House of Representatives
4 December 1907

3^rd Parliament · 2^nd Session

QUESTION
- DEFENCE FORCE: MEDICAL RESERVE CORPS
SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT

Mr. Speaker took the chair at 11 a.m., and read prayers.

page 6968

QUESTION

DEFENCE FORCE: MEDICAL RESERVE CORPS

Mr SALMON:
LAANECOORIE, VICTORIA

– I wish to ask the Min ister of Defence a question, without notice, following up a matter to which I previously referred. I wish toknow whether the honorable gentleman is in a position to make any statement with regard to his expressed desire to form a medical reserve in connexion with the citizen forces of the Commonwealth.

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

– I had previously told the honorable member that there were difficulties in the way that appeared to be insurmountable. They have now, however, been overcome, and instructions have been given to form the corps forthwith;

ALLEGED SWEATING : SYDNEY POST OFFICE.

Mr J H CATTS:
COOK, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Treasurer, upon notice -

Will he state whether or not he is in favour of providing the necessary funds to give effect to the Postal Department’s scheme for the abolition of sweating in the General Post Office, Sydney ?
If not, when will the necessary funds be made available?

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

– In answer to the honorable member’s questions, I beg to state -

I have no particulars regarding the alleged sweating.
Yesterday an application was received by me from the Postal Department for?12,000 for temporary assistance, and I am now considering this application. All that is voted is ?9,000 for this purpose, and this sum is in addition to that amount. It is not to be supposed that such unexpected applications for sums not voted by Parliament can be given without due consideration and regard for the Treasurer’s Advance Account.

TARIFF.

In Committee of Ways and Means (Consideration resumed from; 3rd December, vide page 6967) :

Division IX. - Drugs and Chemicals.

Item 273. Acetic Acid, Extract, or Essence of Vinegar :

Vinegar, standard (as prescribed by Departmental by-laws), the product of malt or grain or fruit juice by alcoholic and acetic fermentation, containing not more than 6 per cent. of absolute Acetic Acid, per gal., 6d.
1. Vinegar, not the product of malt or grain or fruit juice, per gal., 2s.
Solutions, Extracts, or Essences, contain ing more than 6 per cent. but not more than 30 per cent. of absolute Acetic Acid,per gal., 3s.9d.
1. Solutions; Extracts, or Essences, con taining more than 30 per cent. of absolute Acetic Acid, for every extra 10 per cent., or part thereof, per gal., 15s. 3d.
Acetic Acid, in crystals or powdered form, ad val., 15 per cent.

Mr LIDDELL:
Hunter

.- I have given notice of an amendment to paragraph a, having for its object the imposition of the duty recommended by the free-trade section of the Tariff Commission. . I. therefore move -

That, after the figure ” 6d.,” paragraph a, the words “and on and after 4th December, 1907, ad val., 10 per cent.,” be inserted.

Amendment negatived.

Mr TUDOR:
Yarra

.-‘ Under paragraph b it is proposed to impose a duty of2s. per gallon on “ vinegar not the product of malt or grain or fruit juice.” I suppose the object is to prevent the importation of acetic acid vinegar, and while I have no objection to the dutyproposed for that purpose I suggest that it might be well later on to consider the advisableness of imposing an Excise duty on vinegar made from acetic acid to check its manufacture here.

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:
Treasurer · Hume · Protectionist

– Paragraph e of this item is incorrect and misleading. Acetic acid is not imported in powdered form. Acetates for the manufacture of acetic acid are, however, imported, and I move as an amendment -

That, after the words “ 15, per cent.,” paragraph e, the words “ and on and after 4th December, 1907, Acetates for the manufacture of acetic acid, ad val.,15per cent.,” be added.

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

– It seems to me that on the one hand we are trying to check the introduction of vinegar which is supposed to be not as good as is that made from grain, while, on the other, we are proposing to let in at a comparatively low duty that from which the objectionable class of vinegar can be made.

Sir John Quick:

– Acetate is also used for industrial purposes.

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

– But it may be used for making acetic acid from Which the vinegar objected to is produced.

Sir John Quick:

– That can be met only by the imposition of an Excise duty as suggested by the honorable member for Yarra.

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

– I do not know whether the Treasurer intends to take any further step in the matter.

Sir William Lyne:

– I am making a note of it, and shall consider the question when we revert to the Excise duties.

Mr Salmon:

– The Treasurer will deal with the matter in connexion with the Excise duties?

Sir William Lyne:

– Yes.

Amendment agreed to.

Item, as amended, agreed to.

Item 274 (Acids) agreed to.

Item 275, Carbonate of Ammonia, per cwt., 5s.

Amendment (by Sir William Lyne) proposed -

That the following words be added : “ and on and after 4th December, 1907, Item 275. Ammonia, viz. : - Carbonate Anhydrous, liquid, muriate, and sulphate, ad val., 15 per cent.”

Amendment agreed to.

Item, as amended, agreed to.

Item 276 (Carbonic Acid Gas) agreed to.

Item 277. Carbide of calcium, ad val. (General Tariff), 10 per cent. ; (United Kingdom) free.

Mr GLYNN:
Angas

.- This item ought to be made absolutely free. When the first Commonwealth Tariff was submitted, the proposal was to impose a duty of 20 per cent., but, after discussion, it was decided to make the item free. The official statistics show what the proposed preference to the United Kingdom is worth. The total imports from the United Kingdom last year were represented by £1,469, while the imports from foreign countries were represented by . £63,132. Carbide of calcium is used for the manufacture of acetylene gas, which is the illuminant of many country people; and the duty simply means additional taxation to the extent of £6,300 per annum. I think I need say no more in favour of the suggestion that the item should be absolutely free.

Mr EDWARDS:
Oxley

.- Under the old Tariff, as the honorable member for Angas has pointed out, carbide of calcium was free; and I think the Treasurer might give some reason for the proposed duty of 10 per cent.

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:
Treasurer · Hume · Protectionist

.- The duty of 10 per cent. is imposed in consequence of representations made from persons in Queensland, who have entered into some arrangement with the State Government for the supply of motive power . from Barron Falls. These people propose to manufacture carbide of calcium, and, as I say, it is in consequence of their representations that the duty is proposed.

Mr EDWARDS:
Oxley

.- I am much obliged to the Treasurer for condescending to give the Committee information which he should have afforded at the outset. However, I place no value on the information - I take it for just what it is worth. Carbide of calcium ought to be placed on the same footing as kerosene, because it is used as an illuminant mainly by country people.

Sir William Lyne:

– If the honorable member does not wish a duty to be imposed, I have no desire to press the matter.

Mr EDWARDS:

– My intention is to move that carbide of calcium be placed on the free list.

Sir William Lyne:

– I accept the suggestion.

Amendment (by Sir William Lyne) agreed to -

That after the words “ 10 per cent.” the words “ and on and after 4th December, 1907 (General Tariff), free,” be inserted.

Item, as amended, agreed to.

Item 278. Drugs and Chemicals, viz. : -

Salicylic and boric acids and other food preservatives n.e.i. ; salicylate of soda; sulphites and bisulphites of potassium ; bisulphite of sodium, calcium, and magnesium ; and foaming powders and liquids, including Malto-Peptone Yeast Food, Yeast Food Preservatives, Yeast Nourishment, Quillaya Bark, Saponarias, Glycyrrhizin and its compounds, ad val. (General Tariff) 25 per cent. ; (United Kingdom) 20 per cent.
Saccharin and other similar substitutes for Sugar, and substances capable of conversion into such substitutes for Sugar; when imported for medicinal purposes only, in accordance with Departmental By-law, in packages of not less than n lb. weight, per lb., 30s.

Mr LIDDELL:
Hunter

.- I fail to see why it is proposed to levy a duty of 25 per cent. upon the articles enumerated in paragraph a of this item, seeing that the protectionist section of the Tariff Commission recommended a duty of . only 20 per cent.

Sir William Lyne:

– Only 20 per cent. is proposed under the Tariff for the United Kingdom.

Mr LIDDELL:

– I should like to see 20 per cent. imposed under the General Tariff, and these articles admitted free from the United Kingdom. Take, for example quill ay a bark. It is not grown in the Commonwealth. It is used principally for promoting the growth of hair. It may be used in the raw state by simply soaking it in. warm water. When rubbed upon the bald pate, it has a tendency to make the hair grow. A considerable quantity of’ it is imported from America. Then salicylate of soda is a drug which is used in the treatment of rheumatic fever. Why should persons who are suffering from illness be taxed upon the drugs that they require to use?

Mr Wilson:

– The old rate was 20 per cent.

Mr Watson:

– The honorable member wishes to reduce the duty levied under the old Tariff.

Mr LIDDELL:

– Honorable members who claim to represent the workers ought to recognise how important it is that the masses should be permitted to obtain their drugs cheaply. I move -

That, after the words “ 25 per cent.” paragraph a, the words, “ and on and after 4th December, 1907, ad val. (General Tariff), 20 per cent.,” be inserted.

Question put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 0

NOES: 0

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Amendment negatived.

Mr POYNTON:
Grey

.- I move -

That the words” when imported for medicinal purposes only,” paragraph b, be left out.

I point out that under the old Tariff the duty on saccharin was 550 times the duty on sugar, being equal to 30s. per lb. ; but under this Tariff its use is prohibited except for medicinal purposes. I desire to elicit the reasons why the Government have submitted this proposal.

Mr Salmon:

– For Queensland reasons also.

Mr POYNTON:

– I think so, too. Some time ago a petition was presented to the Treasurer from the aerated water makers and brewers of non-intoxicating ales. It reads as follows-

We, the undersigned aerated water makers and brewers of non-intoxicant ales, desire to respectfully and urgently bring before the notice of you and your Government the hardships entailed on us by the prohibition of the importation of saccharin into the Commonwealth (for other than medicinal purposes). The endorsements of the medical profession show the properties of saccharin to be innocuous to man, only the mere fact of its having no food value can be advanced against its use. We do not pretend to sell our goods for their food value, though the sweetening properties of our aerated waters contain two-thirds sugar. Saccharin has been of inestimable value to us in lessening the risks of fermentation in aerated waters, and in keeping the spirit in non-intoxicating beers down to the 2 per cent. limit allowed by the Excise. To prohibit its importation means the total extinction of the non-alcoholic ale industry, it being impossible to keep within the limits of the Excise by the use of sugar only.

As a matter of fact it is claimed by all the manufacturers that they cannot produce tonic ales with less than 2 per cent. of alcohol if they have to use sugar only. What they do is to use two-thirds of sugar and one-third of saccharin, and the result is that they can keep the intoxicant percentage down to that which is prescribed by the Excise law. In a report, Mr. P. Wilkinson, the Victorian Government analyst, had made this statement -

Stringent prohibitions of the use of any saccharin in any food or beverage under extremely heavy penalties are now in force in Great Britain.

In respect of that statement by Mr. Wilkinson, the petitioners say -

This is absolutely incorrect. Saccharin is prohibited in Great Britain in beer for revenue purposes, but is used freely, and to an” enormous extent, in other beverages, mineral waters’ especially, and no case of any, trouble through its use has been recorded here. It is quite harmless.

In proof of their contention, the petitioners cite an expert opinion by Thomas Stevenson, M.D., F.R.C.P., London, lecturer on forensic medicine and chemistry at Guy’s Hospital, and Official Analyst to the Home Office. He says-

Saccharin is quite innocuous when taken , in quantities largely exceeding what would be taken in any ordinary dietary.,. T.t. does not interfere wilh or impede the digestive processes when taken in any practicable quantity. Our personal experience fs that saccharin may be taken for an extended period without interfering with the digestive or other bodily functions ; hence there is no reason to think that its continued use is in any way harmful.

The Medical Press of the 31st October, 1888, states that “ saccharin is perfectly wholesome”; while Dr. T. Lauder Brunton declares that “ saccharin has no injurious action in man.” I have a list containing the names of scores of medical men of high repute “who all claim that the use of saccharin is not injurious. I may mention that in the case of certain diseases it is prescribed because it is better than sugar for sweetening purposes. My object is to elicit the reason why the Government have taken this extreme step, because so far as I can see it is not warranted by any statement in the .evidence given before the Tariff Commission.

Woolridge stated, in an article which appeared in the Lancet on the 17th November, 1888, that they had proved conclusively that-

Saccharin is quite innocuous when taken in quantities largely exceeding what would be taken in any ordinary dietary ; saccharin does not interfere with or impede the digestive processes when taken in any practicable quantity ; and our personal experience is that saccharin may be taken for an extended period without interfering with the digestive and other bodily functions. Hence there is no reason to think that its continued use is in any way harmful.

– Yes.

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

– I thinkthat there is an objection to the duty. I would far sooner leave the matter to the Minister, who has pledged himself to consult the health authorities of the States. The proper course would be to strike out the whole item, leaving the Minister, in conjunction with the health authorities of the States, to regulate the local production of saccharin.

Amendment agreed to.

