTTER GRADING

Mr SINCLAIR:MORETON, QUEENSLAND

Mr AUSTIN CHAPMAN:Protectionist

QUESTION

WIRE NETTING ; REFUND OF DUTIES

Mr KNOX:

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:Protectionist

TARIFF

Import Duties

Mr FISHER:Wide Bay

Mr Mahon:

Mr FISHER:

Mr Fuller:

Mr FISHER:

House of Representatives
15 October 1907

Mr KNOX:
KOOYONG, VICTORIA

Mr DEAKIN:
Minister for External Affairs · BALLAARAT, VICTORIA · Protectionist

Mr PAGE:
MARANOA, QUEENSLAND

Mr DEAKIN:
Protectionist

Mr EDWARDS:
OXLEY, QUEENSLAND

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

Mr MAHON:
COOLGARDIE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Mr DEAKIN:
Protectionist

Mr BAMFORD:
HERBERT, QUEENSLAND

Mr DEAKIN:
Protectionist

Mr HUTCHISON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

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

Mr BATCHELOR:
BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Mr GLYNN:
ANGAS, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Mr WISE:
GIPPSLAND, VICTORIA

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

Mr MAUGER:
Protectionist

Mr J H CATTS:
for Mr. Webster

Mr MAUGER:
Protectionist

Mr J H CATTS:
for Mr. Webster

Mr MAUGER:
Protectionist

Mr McDOUGALL:
WANNON, VICTORIA

Mr MAUGER:
Protectionist

Mr THOMAS:
BARRIER, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr AUSTIN CHAPMAN:
Protectionist

Mr SINCLAIR:
MORETON, QUEENSLAND

Mr AUSTIN CHAPMAN:
Protectionist

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:
Protectionist

Mr FISHER:
Wide Bay

Mr W H IRVINE:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr MAHON:
Coolgardie