Question - That the item, as amended, be agreed to - put.

Division called for.

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

– By leave we withdraw our call for a division.

Mr J H Catts:

– I object.

The CHAIRMAN:

– There being no tellers for the noes, the question is resolved in the affirmative.

Item, as amended, agreed to.

Item 279. Cresylic acid, crude creosote oil and tar oil; saponaceous mixture of creosote ; carbolic acid, per gal., 6d.

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:
Treasurer · Hume · Protectionist

.- The position at present is that disinfectants are allowed in free, and this duty is a charge upon the raw materials. I therefore move -

That the words “ and on and after 4th December, 1907, free,” be. added.

Amendment agreed to.

Item, as amended, agreed to.

Amendment (by Sir William Lyne) agreed to -

That the following new item be inserted - “ 279A. Crude Naphthaline, on and after 4th

December, 1907, free.”

Item 280. Naphthaline, ad val., 25 per cent.

Amendment (by Sir William Lyne) proposed -

That after the word “ Naphthaline,” the letters “ n.e.i.” be inserted.

Sir William Lyne:

– No.

Mr CARR:

– Then I merely wish to say that if it were postponed I should be able to furnish ample evidence that naphthaline is manufactured in Australia in hundreds of gallons.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment (by Mr. Wilson) put -

That the words “ and on and after 4th December, 1907, ad val., 15 per cent.,” be added.

The Committee divided.

AYES: 0

NOES: 0

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Amendment negatived.

Amendment (by Mr. Joseph Cook) put -

That after the words “ 25 per cent.” the words “ and on and after 4th December, 1907, ad val. (United Kingdom), 20 per cent.,” be added.

The Committee divided.

AYES: 0

NOES: 0

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Amendment negatived.

Item, as amended, agreed to.

Item 281. Cyanide of potassium, free.

Mr FRAZER:
Kalgoorlie

.- I move -

That after the word “ potassium “ the words “ sodium, and bromide salts,” be inserted.

All those things are used in the one process. The cyanide of sodium would not be distinguishable from the cyanide of potassium, and I understand that the bromide salts are used to liven up the solution when it is beginning to get “ dead.”

Amendment agreed to.

Item, as amended, agreed to.

Item 282 (Voltoids of sal-ammoniac), agreed to.

Item 283. Insecticides, sheep washes, and disinfectants, n.e.i, - free.

Mr MATHEWS:
Melbourne Ports

– I shouldlike the Minister to agree to place a duty on disinfectants, such as phenyles and other liquid preparations. So much tar is produced here in the gasworks that a lot of it is buried. We have hardly attempted the manufacture of all the by-products of tar.

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

– Where do they bury the tar?

Mr MATHEWS:

Mr TUDOR:
Yarra

.- I desire to read the following letter from Dr. Bull, of the Melbourne University -

Bacteriological Laboratory,

The University of Melbourne, 14th October,1907.

J. Wiltshire, Esq.,

Dear Sir, -I have tested the disinfectant strength of your phenyle, and certify that, under the standard laboratory conditions, the bacillus of typhoid fever was destroyed in five minutes in a” dilution of one part phenyle to 150 parts of water. The phenyle is, therefore, three times as potent as carbolic acid (Schering’s).

I have here also another certificate by Dr. Bull, which appears on the circular of Messrs. Morris. Little. & Son. the proprietors of Little’s phenyle, as follows: -

I have tested the disinfectant strength of a sample of Little’s soluble phenyle forwarded by you. I certify that, under standard laboratory conditions, the disinfectant destroyed the bacillus of typhoid fever in five minutes in a dilution of 1 in 300 of distilled water. The details are appended in the table, from which it will be noticed that your disinfectant proved half as strong again as carbolic acid.

It will be seen from these two certificates that Australian phenyle is twice as strong as the imported phenyle.

Mr HANS IRVINE:
GRAMPIANS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910

– There are other sheep dips than that of Messrs. Morris, Little, & Son.

Mr TUDOR:

– And there are more Australian sheep dips than that of Mr. Wiltshire. I have quoted one Australian phenyle as against one imported phenyle, and have shown that the Australian article is twice as strong as the imported article. I trust that the Treasurer will insist on a duty being imposed. Manufacturers of these dips and disinfectants will have to pay a duty on their bottles and packages, and observe Australian conditions of labour ; and I trust to see this industry firmly established.

Mr SALMON:
Laanecoorie

. -I should like to read a Sydney analysis of Australian sheep dip as compared with Quibell’s dip. It is as follows-

We hand you the analysis, made by Mr. C. A. Burnet, of Quibell’s sheep dip, Little’s phenyle, and our “Triumph” brand of sheep dip, and “Triumph” phenyle: -

Mr Livingston:

– There is no occasion tq fear any more typhoid fever then ?

Mr HUTCHISON:

– I am quoting absolute evidence. Dr. Bull states that -

A dilution of 1 : 400 was equivalent to carbolic acid, 1 : 100, indicating that the former was four times as powerful as carbolic acid as a disinfectant.

– I propose to read a letter which I have received from a gentleman who is interested in the question of sheep dips and disinfectants, and who represents Arnold’s Balsam Co. If this industry is fairly established in Australia - and I think we have good ground to believe that it is - there is no reason why a protective duty should be imposed. The Chairman of theA section of the Tariff Commission quoted the evidence of Mr. E. Dearman. I notice that the witness stated that this article was not produced in quite such a large way. as it might be, and the reason which he gave for that state of things was not the want of a duty, but simply the fact that people would not buy the local article. He asserted that not only was there a prejudice against the local article, but that it existed to such an extent that the local article was sold under an English name, so that the imposition of a duty has very little to do with the matter. My correspondent, who represents Arnold’s Balsam Co., says -

We are importers of “ phenyle,” mentioned in the .Tariff as a saponaceous compound of cresylic acid, carbolic acid, tar, &c. The duty proposed is 6d. per gallon. For years this has been made in the different States from coal tar, to be had in large quantities from the gas-works. The formula is simple, very little labour required. lt is sold in Melbourne by Chas. Atkins and Co., 472 Flinders-street, at is. 4½d. per gallon, and Morris and Ladwig, Prahran, at the same price. The cos’t to make will work out at under is. per gallon. In our opinion there is no necessity for a duh ; the freight is sufficient protection.

Sir William Lyne:

– One fellow saw the honorable member for Kooyong, and the other fellow saw the honorable gentleman.

Mr LIDDELL:

– This man did not see me; but he forwarded to me this letter which I have quoted in support of my argument. He states that, in his opinion, there is no necessity for a duty, and that the freight is quite sufficient protection to the local manufacturers. When an item of this kind is brought under consideration, It is only right that the Committee should hear both sides of the question. The letter I have read represents one side of this question, and if honorable members wish it, I am prepared .to quote from several letters which I have received, and which will support an argument to the contrary effect. I have received a letter from McKellan & Ramsay, chemical manufacturers. of 62 and 64 Bouverie-street, Carlton, with a town office at 317 Little Collinsstreet, Melbourne. No doubt, honorable members will recognise that the writers are quite capable of expressing an opinion. They write in these terms -

We write to bring under your notice a gross anomaly which affects the disinfectant and sheep dip manufacturers. Under the present Tariff, coal-tar oil and carbolic acid, both formerly free, are now dutiable at 6d. per gallon, wherens disinfectants and sheep dips are admitted free.

Coal-tar oil and carbolic acid form the raw materials in our manufactures, and thus we have the absurd anomaly - raw material, duty 6d. per gallon, manufactured article admitted free.

We would respectfully ask that the duty on coal-tar oil and carbolic acid (our_ raw material) he at once removed, and .1 duty placed on disinfectants and sheep di”s, and the duty on saponaceous mixture of creosote increased, as the local manufacturers (numbering at least nineteen in Victoria) could easily manufacture enough disinfectants and sheep dips to supply the. whole of the Commonwealth, if they were protected.

There are one or two matters to which I desire to draw the attention of honorable members. A manufacturer of sheep dips and phenyle writes-

Regarding item 279 in the Tariff, we wish to bring before your notice the anomaly, of placing the duty of 6d. per gallon on carbolic acid and tar oil, while allowing sheep dips and phenyle to come in free.

All phenyles as Little’s, Jeyes’ fluid, Quibell’s, &c, and all liquid sheep dips such as Cooper’s, Quibell’s, &c.,’ are made by treating carbolic acid and tar oil with soda to make soluble, then dissolving with resin. We do an extensive business in the manufacture of sheep dips and phenyle, and our manufactures are identical in composition with the above brands.

In importing tar oil and carbolic acid we have to pay 6d. per gallon duty. We then mix with soda and resin as above explained and manufacture into sheep dip and phenyle.

By instructing the manufacturers of carbolic acid and tar oil to neutralise them with soda and dissolve with resin it comes in free either as sheep clip or phenyle. This anomaly works out very unfairly, and as the phenyles and liquid sheep dips are made from carbolic acid and tar oil, the whole group of products should be either free or dutiable.

Here is a gentleman who is arguing in one instance in favour of a duty, and who recommends that the whole group of products should be, as he puts it, “either free or dutiable.” He goes on to say -

The analyses of duty free Little’s phenyle and Cooper’s sheep dip, as undernoted, Will indicate this very plainly : -

I have several other letters in my possession, but no doubt most honorable members have received a copy of each letter, and studied its contents at their leisure. This is another instance in’ which, for the sake of bolstering up a few miserable manufacturers within the limits of the cities, our great primary industries are to be taxed. We know very well that these disinfectants and sheep dips are what might almost be called the raw material of the wool-growers. For that reason alone they should be able to purchase them as cheaply as possible. The honorable member for Laanecoorie has attempted to argue that if we place a heavy duty on the articles, they will become cheaper, but I think I have shown’ conclusively that his argument was entirely without any weight. I am opposed to the imposition of a duty. The Minister, in his wisdom, has proposed that the article should be free. The Chairman of the Tariff Commission made no comment on the matter: very little evidence was placed before him. Every one knows that the Treasurer is the last man to show want of backbone. If any one can sit tight and fast he can do so. I trust that on this item he will sit tight and fast as he has done on other occasions, and will refuse to have his schedule altered.

Mr CARR:
Macquarie

– I wish to protest against the sweeping generalities in which the honorable member for Hunter has indulged. He has spoken about this being a petty and miserable manufacturing industry confined to the limits of a. few cities. The manufacture of disinfectants and sheep dips is so easy that they are made in many country towns in New South Wales. Apart from several manufactories in Sydney, there is a company operating in Bathurst. The question of the duty on creosote and tar oils was involved in the question of the duty on sheep dips, but now that these oils have been made free, it is only consistent on the part of the Government to impose an effective protective duty on disinfectants and sheep dips, particularly on the latter. The honorable member for Hunter mentioned the constituent parts of certain sheep dips without making any deduction from them. The deduction is that the constituent parts of the local article go to show that it is much stronger and much more efficacious than the imported article, and it is sold at a cheaper price. The imposition of a duty could not possibly have the effect of raising the price because, as I mentioned, almost any one can make the article. The manufacturers give the whole formula without any reservation so that any one can obtain the material parts and mix the dip for themselves. If anything calls for a duty I maintain that this article does. The imported article is decidedly inferior to that which is locally made.

Mr Wilson:

– Does the honorable member mean to say that Quibell’s dip is inferior to the locally-made article?

Mr CARR:

– I do. The honorable member, as a medical practitioner knowing the value of these ingredients, should be aware of that.

Mr Wilson:

– A medical practitioner is not supposed to know anything about sheep dips.

Mr CARR:

– I should have thought that the rudiments of medicine ‘ would have taught a man the value of these materials, and that one who professed to know anything about medicine would be aware that when certain constituents appear in a certain mixture of greater strength than in another mixture - presuming that strength is desired - the stronger must be the more efficacious. No harm has ever been done by the local article, though it is stronger than the imported dip. I. strongly support the demand for a duty.

Mr PALMER:
Echuca

– The recommendation of the Tariff Commission with regard to this item was that it should be free. It was free under the old Tariff and it is free under the Tariff proposed by the Government. I am one of those who believe that as protection is the policy of the country we should give a reasonable amount of protection on a commodity which can be manufactured in Australia. But this is a commodity which affects the largest producing interest in the Commonwealth.

Mr.Carr. - Does the honorable member say that sheep dip cannot be made in Australia ?

Mr PALMER:

-I have not said anything of the sort. As it can be made in. Australia, the makers are entitled to a measure of protection. But in view of the great importance of the industry, affecting not only large sheep stations but small farmers and the bulk of the people generally - it is one which we cannot afford to trifle with. I should not have risen except for the statement of the honorable member for Laanecoorie to the effect that certain manufacturers of this commodity in Australia were prepared to give a guarantee that the price would not be increased to the consumer. I view guarantees of that sort with a great deal of suspicion. We must take every precaution to see that the cost of these commodities is not increased.

Mr Carr:

– Local competition will keep the price down.

Mr.PALMER.- I hold in my hand a statement - a copy of which has been sent to every honorable member - which shows the value of guarantees that prices will not be increased. As a matter of fact, the stern logic of events proves that in regard to almost every item in the Tariff, where an increased duty has been imposed, an increased price to the consumer has- followed. Numerous invoices have been produced in this Chamber to prove that statement. The honorable member for Laanecoorie assures us that some person who is. making these sheep dips is prepared to give a guarantee. I reply that the value of such guarantees is shown by a document that has been forwarded to honorable members by Mr. McDougall, of the firm of Sands and McDougall. His letter contains the following paragraph -

In giving my evidence before the Tariff Commission, I said that if the duty on strawboard was increased by £1 per ton, the Australian Paper Mills Co. Pty., Limited, would not increase their price for strawboard ; but as the House of Representatives has not yet dealt with that item, we have a perfect right to increase our price until such time as the duty is determined upon.

In view of that statement, coming from one who gave a guarantee that the price of an article would not be increased as the result ‘of a duty, what value can be attached to such a statement as has been made by the honorable member for Laanecoorie? Although my vote may be at variance with what may be supposed to be protectionist policy, I am determined to cast it in such a direction that the larger interests of this community shall not be sacrificed for the benefit of the smaller ones.

Mr LIVINGSTON:
Barker

.- I understand that it is not possible for a private member to move to increase a duty or to add a new duty to the Tariff. I wish to ask the Treasurer whether he intends to propose a duty in regard to the commodity with which we are dealing? If he does not we are wasting time in discussing it. If he does, I shall have a little more to say hereafter.

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:
Treasurer · Hume · Protectionist

– I think that there is a great deal in some of the statements which have been made. There is no question in my mind that the commodities under discussion can be successfully made in Australia. I intend to test the feeling of the Committee upon the point by proposing a new item. I therefore move -

That the words “ and on and after 5th December, 1907, 283A, Phenyles, liquid disinfectants, liquid sheep washes, insecticides, sheep-branding preparations, per gallon, 2S. ; (n) Sheep dips and carbolic preparations in powder or paste form, per cwt, 10s. ; (c), Disinfectants n.e.i., free,” be added.

I have listened very attentively to the statements which have been made, and think that there is a great deal in them. An honorable member remarked in the course of the debate that I know something about this matter. So I do. I believe that I know as much about it as any one present, and I know that the best sheep dips are made in ^Australia. The bulk of them ought to be made here. There should be no importations in this line at all. It is ridiculous to say that the simple mixtures which these commodities are cannot be made in Australia. A very strong expression of opinion has been given this afternoon in regard to the matter, and I have determined to test the feeling of honorable members by taking a vote upon the new item which I have submitted.

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

.- I should like to ask the Treasurer to consider the advisableness of attaching the honorable member for Melbourne Ports to the Trade and Customs Department. The Minister in charge of this Tariff, with all the resources of the Government ‘ at his command, with the recommendations of the Tariff Commission to boot, and with the assistance of Dr. Wollaston and his officers, only discovers to-day that sheep washes can be made in Australia, and that, therefore, a duty ought to be imposed. If the honorable member for Melbourne Ports is possessed of knowledge which is without the ken of men whose special duty it is to investigate such matters, the Minister ought to give him a huge salary, and attach him to the Department.

Mr Mathews:

– I quite agree that I am worth more than I get !

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

– There is no doubt that the honorable member is earning more than his .£600 a year, judging from what has occurred to-day. I make the suggestion to the Treasurer in all seriousness that he should discharge some of his officers and give the honorable member the run of the Department. I am sure he would look after the revenue.

Mr Salmon:

– The honorable member was complaining yesterday that the officers of the Department gave the Minister too much information ; to-day he is complaining that they do not give enough.

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

– The officers seem to know nothing about these matters at all. The goods in question have always been free. Only to-day - after the Chairman of the Tariff Commission has inquired into the subject, he being a strong protectionist, almost a prohibitionist in some things, and after all the resources of the Department have been utilized - it is discovered on the floor of the House that we want a high duty upon sheep washes and disinfectants.

Mr Mathews:

– Not a high duty.

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

– I understand that what is proposed does not amount to more than about 50 per cent. That, of course, is a small duty from the honorable member’s point of view. But what does he regard as a high duty? Yesterday he was clamouring for duties up to 200 per cent, and 300 per cent, to be retained. What would the honorable member regard as a high duty?

Mr Mathews:

– Just exactly the opposite to what the honorable member would regard as a high duty.

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

– That is about as reasonable an answer as could be expected from the honorable member. But unreasonable as he proves himself to be, he is able to dictate a policy to the Department of Trade and Customs. He is able to dictate a protectionist policy for Australia. I congratulate him. I congratulate the Minister on his susceptibility. Hitherto, it appears’, the ignorance of the Department and the ignorance of the Minister were in need of enlightenment.

Mr Salmon:

– Mr. Kingston proposed a duty on the same goods.

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

– Surely the Treasurer, before introducing this Tariff, investigated the history of the last one. If Mr. Kingston proposed a duty, why were the goods made free?

Mr Salmon:

– Because the importers lobbied so successfully while the last Tariff was under consideration. . .

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

– Did they lobby the Minister to make the goods free? I think that the honorable member ought to stop these explanations, which are really a -reflection upon the Treasurer.

Mr Thomas:

– The Treasurer is absent just now. Who is in charge?

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

– Unfortunately, the Minister in charge of the Trade and Customs Department at present seems to be a perfect cypher in regard to the whole question.

Mr Thomas:

– The Postmaster-General seems to be in charge just now.

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

– I despair of asking him for an explanation about anything. We had evidence the other day of the stores of knowledge that are wrapped up in his cranium. I ‘ do not wish to go to that source of information. It is about time that the Treasurer either pleaded total ignorance in regard to most of the matters connected with the Tariff and acknowledged that he is prepared to accept the direction of the honorable member for Melbourne Ports, whom he might very well attach to his Department, or investigated matters for himself. He told us that he knew all about sheep, having had to do with them all his life, and was therefore quite aware how his proposal would affect the pastoral industry. If he considered that the local manufacture of sheep dips should be protected, why did he not provide for its protection when framing the Tariff, or move in that direction when the last Tariff was under consideration. One begins to understand the criticism’ of the Minister of Defence, that the Treasurer seems to know nothing, about protection except when he is out of office. Now that he is in office, he has to take, his policy from the honorable member for Melbourne Ports. The proposed duty is outrageously high. I am told that sheep dips are sold here at 4s. a gallon.

Mr Mathews:

– The imported dips cost 5s. and 6s. a gallon.

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

– The pastoral industry is the basis of the prosperity of the Commonwealth, and why should we lay it under tribute, to give employment to persons in making sheep dips. We should rather take action -in the direction of cheapening all the requirements of the industry. But the Minister in the hands of the honorable member for Melbourne Ports is like a marionette pulled with strings.

Mr WILKS:
Dalley

.- The honorable member for Parramatta has found fault with the honorable member for Melbourne Ports for suggesting the imposition of n. duty on sheep dip. Let me refresh the memory of the Committee as to what occurred when this item was under discussion in connexion with the consideration of the old Tariff. The Treasurer was a Minister in the Protectionist Government which introduced that Tariff, the Government being supported by strong protectionists such as the then, honorable member for New England, Mr. Sawers, and the then honorable member for Gwydir, the late Mr. Cruickshank. But when the item sheep dip was under consideration, Mr. Sawers, who was a pastoralist, strongly supported a motion that it be placed on the free list, and that proposition was also supported by Mr. Cruickshank and carried. Apparently “the sheep in the large .pastoral properties owned by the honorable member for Melbourne Port’s on the shores of Hobson’s Bay do not need dipping, and therefore he is ready to impose a tax on sheep dip. The Minister on the last occasion had nothing to say against sheep dip being admitted duty free. He then knew as much about’ the pastoral industry as he knows now, and as much about the manufacture pf sheep dip, and yet he did not suggest that it be made dutiable. The proposed duty of 2:s. per gallon is largely duty on water. As the honorable member for Barker has pointed out, disinfectants are used in connexion with other live stock besides sheep. The proposed tax would be a very heavy one on primary producers, and therefore I hope that it will not be agreed to, and that sheep dip will be placed on the free list.

Mr HANS IRVINE:
GRAMPIANS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910

-25l- - The Treasurer should stick to his original proposal, and not spring an amendment of this sort on the Committee at a moment’s notice. The honorable member for Melbourne Ports is always ready to build up city businesses at the expense of country industries. Every farmer has to use disinfectants of one kind and another in connexion with live stock, and a ‘medical man like the honorable member for Laanecoorie should be one of the’ first to encourage their use, because the greater the precautions against disease, the greater the health of the community, and of the stock, and the larger the production of the country.

Sir John Forrest:

– Disinfectants are used in connexion with the cultivation of plants.

Mr HANS IRVINE:
GRAMPIANS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910

– Yes; they are used for cattle, sheep, poultry and plants.

Mr Mathews:

– The duty will not raise the price.

Mr HANS IRVINE:
GRAMPIANS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910

– One of the witnesses before the Tariff Commission guaranteed that if the duty which he suggested were agreed to, he would not raise his price. But when he found that some of his requirements had been made dutiable, he paid no regard to that statement, and increased his charges. I was also told that shortly after the Tariff was introduced, the price of a certain kind of bottle was to be increased by 2s. 6d. per gross. Those who are making sheep dips in Australia have been engaged in the business long enough to be able to do without this protection. If their dips are valuable, the pastoral and farming community will buy them, because those engaged in rearing sheep know what best suits their business. They would not use imported dips if they thought Australian dips were better. The proposed duty is equal to 50 per cent, ad valorem on the cheaper imported dips, though it is not so high on concentrated dips, such as Cooper’s, which cost ros. per gallon. The proposed duty will be a tax on primary production, and against the interests of the public health. The honorable member for Laanecoorie ought to encourage the use of disinfectants.

Mr Salmon:

– The imported dips are 50 per cent.- dearer than the locally-made dips, although they are admitted free of duty..

Mr HANS IRVINE:
GRAMPIANS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910

– The pastoralists and farmers are not fools, and if they pay more for imported dips, they do so because they know that those dips are better than the locally-made dips.

Mr Salmon:

– Many people drink imported wine in preference to Australian wine.

Mr HANS IRVINE:
GRAMPIANS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910

– That does not concern me. I have always been in favour of the reduction of the wine duties, which have been imposed largely for revenue purposes. In’ my opinion, the wine-making industry does not need protection of that kind. I hope that the Treasurer will reconsider his proposal.

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:
Treasurer · Hume · Protectionist

– The honorable member for Grampians is, perhaps, unaware of the fact that the value of our imports of dips and disinfectants in 1903 was £29,000, whereas those imported in 1906 were valued at £52,000.

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

– - In 1906 we had far more sheep in Australia.

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:

– The imports in 1905 were valued at .£51,000, and in 1904 at £4 I,000. There has been a strong expression of opinion in favour of a duty on sheep dips, and I have been asked to submit this proposal to the Committee since it is not competent for a private member to do so. It is a disgrace to Australia that even a gallon of these dips should be imported, and- the big men who introduce it are not in sympathy with Australian sentiment.

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

– And yet the Tariff as introduced provided that sheep-dips should be free.

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:

– Yes j but that was because of the recommendation of the protective section of the Tariff Commission, and because also sheep dips were free under the old Tariff. It seems to me that a large number of people are antiAustralian, and are prepared to obtain what they want anywhere but in the Commonwealth.

Sir John Forrest:

– Do not use that sort of argument.

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:

– The honorable member is also in it.

Sir John Forrest:

– Why should the honorable member be a better Australian than I am?

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:

– I think that I am

Sir John Forrest:

– It is impertinent on the part of the honorable member to say so. .

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order. These interjections must cease.

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:

– I do not wish the whole afternoon to be devoted to a discussion of this item. I felt that it was my duty to submit the amendment so that honorable members might have an opportunity to express an opinion upon the question.

Mr Glynn:

– In the Tariff of 1901 a duty of only 15 per cent, was proposed, but. the House decided that the item should be free.

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:

– This is a much superior House, from a protectionist standpoint, to that of 1901. If’ the Committee desire a more moderate duty, let some honorable member take action. I shall not object. I merely wish to have the question settled.

Sir JOHN FORREST:
Swan

-351- - The concluding observations of the Treasurer must commend themselves to the Committee ; but I certainly do not appreciate the arguments he used at the outset of his speech. He is accustomed to resort to them when he does not get his own way, and to insinuate that .those who are opposed to him are anti-Australian. By what process of reasoning he arrives at the conclusion that he is a better Australian than those, who happen fo differ with him on the Tariff I do not know, and to use such an argument is only to be offensive. As to the item itself, I think that sheep dips and disinfectants should be free. New discoveries are constantly being made, and there should be no obstacle in the way of the introduction of any improved disinfectant or insecticide into Australia. Our climatic conditions are such that we have to fight against pests of all kinds, which attack both live stock and plant life, and I am of opinion that it would not be in the interests of the country to impose a duty on sheep dips, insecticides, and disinfectants. The honorable member for Laanecoorie has said that local manufacturers ,of these articles are able to sell their products at one- third less than the price charged for the imported article. That being so, it cannot be said that they need protection. The protectionist section of the Tariff Commission recommended that sheep dips should be free, and, as has been pointed out, the proposal in the first Federal Tariff that the duty should be 15 per cent, was rejected. I hope that the item will stand as printed.

Mr. JOSEPH COOK (Parramatta) [3-391- - I propose to move -

That the amendment be amended by inserting after the word “ preparations,” paragraph a, the word “free.”

– And the honorable member says that it cannot.

Mr PAGE:

– I do not say anything of the sort - the honorable member ought not to put words into my mouth. Anything that promotes the brilliancy of wool ought to receive earnest attention from this Committee, seeing that the wool industry is the backbone of the Commonwealth. But for the wool industry, I do not know what the people of the cities would do for a living. Thank goodness, in Western Queensland the sheep are free from diseases which prevail elsewhere, and sheep wash has not been regarded as necessary. But I am told that, in order to promote brilliancy in the wool, it is intended to resort to dipping. This fact ought to be taken into consideration, and attention paid to this primary industry, as well as to the manufacturing industries in the cities.

Mr Carr:

– If the amendment before the Chair be defeated, I intend to move that the duty be1s.

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

– [ have already notified my intention to move an amendment. I move -

That the amendment be amended by inserting after the word “ preparations,” paragraph a, the word “ free.”

Question put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 0

NOES: 0

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Amendment of the amendment agreed to.

Amendment, as amended, negatived.

Item agreed to.

Item 284. Fly-papers, chemical and sticky, ad val., 15 per cent.

Mr LIVINGSTON:
Barker

.- I think that these fly-papers should be admitted free. In Australia the fly pest is rapidly becoming a very dangerous one, and we shall have to find some means of combating it. The use of fly-papers is one method by which we can deal with the small flies in houses. Therefore, I move -

That the word’s “ and on and after 5th December, 1907, free,” be added.’

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

– I should like to know whether the Treasurer intends to accept the amendment? After the Committee have decided that sheep-washes shall be admitted free, surely he cannot persist in making flypapers dutiable at 15 per cent.

Amendment agreed to.

Item, as amended, agreed to.

Item 285. Thio sulphates (Hydrosulphites), and Hydrosulphites containing zinc sulphite and formaldehyde, free.

Amendment (by Sir William Lyne) agreed to -

That the words “hydrosulphites” be left out, with a view to insert in lieu thereof the words “ hyposulphites.”

Item, as amended, agreed to.

Item 286 (Chemical compounds and simple drugs) agreed to.

Item 287. Bacteriological products and serum, as prescribed by departmental by-laws, free.

Mr THOMAS BROWN:
CALARE, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I should like to know whether this item will cover the microbe proposed to be introduced by Dr. Danysz, and whether the imports under this heading last year, which were valued at £3,268, were confined to that and other similar cultures?

Item agreed to.

Item 288 (Carbonate and bi-carbonate of soda) agreed to.

Item 289. Tartaric acid, cream of tartar, and citric acid, ad val. (General Tariff), . 5 per cent. ; (United Kingdom), free.

Amendment (by Sir William Lyne) agreed to -

That after the words “ 5 per cent.,” the words “ and on and after5th December, 1907 (General Tariff), free,” be inserted.

Item, as amended, agreed to.

Item 290 (Essential oils, non-spirituous) agreed to.

Item 291. Medicines -

Pharmaceutical Preparations : Patent and

Proprietary Medicines and other Medicinal Preparations and Compounds (not chemical) ; Medicinal Extracts ; Essences ; Juices ; Infusions ; Solutions; Emulsions; Confections; and Syrups; Pills: Pilules; Tabloids; Soloids; Ovoids; Tablets; Capsules; Troches; Cachets; Suppositories; Pessaries n.e.i. ; Plasters; Poultices; Salves; Cerates; Ointments; Liniments ; Lotions ; Pastes and the like ; Medicinal Waters and Oils n.e.i. ; and Medicines for Animals, ad val., 15 per cent.

Spirituous, ad val., 15 per cent. (Or according to the rates provided in Division I. whichever rate returns the higher duty.)

Amendments (by Sir William Lyne) agreed to -

That after the word “ Preparations,” line 4, paragraph (a), a semi-colon be inserted ; that the word “ and “ immediately following be left out, with a view to insert in lieu thereof the word “ medicinal,” and that the word “ Troches,” line 10, be left out.

Opium, for medicinal purposes only, under departmental by-laws, per lb., 30s.

On the next item, I shall move a consequential amendment. I move -

That the words “ use as medicine only and not capable of being used for smoking purposes “ be left out, with a view to insert in lieu thereof the words, “medicinal purposes only, under departmental by-laws.”

Mr THOMAS BROWN:
CALARE, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I desire to know whether the Treasurer has proposed this alteration with a view to meeting certain representations which have been made to him by the Friendly Societies Medical Institutes and Dispensaries’ Association of New South Wales?

Sir William Lyne:

-i propose to ask the Committee to so alter the next item as to make it read -

Opium, contained in any medicinal preparation when such preparation would not be liable to duty under another heading at a higher rate per lb., 30s.

Mr THOMAS BROWN:
CALARE, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– That does not touch the point which has been raised by the association I mentioned. On the 2 1 st August last, its secretary forwarded to me the following resolution concerning the supply of opium -

That this meeting of accredited representatives of 25,000 members of Friendly Societies, representing 100,000 souls in Sydney, Paddington, Red fern, Balmain, Newtown, Parramatta, Marrickville, North Sydney, Leichhardt, and Petersham, whilst congratulating the Federal Government in its attempt to control the importation and sale of pernicious drugs, &c, desires to enter its emphatic protest against the Customs authorities’ regulation restricting the supply of opium for medicinal purposes, when prescribed by legally-qualified medical practitioners, as in its various forms the drug is frequently administered both internally and externally in relieving the intense sufferings of the membership.

Mr SALMON:

– The Department has the power to restrict the importation of opium, but no power to restrict the sale of it. That is a matter which rests with the States

Mr J H CATTS:
Cook

– The point which the Friendly Societies’ Medical Institutes and Dispensaries of New South Wales desire to be dealt with has not yet been touched. Paragraph 4 of the departmental regulations referring to opium reads as follows: -

Before granting any licence to import opium, the collector must be satisfied bystatutory declaration that the applicant for such licence is a legally-qualified medical practitioner or a person lawfully carrying on business as a wholesale or manufacturing chemist or druggist or pharmaceutical chemist.

Friendly Societies’ Medical Institutes and Dispensaries do not come under that definition, and consequently they are prohibited from importing opium. What they desire is stated in a letter covering the resolution which was read by the honorable member for Calare. The letter reads as follows -

In accordance with a resolution passed at a meeting of the Executive of the above Association, held last night, it becomes my duty to sub mit the following copy of two resolutions, and to respectfully ask if you will kindly use your best endeavours to secure the exemption of our institutions from the regulation regarding the simply of opium formedicinal purposes, and to strenuously oppose the imposition of the increased duties on drugs, medicinal preparations and medicine bottles when the new Tariff proposals are submitted to the House.

– Provision has already been made to meet cases like that.

Mr JOHNSON:

– The Minister is quite right in making regulations to meet such cases, and each case should be investigated on its merits. So long as proper safeguards are taken, I have no particular objection to offer to what is proposed, though I think that the duty on opium for medicinal purposes is too high.

Mr LIDDELL:
Hunter

– I do not think that the remarks of the honorable member for Laanecoorie should be allowed to pass without comment. Let me quote from information forwarded to me. some time ago in connexion with the sale of opium by chemists -

The Acting Collector of Customs of New South Wales has issued the following memorandum to the licensed importers of opium : - “ In future, any licensed importer of opium or extract of opium shall be held responsible for the supply of any retail pharmacist of any of the drugs mentioned in excess of the following quantities per annum : - Gum opium, 4 ozs. ; solid extract of opium, 2 ozs. ; liquid extract of opium, 5 ozs.; tincture opium, 2 quarts. In addition] besides keeping books, such licensee shall supply the Department with a monthly -statement, showing the quantity of opium and its .preparations imported and manufactured, with a list of the names and addresses of persons to whom such preparations, &c, were sold and the quantities supplied.”

A great many chemists sell much larger quantities of opium per week than is mentioned in that memorandum. Naturally, the issue of it caused a considerable amount of consternation. The honorable member for Nepean and the right honorable member for East Sydney, brought the matter up in Parliament. Thereupon, the following memorandum was issued by the Minister of Trade and Customs -

There is no restriction to the bond fide use of opium preparations for medicinal purposes. It was, however, found that special vigilance is imperatively necessary, in order that the supplies should not be diverted to improper purposes. Inquiry was made as to the fair average Quantities ordinarily required each year by chemists, and the Department was advised that such average quantities were : - Gum opium, ^ lb. ; solid extract, 2 ozs. ; liquid extract, 5 ozs. ; tincture of opium, 2 quarts. The collectors were advised” so that the above should afford a guide to trade requirements, and aid them in supervising -the .distribution. That this was absolutely necessary may be realized from the fact that in one case we found a country chemist being supplied with over 2 lb. in weight of extract of opium each fortnight. In regard to three chemists, whose supplies prior to July, 1906, did not reach 1 lb. each year, we found they were supplied bv licensed importers as follows for nine months ending 31st March last : - No. 1, 36^ lbs., about 1 lb. per week; No. 2, 47^ lbs., about i£ lbs. ner week; No. 3, 22 lbs., about f lb. per week. It is obvious these quantities were not required for legitimate purposes, and the action recently taken is to insist upon those persons who are licensed to import opium exercising every reasonable precaution, so that the law may be observed. The Minister has already decided that if he finds reasonable care is not exercised bv any persons licensed to import opium” for medicinal purposes, he will not hesitate to cancel the licence. It will be quite impossible to give effect to the desire to suppress the evil of opium smoking if the irregularities drawn attention to were permitted.

This was the effect of the protest made by the honorable member for Nepean and the right honorable member for East Svdney.

As regards the question whether the duty is too high, I point out that it operates as almost a prohibitive impost on a number of proprietary lines, containing only an infinitesimal quantity of opium. The duty is therefore hardly fair to the ordinary consumers of opium medicinally. It certainly is not right to tax the users of a proprie.tary article to the full extent of the amount of opium contained in the preparation. The duty will press hardly upon friendly societies.

Mr Mauger:

– The Treasurer has agreed to an amendment to meet their case.

Mr LIDDELL:

– The Government tack and change about so often that it is difficult to keep pace with their proposals.

Amendment agreed to.

Item, as amended, agreed to.

Item 293. Medicinal preparations containing opium, per lb., 30s.

Amendment (by Mr. Mauger) agreed to -

That the following words be added - “and on and after 5th December. 1907, opium contained in any medicinal preparation, when such preparation would not be liable to higher duty under any other heading, per lb., 30s.”

Item, as amended, agreed to.

Item 294. Perfumery ; including Perfumed Ammonia; Camphor (in tablets); Toilet Preparations not containing spirit (perfumed or not) : Cachous ; Skin Foods ; refined Lanoline ; refined Glycerine and Vaseline : and Perfumed Petroleum Jelly, ad val. (General Tariff), 35 per cent. ; (United Kingdom^. 2^ per cent.

Mr THOMAS BROWN:
CALARE, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I wish to point out that vaseline and camphor form the basis of a number of preparations, and it seems to me that the rates of duty which it is proposed to impose on them are altogether too high. On this subject, the Chamber of Commerce, Svdney, has furnished the following information -

Vaseline was subject to 20 per cent., and now proposed to be 35 per cent. Is largely used in making ointments. The duty will work out, including the duty on the bottles, at 19s. 3d. ner gross of 2 oz. bottles or equal to 120 per cent, on the cost. Vaseline is not producible here, and should not carTy more than 10 per cent.

Camphor, 1 oz. blocks Japanese, old duty 20 per cent., and proposed 35 per cent. It is not producible here, and 10 per cent, should be a fair thing.

Mr Hutchison:

– Who says that vaseline is not made here?

Mr THOMAS BROWN:
CALARE, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– No doubt, anything can be made here; but what concerns us is whether vaseline is now made here in sufficiently large quantities to meet the demand, for it.

Mr Mauger:

– It is.

Mr THOMAS BROWN:
CALARE, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– The Sydney Chamber of Commerce, whose members are intimately connected with business operations, say that it is not. I think that both camphor and vaseline should be left out of the item, and I move -

That the words “ camphor (in tablets) “ be left out.

Amendment agreed to.

Item further amended to read as follow -

Perfumery ; including Perfumed Ammonia : Toilet Preparations (perfumed or not), nonspirituous and spirituous, when the duty payable under item 8 is less than that payable under this item; Skin Foods; refined Lanoline; refined Glycerine; and Petroleum Jelly.

Amendment (by Mr. Johnson) agreed to -

That after the words “35 per cent.,” the words “and on and after5th December, 1907, ad val. (General Tariff). 30 per cent.,” be inserted.

Amendment (by Mr. Johnson) proposed -

That after the words “25 per cent.,” the words “ and on and after 5th December, 1907, ad val. (United Kingdom), 20 per cent.,” be inserted.

Mr BOWDEN:
Nepean

– I hope that the Committee will agree to this amendment. Twenty per cent. is the old rate. The Treasurer, in regard to other items, has been very careful to insist upon’ the fact that he has followed the recommendations of the A section of the Tariff Commission, and I therefore point out that it was the unanimous recommendation of both sections that the old duty should be retained in this case. Moreover, the Minister has consented to a reduction of the general rate from 35 to 30 per cent. ; and as he originally proposed a preferential difference of 10 per cent. in favour of Great Britain, he should, to be consistent, agree to this amendment in order that that preference may remain. He has offered no explanation of his reasons for putting aside the recommendation of the Tariff Commission.

Question put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 0

NOES: 0

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Amendment negatived.

Item, as amended, agreed to.

Item 295. Unrefined Glycerine and Unrefined Lanoline, free.

Mr THOMAS BROWN:
CALARE, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I should like to know what the Treasurer proposes to do in regard to camphor and vaseline, which were omitted from the previous item. I think they should be inserted in this item, and am prepared to move accordingly.

Mr SALMON:
Laanecoorie

.- On behalf of the honorable member for Hunter, I would suggest that the words “ plasters: adhesive and all unmedicated “ should also be added to this item.

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:
Treasurer · Hume · Protectionist

– I propose to add to this item the words . “ Camphor in tablets “–

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

– Why not all camphor ; it is not produced here.

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:

– Very well. I move -

That after the word “ Lanoline,” the words Camphor, Vaseline (not being Petroleum Jelly), and Plasters, adhesive and all unmedicated,” be inserted.

Mr BOWDEN:
Nepean

.- The idea was that plasters should be free.

Mr Salmon:

– The words used are recommended by the Chemists and Druggists’ Association.

Mr BOWDEN:

– I simply wished to obtain an expert assurance on that point. Then, again, is not “ petroleum jelly,” merely a synonym for vaseline?

Sir William Lyne:

– No. By adding the words “ not being petroleum jelly,” we shall, for the purposes of the Department, distinguish between the two.

Amendment agreed to.

Item, as amended, agreed to.

Item 296. Essential Oils and Fat, containing Extract of Flowers used in making Perfumes, ad val., 20 per cent.

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:
Treasurer · Hume · Protectionist

– I have received a report in reference to this item, stating that -

This item was recommended by the Tariff Commission, provided that certain other recommendations were carried out, namely, an additional duty on perfumed spirit.

That recommendation has not been adopted, and as it has been found that this duty will fall heavily on the manufacturers of toilet soaps, I move -

That the words “ and on and after 5th December, 1907, free,” be added.

Sir JOHN QUICK:
Bendigo

.- I wish to point out that the Treasurer is in error in saying that this duty was recommended by the Tariff Commission. It was only recommended conditionally.

Sir William Lyne:

– I said so, and that the condition had not been complied with.

Amendment agreed to.

Item, as amended, agreed to.

Item 297. Sulphuric Ether and other ethers n.e.i., non-spirituous or containing not more than 5 per cent. of proof spirit, free.

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:
Treasurer · Hume · Protectionist

– This item has been introduced inadvertently. It is already provided for in item 9, Division 1 of the Tariff, and I propose to delete it.

Item negatived.

Item 298 (Soda Crystals) agreed to.

Mr Tudor:

– What about the Excise on saccharine and vinegar?

Mr HUME COOK:
BOURKE, VICTORIA · PROT

– That will not be forgotten.

Mr Tudor:

– I do not intend if I can help it that it shall be forgotten.

Division X. - Wood, Wicker, and Cane.

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:
Treasurer · Hume · Protectionist

– I move -

That items 299 to 302 inclusive be postponed until after the consideration of item 303.

Mr GLYNN:
Angas

.- I hope that the honorable member for Corangamite will not be forced to press the amendment he has suggested, because it would put the

Minister in a rather’ unfortunate position. I do not think that a vote taken on such an amendment would be a true indication of the wish of the Committee. I appeal to the Minister in a friendly way to give us an opportunity of determining the question of whether 7 s. 6d. each shall be charged as an alternative to the duty on chairs. We could probably deal with the matter within ten minutes. I make the appeal, because as far back as the 30th August last I “made a strong request on remonstrances against the duties put before me that item 301 should be taken at once, and at the time Ministers were inclined to accept that suggestion. It was subsequently pointed out that it would perhaps be better to wait until the item came on in the ordinary course. Now we have reached ;t, and this very day I have received communications from Adelaide with respect to the item. It is pointed out that importers cannot take their chairs out of bond, and are actually threatened with law suits for the non-fulfilment of orders-.

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:
Treasurer · Hume · Protectionist

– I will withdraw the motion and go 011 with “Furniture.”

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr Johnson:

– I am sorry that there has been a little misunderstanding. I mentioned to several honorable members on this side that there was a probability of the Minister proposing to postpone the furniture items until after the timber duties, because the furniture duties would hinge largely on what was done in the case of timber. There seems, however, to have been a slight misapprehension, as some of those to whom I spoke thought that it was proposed to postpone only the item “Furniture.” I did not understand it so, although other honorable members did.

Item 299. Furniture (except of Metal, Wicker, Bamboo, and Cane), n.e.i., in parts or finished; including Billiard and Bagatelle Tables and Boards and Accessories : Trays ; Crumb Trays and Brushes; Mattresses; Bolsters-; Pillows; Window Shade or Blind Rollers: Rollers with Blinds; Screens; Portieres; Dress Stands and Show Figures for draping or other purposes; Writing Desks and Cabinets; Stationery Cabinets ; Type Cabinets and Cases ; Mirrors framed or not, n.e.i. ; Blinds not being textile ; Panels for incorporating into furniture ; Ice Chests or Refrigerators; Housemaids’ Boxes; Meat and other Household Safes; Bath Cabinets; Dental and Surgical ‘Cabinets ; Invalid Furniture and Chairs on wheels ; Aseptic Hospital Furniture, including Trollies, Stretchers, and the like, ad val. (General Tariff), 40 per cent. : (United Kingdom), 30 per cent.

Mr STORRER:
Bass

– I am sorry that I caused any disturbance, because I have always supported the Government as far as possible. I desire to add after the word “Furniture” the words “ Chairs, Lounges and Settees,” and to strike out the words “ except of Metal, Wicker, Bamboo, and Cane.” Then, lower down, I wish to strike out the words “and Chairs on wheels.” The whole item would then deal with all furniture, which would come in at the one rate.

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:
Treasurer · Hume · Protectionist

– I have a proposition to make which will meet what the honorable member desires. I move -

That the words “and on and alter 5th December, 1907, Furniture n.e.i., -including any article of wood, or partly of wood, wholly or partly made up or finished, and used in any building or premises, including hospitals ; also Show Figures of all kinds, ad val.” be added.

Those words embrace all that was previously contained in the item in a much more comprehensive and less cumbersome form. They have been prepared by the Department. As to the rates of duty, I intend to propose 40 per cent, in the General Tariff and 30 per cent, against the United Kingdom. I- shall afterwards move to bring the rates of duty on the next two items into accord with whatever rates are agreed to on this item.

Mr STORRER:
Bass

– I am not particular about the wording of the item, so long as lounges, chairs, and settees come in at the same rate as other furniture. I will not proceed with my amendments.

Sir JOHN QUICK:
Bendigo

.- I thoroughly approve of the Treasurer’s generalization, embracing, as it does,- in a comprehensive manner every possible description of furniture. It is a very convenient and logical description of furniture, and is better than the minute specification of a large number of articles in detail. I think a duty of 30 per cent, all round is quite sufficient. Although the Treasurer proposes a generalized description in this item, I am disposed to think that lounges, settees, and chairs should be separately dealt with, so that the Committee may have an opportunity of giving a straight-out vote in those cases. The reason why the specific duties’ on those articles, apparently high on the* face of them, were proposed, was because the Tariff Commission were informed that most of the articles of this description came from cheap labour countries, such as China, where they were turned out at such a dirt-cheap rate that an ad valorem duty of 30 per cent, would be practically useless and inoperative.

Mr Page:

– How many bent-wood chairs are made in China?

Sir JOHN QUICK:

– I do not intend to argue the question, because I know that the feeling of the Committee is against the proposed high specific duties, but I wish to cite the evidence upon which it was proposed. If the Committee do not think that those fixed duties are reasonable, I ask them to impose such other fixed duties as they may consider operative or effective. Evidence was given in Melbourne by furniture manufacturers. One witness was Mr. George Dellit, representing John Del lit and Sons, wickerware furniture manufacturers, North Melbourne. In reference to the wicker and bamboo- furniture trade, he said -

We cannot compete against Japanese and Chinese, whose labour only costs 4d. per day. For example : - r chair in China, 1 day’s work, 4d. 1 chair in Melbourne, 1 day’s work,’ 6s. The only way we can settle same is to fix a fixed duty on each chair and lounge, as Chinese chairs are sold in Melbourne, four days’ work in each, ros. to 12s. each.

In another part of his evidence he stated -

This part of our trade is crippled through the importation of goods from China, India, and Japan, including the Straits Settlement, where wages range from 5d. to gd. per day. Some of the lounges and chairs coming from these countries would take any man three days to make, and 25 per cent, (ad valorem), say, on a lounge with three days’ work on it, invoiced at 5s. in Canton, scarcely alters the price of it here, as we have seen them sold at 12s. 6d. to 15s., including all costs. ‘We, therefore, ask that a duty of ros. be n laced on each lounge or settee, and 7s. 6d. on each chair.

Mr JOHNSON:
Lang

Mr HENRY WILLIS:
Robertson

– I do not think that the honorable member for Coolgardie has made out a case. I should be prepared to support a general reduction of the duty ; but I cannot see how it would be possible to provide special exemptions in the case of furniture required by hospitals.

Mr Mahon:

– The Tariff Commission made a similar recommendation in various other items.

Mr HENRY WILLIS:

I was assured by the manager that two of his artisans were capable of turning out the work which would be done by a first-class English mechanic.

I also told the Commission, in answer to a question, that if I were not engaged “*at the pre sent time, and I thought the Australian Tariff would not be raised, I myself would enter into the business of importing furniture from Java.

Mr Johnson:

– Does the honorable member think that the importation of ^24 worth of furniture from Java is a serious question to talk about?

Mr COON:

– It is not a question of what is coming in, but of what may come in. We are legislating not for to-day^ but for the future. This witness also said that he had seen women with children on their backs engaged in loading ships. If we could get this duty imposed it would give employment to hundreds of men. The machinery, has been ordered, and is on its way to the Commonwealth for the purpose of making a large quantity of this furniture. I hope that honorable members will give favorable consideration to the testimony of an independent witness who is not a Victorian or a New South Wales man, nor interested in a factory. I trust that they will give to this industry the protection it is entitled to receive.

Mr THOMAS BROWN:
CALARE, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I think that the suggestion of the honorable member for Coolgardie to exempt furniture for hospitals and charitable institutions is worthy of consideration, but my difficulty is to devise some means by which it can reasonably be done.

Mr Mahon:

– The Government themselves do so in the Tariff.

Mr THOMAS BROWN:
CALARE, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– If the Government are able to do that I am prepared to support the honorable member in that regard. We are now dealing with a line of articles which practically enter into every home which has any pretensions to decency and civilization. This duty if imposed will fall upon a very large section of the community. Under this Tariff the poorer classes who are compelled by their needs to buy the cheaper lines of furniture will have to contribute to a larger extent towards the revenue. The proposed minimum duty of 7s. 6d. per chair means that a number of the more expensive chairs- will probably cost twice as much as they do. But a large percentage of the chairs which are used by the working people do not cost much more than about half that sum. It means that the burden of this taxation will fall upon those who are least able to bear it, and who should receive some consideration at our hands. The honorable member for Bendigo has informed the Committee how. these high duties came to. be proposed.

Some witnesses went before the Tariff Commission, and raised the Asiatic bogy. They said that Australia was suffering from or threatened with competition from the East of such a character that the imposition of high duties was absolutely essential to maintain the Australian industry. The position was stated as oneChinaman making one chair per day at a wage of 4d. competing with a white man making one chair per day at 6s. It was asked, was it possible under those conditions for white people to compete with importations from the East. The honorable member did not state the extent of the competition or quote the figures derived from the Customs returns. I hold in my hand a return prepared by the Commonwealth Statistician and giving the figures for last year.

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

– Is it customary to pay 6s. for the making of a chairvalued at 3s. 6d. ?

Mr THOMAS BROWN:
CALARE, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– After this Tariff has passed through the House, I am very much afraid that the honorable member will have to pay that. According to this return, which covers all descriptions of furniture, the total importations for 1906 amounted to £244,355. Only about £24,572 worth came from the East, namely, £8,577 from Hong Kong, £1,146 from the Straits Settlements, £878 from China., and £13,971 worth from Japan. The new bogey which has been raised by the honorable member for Batman - Java - is not mentioned in the return.

Mr Johnson:

– Yes; it shows that in 1906 we imported £24 worth from Java.

Mr THOMAS BROWN:
CALARE, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

Mr Wilks:

– Well, read the blue book.

Mr TUDOR:

– I intend to read from the red, book; the honorable member can afterwards read from the blue book, if he desires to do so. This is some of the evidence of Mr. Archibald Dobson, the secretary to the United Furniture Trades Society, Melbourne -

Eighty per cent. of the furniture imported could be made in the Commonwealth. The furniture that cannot be made locally is bent wood.

Mr Batchelor:

– That is not quite correct, because a plant has been put down for the manufacture of such furniture.

Mr TUDOR:

– Yes. A firm in Melbourne has gone to the expense of ordering machinery which will be useless unless a high duty is placed on chairs.

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

– Are we to save rash speculators?

Mr TUDOR:

– The members of the firm knew that the Tariff Commission had recommended a duty of 7 s. 6d. each on chairs, that the Government were pledged to protection, and that in addition to the Ministerial supporters, many of the honorable members sitting on the Opposition corner benches were elected to support effective protection. Mr. Dobson continued -

The furniture that cannot be made locally is bent work, though chairs are produced in Australia that take the place of bent wood chairs to a great extent. One of the greatest troubles is the Chinese competition. This, in conjunction with the imports, leaves very little for the white cabinetmakers in Australia to do. There are factories in Melbourne which used to employ numbers of men in making furniture, but which employ none now. In New South Wales the trade has been saved somewhat by the piano factory being established. A great number of furniture makers are now employed at that work. They wanted more duty and fewer Chinese.

Mr Frazer:

– What does Mr. Dobson know about the conditions of employment in Sydney i

Mr TUDOR:

- Mr. Dobson has made many journeys to Sydney during the last few years, and as secretary to a federated society knows the conditions that obtain in both Sydney and Melbourne. Melbourne workers often go to Sydney to obtain employment, while many Sydney workers are to be found in Melbourne. It has been stated in this chamber that high duties tend to increase prices, but, according to a witness before the Tariff Commission -

Prices have decreased under increased protection. Under a 15 per cent, duty the price for a five-drawer cedar chest was £3 17s. 6d. ; under a 25 per cent, duty the increased output enabled them to sell the same article at £2 ros. A seven-drawer chest, formerly sold at £4 17s. 6d., afterwards sold at £2 15s.; and an eight-drawer serpentine Scotch chest, sold then at £q unpolished, is now £6.

That is the evidence of Mr. Mathias, of

South Australia.

Mr Mahon:

– Apparently, if we make the duty high enough, furniture will be given away.

Mr TUDOR:

– It was also stated that-

A certain imported overmantel is quoted at

Ss. 6d., or in half-dozens at 8s. To produce that locally it would cost 5s. 6d. for labour, 8s. for glass, and 4s. or 5s. for timber. Mantels and overmantels vary in price. A mantelpiece is sold as low as 7s. 6d., and an overmantel at the same rate - or r5S. for the complete article.

Some honorable members have contended that hospitals should get their furniture free; but hospitals, and all public institutions, which are supported by Government money, should pay duty on imported furniture, just as private persons must do.

Mr Johnson:

– Such duties are a tax on the suffering and sick.

Mr TUDOR:

– I trust that the Committee will impose a sufficiently high duty on furniture to increase the employment available to the men engaged in the chairmaking and general furniture trade, so that the industry will foe more profitable to the workers engaged in it in the future than it has been in the past.

Mr GLYNN:
Angas

.- The honorable member for Yarra has spoken with great vigour, as, he always does, in favour of high duties on furniture. He might appropriately have said, in the language of Macbeth - “ This line ‘ will chair me ever, or disseat me now.’ “ Although he asks for more protection to the furniture trade, I have evidence that in South Australia that trade is in a very flourishing condition. He has read Mr. Mathias’ evidence, and I would accept Mr. Mathias’ statements, even if they were not sworn, because I know his character and ability. He is managing a factory which was started under him a few years ago, about 3 miles from Adelaide, and did so well under the old Tariff that it can scarcely cope with its orders. It turns out a tip-top article, with the result that its output has increased enormously, and I believe that Mr. Mathias would he able to find work for 50 or 100 hands to-morrow, at high wages, if the honorable member for Yarra could supply them to him.

Mr Hutchison:

– He could take on fifty men.

Mr GLYNN:

– I speak from knowledge. I do not think that he wishes for a higher duty than 25 per cent. The factory to which I allude has been successful from every point of view, and this afternoon I received a letter in regard to the condition of the furniture-making industry in South Australia, in which the writer says -

Referring to the policy of a high Tariff upon chairs and upon furniture generally, the trade desires to point out that the equipment of the manufacturing trade, though large and increasing, is quite . unsuitable to adequately increase the supply of locally-made goods. In men alone, the trade is most seriously deficient, and every State is competing with every other, almost tinsuccessfully, to obtain men. In an instance of which I have personal knowledge, the largest manufacturer in Adelaide has had an order for twenty-four dozen chairs of one pattern for over five weeks, and has only succeeded, after serious delay, in delivering half-a-dozen, and subsequently a few more, whilst there is no prospect in sight of obtaining sufficient for pressing needs. This kind of difficulty has been chronic for over twelve months with regard, also to all furniture.

As a matter of fact, I believe that it does not pay to manufacture in Australia chairs of the kind upon which a duty of 7 s. 6d. each has been imposed. Such chairs will not be made here for many years to come ; one of the reasons being that,, with skilled labour so scarce, it is more profitable to employ men in making betterclass furniture. There is a great disparity between the wages paid in Austria and America, from which countries most of these chairs come - or in Japan - from which there- is a small importation - and those paid in Australia. It does not pay the Australian manufacturers who have a big business in better-class furniture to make chairs which are exported for 2s. nd. each.

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

– The cheapest chairs come from America.

Mr GLYNN:

– Ten firms have quoted the f.o.b. price to me as 2s. rid. each. As regards the proposed duty of 7s. 6d. each, I will quote the figures of two invoices, which show how unfair it is. The value of twenty-seven chairs imported was £7 7s. 9d., on which the old duty would have been £1 2s. 5d.. but on which the new duty will come to £10 2s. 6d. On 888 other chairs, valued at £183 8s., the old duty of 29 per cent, would have been £42 2s., whilst the new duty of 7s. 6d. each will be £333- Should such a duty as that be allowed to remain? My opinion is that the furniture trade, which is a flourishing one, would be fairly treated if an all round duty of 25 per cent, were imposed.

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

– There are one or two figures which I should like to put before the Committee. The more I see of the reports- signed by the Chairman of the Tariff Commission, the more surprised I am at the manner in which they have been framed in respect to the evidence upon which they have been based. To-day wwe were informed that one witness told the Commission that Australian manufacturers could not compete against importations from China and Japan ; that in

China, men got 4d. for making a chair, while here they would get 6s. That statement was, on the face of it, absurd. Who would pay 6s. for the making of a chair which could not be sold in the open market for more ‘than 3s. 6d. ? Such statements carry their own refutation. Yet the Chairman of the Tariff Commission has built up his reports on them, and has made them the ground for recommending high . duties. There is very little furniture imported from the countries I have named, only £8,000 worth coming from China; and £[14,000 worth from Japan, or £22,000 worth altogether from the East; while from Great Britain, Canada, and the United States we get £120,000 worth Clearly, there again we have to fear not the cheap pauper labour, but the highlypaid, intelligent labour of the world. That is the cause of our trouble, if trouble there he. We import about £212,000 worth of furniture per annum. I find from the Statistical Year-Book that as far back, as 1904 we had engaged in this industry in Australia 5,000 male hands, in addition to about 428 females. I presume that the number has since greatly increased; but for the purposes of our argument let us assume that there are only 5.000 male hands engaged in the industry to-day. I have just made some inquiries from a practical man in the chamber, who tells me that it is safe to say that the total market value of the furniture turned out in twelve months by a fair average furniture-maker is at least £500. That being so. and assuming that these 5.000 nien are fully employed, we are annually manufacturing furniture of the value of £2,500,000. That is really an under-estimate, for even in 1904 there were, as I have said, 5,000 males and 428 females, engaged in the industry. We import about £i worth for every £11 10s. worth of furniture that we make in Australia; in other words, our total importations to-day represents only about 8 per cent, or 9 per cent, of the value of the furniture that is locally made. Does that show that we cannot hold up our heads under the old duties? Does it show that the industry is strangled? On the contrary, it clearly and unmistakably indicates that we are able to-day tto compete with the rest of the world - that the industry is flourishing, and that we do not need the imposition which the Treasurer, acting on the recommendation of the protectionist section of the Tariff Commission, has seen fit to propose. I wonder why tthe Chairman of the Tariff Commission has not been able to give us some of the information that I have just furnished to the Committee, and which any honorable member could: obtain by referring .to Coghlan. I fail to understand why we have been paying thousands of pounds to enable the Commission- to make investigations when, by reference to Coghlan, we can obtain better information than it furnishes. The honorable member for Bendigo must be playing with the Committee when ihe declines to give us any information except from one interested ‘individual who says that he cannot carry on, and that if we do not put a stop to Chinese labour he will have to go under. The figures I have quoted show that it is the Chinaman in Australia and not the Chinaman abroad that is hurting us. Does the honorable member for Yarra expect me. as a self-respecting decent white man, to decline to take the furniture made by men of my own kith and kin in order to find work for Chinamen in Melbourne? Before he asks for these prohibitive duties he ought to tell us what he is going to do with the Chinese in the furniture trade in Australia. He is frank enough to tell us that the furniture industry here is in the hands of the Chinese, and yet he is clamouring for prohibitive duties in order to protect them against our own kith and kin at Home.

Mr Batchelor:

– What about the white men engaged in the industry in South Australia?

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

– So far as I am able to see, the white men in the furniture trade of South Australia are doing very well; I have not heard that their industry is being strangled. The industry in Sydney is not. M!ost of the large warehouses in Sydney are making their own furniture, and excellent it is. On visiting Anthony Hordern’s warehouse, one finds that furniture equal to anything that the world can produce is being manufactured there. The figures I have quoted show that under the old duty of 20 per cent, furniture-makers in Australia have found no difficulty in competing with’ imports from China, Japan, and the rest of the world.

Mr Crouch:

– Does not all the bamboo furniture come from China?

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

– I have just quoted the figures.

Mr Crouch:

– I do not’ think that they were fair.

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

- Mr. Knibbs shows that only .£8,000 worth of furniture was imported last vear from China.

Sir John Quick:

– Has the honorable member any figures as to the imports from the Straits Settlements?

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

– Our imports from the Straits Settlements last year were of the value of ,£1,100. Can we survive such an importation ? We are annually manufacturing furniture of the value of £2,5,00,000, and ,£1,100 worth is coming in from the Straits Settlements ! I wonder that the Chairman of the Tariff Commission did not sink to the earth when he heard of those figures. We ought at once to cease passing Tariff enactments under which ,£1,100 worth of furniture can be imported from the Straits Settlements ; we ought to pass a general prohibition Act, preventing anybody or anything from coming into Australia. . As to the 7s. 6d. chairs, I do not think that we need trouble about them. If I am any judge of the common-sense of the Committee,,, they are doomed, and I hope that we shall not waste time in debating that phase of the question.

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

– Does the Minister intend to include them in this item?

Sir William Lyne:

– They will not be in this item unless I strike out an item below.

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

– Is the Treasurer going to do that?

Sir William Lyne:

– I do not know.

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

– The honorable member would save a great deal of time by telling us what he intends to do. At any rate, I ‘ invite the Committee to consider well the broad facts of the situation. If there were any danger of our furnituremakers going under, I should not object to the old duties being increased. But they have established themselves in the Commonwealth, and all the statistics I can find show that they are prospering, and need not fear outside competition. They are doing very well, and we ought not to increase the duties.

Mr Hutchison:

– Why should they not do better?

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

– We ought not to impose further duties, because when we have brought our industrial enterprises into a state of fair competition with outside industries we have done, even from a protectionist point of view, all that we ought to do. If we do more, we close the gates ; we prohibit importations of any kind, and assuredly in such cases our industries will not thrive. The. moment it begins to build walls to keep out the skill, efficiency, enterprise, and competition of the world, a nation begins to decay. That is the history of the world, and therefore those honorable members who talk about effective protection simply mean to level the conditions of competition, and not to abolish competition altogether.

Mr J H CATTS:
Cook

.- The honorable member for Parramatta has just told us that 5,000 males are engaged in the furniture trade of the Commonwealth, and he has chided the Chairman of the Tariff Commission for not putting before the Committee information gleaned in the course of its inquiries. The honorable member, however, instead of seeking ii> formation . from the Minutes of Evidence taken by the Commission in 1906, has turned to Coghlan for 1904. Had he examined the reports of the Commission, he would have found that the employment of Europeans in the furniture trade of Australia is, not as he suggests,, increasing, but is decreasing, and that the Chinese are largely displacing the white man in the industry.

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

– And yet the honorable member proposes to grant further protection to the Chinese.

Mr J H CATTS:

– I hope that the honorable member will join with others on this side in their efforts to place some kind of an embargo on the employment of coloured men in this industry, and to grant substantial protection to the white-workers. At page 404 of volume V. of the Minutes of Evidence taken by the Commission appears a statement by the Secretary of the United Furniture Trade Workers of Melbourne that -

One of the greatest troubles that we suffer from in the States is, of course, the Chinese difficulty. What with the Chinese in the furniture trade, and the imports, there is very little left for the cabinetmakers of Australia to do. In Victoria, I think the last returns show “that there were not more than 145 cabinetmakers working in the whole State . . whereas I am given to understand that the last returns available show that there were 672 Chinese working at furniture in Melbourne alone.

I hope that the honorable member for Parramatta will examine this sworn evidence, which shows that, according to the latest returns available, there were 672 Chinese engaged in the furniture trade in Melbourne as against 145 white men so employed in the whole State.

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

– And the honorable member wishes to put a ring-fence round the Chinamen. There is a fine lot of White Australians on that side of the House.

Mr J H CATTS:

– We shall know what kind of a White Australian the honorable member for Parramatta is when we ask him to vote for an Excise duty on furniture made by aliens- in. Australia, with the object” of lessening the number of Chinese employed in the furniture trade. The witness from whom I have quoted dealt later on with the wages paid to Chinese in “Victoria, and he said - “ We have come to the conclusion, reckoning the cost of material and so forth, that the Chinese are not getting more on an average than ios. or 11s. per week in the furniture trade. We do not feel’ disposed to come down to that standard of living, and therefore they can beat us every time. It is a matter of impossibility to compete against them.”

At question 76223 the witness was asked - “ Can you say whether these Chinese furniture makers are as a rule properly-trained tradesmen?” and his answer was - “They are not. Thev used to come here imported in batches. About nine years ago one Chinaman who could not pay his creditors went away, and he agreed with eighteen Chinese to pay them 2s. 6d. per week and their rice. He went away without paying the half-crown a week. Those Chinese came out here, not as boys, but as grown-up men, and they were put on to clean up stuff. Chinese are very good copyists. They do not work from drawings or designs, but from the finished article in front of them.”

.- I did not intend to speak on this matter, but as several supporters of the Government Gave made speeches so closely resembling a stone-wall of the Tariff, I may be pardoned for attempting to reply to some of the’ statements that have been made, which are of such a nature that we cannot allow them to pass without criticism. The arguments, advanced by those of the Labour members who support these high duties, show that their only effect will be to give a greater monopoly of the work to the Chinese in Australia, particularly in Little Bourkestreet and other parts of Melbourne. The original reason why the Chinese have outstripped the Europeans in the manufacture of furniture was the imposition of the high Victorian duties. Twenty-five years ago, when the Chinese came here, they were not expert cabinetmakers. They manufactured a low grade of common cedar chair. When the Victorian duty was imposed, the dealers, owing to the low price of the imported lowgrade chair, were forced to go to the’ Chinese for their supplies, and under their tuition the Chinese gradually became more expert. At that time we had no Chinese cabinetmakers in Sydney, but as the Melbourne Chinese became experts, they crossed the border and entered into competition with the European cabinetmakers of Sydney. Consequently, we in New South Wales have had to bear the burden of this Chinese competition, resulting from the high Victorian duty in the .past. A return called for by the honorable member for Kooyong showed that in New South Wales in 1898 there were sixty-nine factories, and 1,075 adult males employed; while in 1900 there were seventy-seven factories, and J.333 adult males employed in cabinetmaking, &c. In Victoria in 1898 there were fifty-six factories, and 808 adult male operatives; while in 1900 there were fiftynine factories, . and 922 adult males employed. The following return shows the proportion of male and female adults and children employed, and the total number of operatives in each State: -

These figures make it clear that under the lower New South Wales Tariff there were more factories, giving more employment, and making a better class of furniture, and that altogether the industry was much more flourishing than it was in Victoria under the higher protective Tariff. From evidence given by representatives of the Upholstery and Cabinetmakers’ Unions of Sydney and Melbourne, it would appear that the competition of the Chinese was not felt very severely at that time, and that the wages in Sydney were higher than in Melbourne before the trade in the latter city was put under Wages Boards, and were somewhat higher even for some time afterwards. The following evidence was given before the Royal Commission on the Victorian Factories Act, sitting in Sydney, in July, 1901. Mr. T; H. Thrower, president of the Sydney Labour Council, and well known in New South Wales as a prominent trades unionist, said -

In Hie furniture trade the work was mostly 1 lone on the piece-work system, in the cabinet branch the average earning* being from £2 5s. to £2 ys. 6d. for forty-eight hours. The Victorian Factories Act had not drawn any of their best men from Sydney.

On the same occasion Mr. E. W. Cutler, secretary of the Cabinetmakers’ Union, of Sydney, stated -

Wages average £2 12s.’ 6d. for barely fortyeight hours per week. The average is as high as in Melbourne under the Wages Board determination.

Mr. A. Dobson, secretary of the Furniture Operatives’ Union, of Melbourne, addressing the Trades Hall Council, as reported in the Argus, of the 2nd August, 1901, quoted a letter received from the secretary of the Sydney union, showing wages to be higher in Sydney than in Melbourne. Mr. Dobson added -

Wages of furniture makers and polishers in Sydney have never come down to the level of those ruling in Victoria. Men receive 45s. in Sydney for work for which men are paid 35s. in Melbourne.

This was all under the influence of the lower duty in New South Wales, where the wages paid’ were higher than those paid in Melbourne, although the workers in the latter city were supposed to be getting the benefit of the higher protective duty, which was presumably imposed in the interests of the workers. The conditions in Melbourne before the minimum wage enactment was passed are shown by evidence given bv delegates of various trades at a conference held between the Trades’ Hall Council and the Anti-Sweating League, as reported in the Age of nth June, 1900. The wickerworkers’ delegate stated that under the piece-work system boys were employed to do the work, one factory having fourteen men, twenty boys, and three improvers. The Chief Inspector of Factories of Victoria, in his annual report for 1897, stated that adult furniture operatives earned an average of 31s. id. per week at that time. A comparison of prices of most of the furniture is almost impossible, but it can be made regarding some lines. Kohn’s Vienna chairs may be cited, the prices being those of Messrs. Anthony Hordern and Sons, of Sydney, and Messrs. Wallach Brothers, of Melbourne, before 8th October, 1901. For number 14 the. Sydney price was 4s. 9d., and the Melbourne price 5s. 6d. for the same chair. For number 20 the Sydney price was 5s. -6d., and the Melbourne price 6s. 3d. I have here a great deal of statistical information, as well as a number of invoices, which I might quote to the Committee, but I do not want to occupy too much time. I wish to be as brief as I can, consistently with giving the necessary reply to some of the arguments which have been advanced on the other side. At the present time some of the best furniture made in Melbourne is being made by Chinese workers. I went with Mr. Lonsdale, who formerly represented New England in this House, through one of the furniture factories of Melbourne. When we were admiring some magnificent specimens of cabinet work on exhibition, we were greatly surprised to learn that the furniture which we most admired, and thought to be high-class European manufacture, had been made by Chinese in this city, who were receiving wages higher than those paid here to Europeans.

Mr Bamford:

– A Chinaman cannot turn out a good article.

Mr JOHNSON:

– That statement is not borne out by facts which are easily obtained in this city. The honorable member is not in possession of the facts as Mr. Lonsdale and myself were. I am speaking from my own personal “ observation of the work. The manufacturers said to us, “ We do not mind telling you that this is all Chinese-made furniture, that we pay the highest, wages to Chinese, and get the best class of goods from them; but it would not do for us to tell that to our ordinary customers, because there would be a prejudice against the furniture on that account.” I mention those facts to show that the effect of the high Victorian duty in the beginning was to encourage the’ making of furniture by Chinese, and 10 establish them firmly in our midst, and that the only effect of the high duty now proposed will be to further entrench them in this trade, and give them a practical monopoly as against their white competitors in America, Canada, and Great Britain. In the light of those figures, I hope that honorable members who claim to represent labour interests will pause before they consent to the imposition of such a high duty, or anything approaching it, as is proposed in this Tariff.

Mr BATCHELOR:
Boothby

.- I wish to reply briefly on one or two points. I believe there is a general understanding in the Committee as to what duties are to be agreed to. The honorable member for Angas, in referring to the great prosperity of the furniture factory at Edwardstown, South Australia, spoke as though its proprietors and manager did not desire increased duties. The honorable member argued that the previous duties had brought about such an era of prosperity that the firm required nothing further. But the evidence of Mr. Mathias, the manager, given before the Tariff Commission, in Adelaide - and since repeated to me and a good many other honorable members personally - was that they could compete with the high-class goods imported, but complained that under the existing low Tariff the markets were flooded with cheap importations from foreign countries, where low wages were paid. This is the largest firm of furniture makers in Australia. Their manager added that they were not afraid of outside competition in high-class goods, such as bed-room suites, roll-top desks, &c. ; but they could not compete against shoddy importations, such as overmantels and wire doors, closet seats, and similar articles. He mentioned that the firm were about to start the making of bentwood furniture from Tasmanian and Australian blackwood. Since that time they have put down the necessary plant, and have successfully experimented with the bending of Australian and Tasmanian blackwood for making bentwood chairs. The plant has now been put down, and work will be proceeded with as soon as the necessary operatives can be secured. The honorable member for Cook suggested that some special anti-Chinese legislation should be passed, but to any proposal of that kind I am strongly opposed. Ever since I have had a seat in Parliament I have protested against the introduction of Asiatics or any undesirable persons, but I have always taken the view that if these people are admitted into the country we ought to treat them as we treat other citizens.

Mr J H Catts:

Sir JOHN QUICK:

– I did not think it necessary to make a long statement. I merely desired to draw attention to one passage in the evidence, though I might have referred to many; However, as the honorable member has challenged me I shall invite his attention to another passage in the report of the Tariff Commision, page 471-

In Victoria it was pointed out that the wages in China, India, and Japan (including the Straits Settlements) are abnormally low - from 5d. to9d. per day. Some of the lounges and chairs coming from these countries and invoiced at 5s. would take three days to make.

Similar statements were made by Mr. Lowe and Mr. Dobson, who are engaged in the trade in Victoria. In Western Australia, Mr. Baker, a furniture maker, voiced the complaints of the manufacturers as to the bitter competition caused by imports from the Straits Settlements, and as to extensive dumping on the part of the United States. Another wickerworker, named Jarvis, in Western Australia, complained that the price of wicker furniture in that State had decreased considerably during the last fifteen years, owing to the importation of inferior goods, while in some cases the cost of material had increased, and in other particular lines had decreased, during that time. Mr. Baker further said that locallymade rattan lounges, which are of superior make, were sold wholesale at from 25s. upwards, while the imported article was retailed at 17s. 6d. ; and that chairs were sold at Singapore, f.o.b., at 4s. 6d., while similar chair’s were marked in the shop windows at Adelaide at 11s. 6d., and had been sold at auction for 9s. 6d. That price, Mr. Baker said, does not pay local manufacturers, and Mr. Jarvis added that ordinary lounges could be produced locally at about 22s. 6d., while the imported article was sold at 10s. or 12s. It will be seen therefore, that it was not only the evidence of the three witnesses in Melbourne on which this fixed duty was based.

By the way, this duty was intended to operate on wicker and bamboo work ; but, unfortunately, by inadvertence in the drafting of the Tariff, it was made generally applicable to all chairs. I propose to ask the Committee to so amend these items as to confine them to wicker and bamboo chairs, leaving other chairs and lounges to come under the general duty of 40 per cent. In regard to importations, the Commission and myself have been accused of negligence in not giving consideration to that questions. However, I invite the attention of honorable members to the complete details, as shown on page 475 of the Tariff Commission’s report, as follows -

The following figures, taken from Trade and Customs Returns, 1904, pages 420-1, show the value of imported wickerware into the Commonwealth for the years specified : - 1900 (prior to Commonwealth Tariff), £90,397; 1901, £117,528; 1902,£153,764;1903,£104,408;1904,£120,607 total, £586,704. The total imports from Germany of wickerware were : -1900, £6,652; 1901, £7,568; 1902, £9,206; 1903, £9,486; 1904, £6,658 ; total, £39,554. The imports into Australia from the Straits Settlements were : - 1900, £5,980; 1901, £12,458: 1902, £5,627; 1903, £6,432; 1904, £7,198; total, £37,695.

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

– The imports were practically stationary with an increasing population.

Sir JOHN QUICK:

– The population was not increasing in the same ratio as the importations.

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

– Yes, and in greater ratio. The importations from the Straits Settlements lastyear dropped to £1,100.

Sir JOHN QUICK:
BENDIGO, VICTORIA · PROT; IND PROT from 1906; LP from 1910

– Importations fluctuate. I have now laid before honorable members the information which was available to the Tariff Commission; and I submit that the acting leader of the Opposition was not justified in his charge that we did not properly investigate the matter or place sufficient material at the disposal of honorable members.

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

– When this item was reached, before the dinner-hour, the Treasurer led us to understand that its consideration would occupy only a few minutes. As a matter of fact, the discussion has continued for a considerable time; and it would be out of place on my part to prolong it further than to make a suggestion which I think may meet with approbation. If I am able to judge the feeling of the Committee, the duty is objectionable chiefly in its application to chairs; but I understand that the Treasurer will so arrange the items as to meet that objection - the duty of 7s. 6d. being abandoned. There seems to be a feeling that the general duty on furniture is rather high ; and I think that ‘the discussion might be shortened if the Treasurer were to accept duties of 35 pet cent, and 25 per cent.

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

– I wish to say a word or two in reply to the honorable member for Bendigo, who acted as Chairman of the Tariff Commission. I am glad that he quoted the figures which he did, because they furnish incontestable proof that higher duties are not needed to protect our furniture trade. The honorable member referred to wicker furniture. But I have learned from the Customs officers in attendance upon the Treasurer that last year the total importations of this class of furniture into the Commonwealth were valued at about £25,000. So that there has been a huge drop in the importations since the period to- which the honorable member referred.

Sir John Quick:

– The figures which the honorable member has quoted have been obtained since our report was drawn up.

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

– The honorable member’s own statistics show that our furniture manufacturers have “ scotched “ the importation’s-

Sir John Quick:

– No. They fluctuate a great deal.

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

– The increase in our importations of furniture has not been proportionate to our increase in population. Last year the total value of the importations of wickerwork furniture into the Commonwealth was less than ,£25,000. The honorable, member for Bendigo talked about our importations from Japan and China. I invite his attention to the fact that the furniture used in Australia represents more than 1^2,500,000 annually, and that our total importations from Japan and the Straits Settlements were valued at only £10,000. The Government proposal is so absurd as not to merit serious consideration. For every pound’s worth of furniture imported from those countries we manufacture .£250 worth in Australia. Could any better proof be forthcoming that these, extraordinary duties are not required to protect the furniture industry from outside competition ?

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:
Treasurer · Hume · Protectionist

– I should very much like to adhere to the duties scheduled in connexion with this item, namely, 40 per cent, under the general Tariff, and 30 per cent, under the Tariff for the United Kingdom. But after listening to the exhaustive debate which has taken place, I feel that I shall be meeting the temper of the Committee if I propose to substitute for those duties 35 per cent, and 30 per cent, respectively.

Mr Hedges:

– Will those rates also apply to the next two items ?

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:

– I think so. Wicker furniture will be dealt with under item 304. Under the circumstances, I am compelled to accept lower rates than I should have liked to see imposed. If I thought that by prolonging the debate I could attain my desire, I should have no hesitation whatever in consenting to the House being called together immediately after Christmas for the purpose of completing the consideration of the Tariff. I do not think it is right that we should sacrifice duties merely for the purpose of securing an adjournment before Christmas. But I do not know that I can do any better than agree to the rates upon which the Committee have evidently determined. Consequently, I intend to move that the amendment be amended bv adding after the words”, ad val.,” the’ words “(General Tariff), 35 per cent. ; (United Kingdom), 25 per cent.”

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

– - I ask the Treasurer to accept a duty which will be a little more reasonable. An hour ago I understood that the’ rates to be ‘proposed were 30 per cent, and 25 per cent.’ Whilst I was willing to agree to such a compromise I cannot see my way to support a duty of 35 ,per cent, under the general Tariff, and of 30 per cent, under the Tariff for the United Kingdom.

Mr HUGHES:
West Sydney

.- Do I understand that the next two items are to be dutiable at the same rates?

Sir William Lyne:

– Yes.

Mr HUGHES:

– I think that is a fair proposal.

Mr HANS IRVINE:
GRAMPIANS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910

– - Will item 301, which relates to chairs, be dutiable at the rates indicated by the Treasurer?

Sir William Lyne:

– It will. be.

Mr HANS IRVINE:
GRAMPIANS, VICTORIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910

– The Treasurer would have saved a lot of time if he had made that announcement an hour ago. But he seems to comprise the entire Ministry. He does just as he chooses, arid endeavours to unduly dominate honorable members. But he cannot dominate me. Under the circumstances, and simply with a view to saving time, I think that we might accept his proposals.

Amendment (Sir William Lyne’s) agreed to.

Amendment (by Mr. Joseph Cook) negatived -

That after the words “ ad val.,” the words “ (General Tariff), 25 per cent.,” be added.

Amendment (by Mr. Joseph Cook) negatived -

That after the words “ad val.,” the words “ (General Tariff), 30 per cent.,” be added.

Amendment (by Sir William Lyne) agreed to -

That after the words “ad val.,” the words “ (General Tariff), 35 per cent. ; (United Kingdom), 25 per cent.,” be added.

Mr JOHNSON:
Lang

– - I desire to move the insertion of the following new paragraph - 299A. Aseptic Hospital Furniture, including

Operating Tables, Trollies, Stretchers, and the like, free.

Sir William Lyne:

– The Committee have already decided that these articles shall be dutiable at 35 per cent.

Mr JOHNSON:

– Oh, no. I do not intend to be bluffed in this matter. I gave notice of my amendment some time ago, and the articles enumerated in it are not specifically mentioned in this item.

Mr Batchelor:

– Will that include furniture for private hospitals ?

Mr JOHNSON:

– It will include furniture for all hospitals.

Mr MAHON:
Coolgardie

.- I hope that the Committee will accept the amendment. I understood the Treasurer and a number of honorable members to say that they were unable to differentiate between furniture intended for hospitals and. furniture intended for other institutions. But I point out that the Government have already managed to devise a scheme for differentiating between articles. If honorable members will turn to item 426, they will find that the following articles are allowed to come in free -

Articles specially designed and imported for the use of the Blind, Deaf, and Dumb, when imported by governing bodies of public institutions having the care thereof.

I challenge the Government to deny that that item is a precedent for their adopting the amendment.

Mr Mathews:

– But the articles have to be “ specially designed.”

Mr MAHON:

– Why cannot we treat in the same way furniture specially designed for hospitals? Again, under item 413, no duty is imposed on -

Works of Art, being Statuary and Paintings, oil or water colours, framed or unframed, im ported for public institutions or purposes under departmental by-laws.

How will the Customs officers know that any water-colour paintings are going to public institutions? Why should not the requisites of hospitals, which are intended for the needy, the destitute, and the sick, be allowed to come in on the same conditions as water-colour paintings and other articles for public institutions? There is every justification for this amendment, which T hope the Committee will adopt. Probably ‘ the Treasurer has the numbers at his back, but I point out that the excuse about being unable to differentiate between articles will not hold water. It is absolutely hollow, as he knows.

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:
Treasurer · Hume · Protectionist

– I think, that when the honorable member for Lang moved this amendment he must have forgotten the wording or the previous amendment, which includes every article of furniture which is made of wood or partly of wood, and is used in any building or premises including hospitals.

Mr Johnson:

– On which the Committee has imposed a duty of 35 per cent., whereas I want this particular furniture made free.

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:

– We have agreed to that duty.

Mr Johnson:

– The previous amendment did not deal with aseptic hospital furniture, whereas my amendment does, and that makes all the difference.

Mr Watson:

– That furniture is not made of wood.

Mr Johnson:

– I think it is made partly of wood.

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:

– I think that the furniture to which the honorable member has referred comes under the designation of scientific furniture. However, we have dealt with hospital furniture.

Mr MATHEWS:
Melbourne Ports

– I hope that the Treasurer will not agree to the amendment. I intend to take the risk of being called unsympathetic if there is anything intended to be worked in that direction. I am prepared to allow my actions outside the House to show whether I am unsympathetic in the way which has been hinted at. No doubt this is a very good free-trade idea to get in the thin end of the wedge. The public of Australia contribute to the maintenance of the hospitals, and the patients have no greater desire to rest their bodies on imported furniture than have other people. I think that the hospitals might as well use the furniture which is made here, and therefore I hope that the Treasurer will not give way.

The CHAIRMAN:

– I am of opinion that’ the amendment is not in order. The Committee has already passed an item which refers to furniture -

Furniture n.e.i., including any article of wood or partly of wood, wholly or partly made up or finished, and used in any building or premises, including hospitals.

If I were to accept the amendment of the honorable member for Lang, another honorable member could move to exempt other special furniture, and we might be left with nothing but the original item “ Furniture n.e.i.”

Mr Johnson:

– Before you give a definite ruling, sir, may I point out that in order to guard against the possibility of exception being taken on that score I was careful to put the word “ aseptic “ before the word “ furniture.” That kind of furniture has not yet been dealt with. It is totally different from all other descriptions ot furniture. It is specially manufactured for hospitals.

The CHAIRMAN:

– I rule’ that the amendment is out of order.

Item,. as amended, agreed to.

Item 300. Lounges and Settees, each 10s., or ad val. 30 per cent., whichever rate returns the higher duty.

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:
Treasurer · .Hume · Protectionist

– I move -

That the following words be added : - “ up to and’ including 4th December, 1907.”

I have submitted this amendment for the purpose of protecting the revenue. These articles will, of course, fall under the previous item.

Amendment agreed to.

Item, as amended, agreed to.

Item 3or. Chairs, each 7s. 6d., or ad val. 30 per cent., whichever rate returns the higher duty.

Amendment (by Sir William Lyne) agreed to -

That the following words be added : - “ up to and including 4th December, 1907.”

Item, as amended, agreed to.

Item 302 (Billiard Balls) agreed to.

Item 303. Timber, viz. : -

Timber, undressed, n.e.i., in sizes of 12 in. x 6 in. (or its equivalent) and over, per 100 super, feet*, is. 6d.

*N0T£. - Definition of a Superficial Foot. - A superficial foot of timber shall mean an area of one square foot on one surface, and being one inch or less in thickness.

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:
Treasurer · Hume · Protectionist

– I want the Committee to strike out the asterisks after the expression “super, feet” wherever it occurs in this item. In the first instance, I move -

That the asterisk, paragraph a, be left out.

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:
Treasurer · Hume · Protectionist

– Perhaps in view of the speech of the honorable member for Wide Bay, I had better carry out my first intention, and give the Committee some details as to the method that will be adopted regarding measurements. I thought the Committee would be satisfied after what I said in reply to the interjection of the honorable member for Flinders, and that it would be sufficient to simply say that the old system would be reverted to as far as measurements are concerned.

Mr Fisher:

– I think there was a difference of opinion, and the Crown Law officers gave their view.

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:

– The method is as follows -

In the timber trade “ superficial foot “ means timber measuring 12 inches long by 12 inches wide by 1 inch thick. A piece of timber measuring 12 x 12 x1/2 measures in the trade half a superficial foot. In other words, the timber trade, in selling timber by the superficial foot, measures it on its actual thickness. The provision in the Tariff as recommended by the Commission, however, directs that when timber has a thickness of less than 1 inch, the thickness shall be taken as 1 inch for purposes of duty.

E.G.- A piece of timber measuring 12 x 12 x1/2, which in the trade is sold as half a superficial foot, is regarded for purposes of duty as being 1 superficial foot. If it is desired to revert to the practice under the old Tariff (which was the same as the trade practice mentioned), it is only necessary to strike out the asterisks wherever they appear against “ super foot,” and delete the footnote.

That is a description which I put on record with a view of showing what I am proposing. By removing the asterisk we revert to the old system of measuring, instead of slicing the timber, so to speak, into so many small thicknesses. I think that honorable members will be satisfied with that explanation, which shows the bona fides of what we are proposing.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr THOMAS:
Barrier

.- I move -

That after the word “ undressed,” paragraph A, the words “oregon and New Zealand pine” be inserted.

SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT

Motion (by Sir William Lyne) agreed to-

That the House at its rising adjourn until n a.m. to-morrow.

House adjourned at 10.47 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 4 December 1907, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1907/19071204_reps_3_42/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant

House of Representatives 4 December 1907

QUESTION

DEFENCE FORCE: MEDICAL RESERVE CORPS

Mr SALMON:LAANECOORIE, VICTORIA

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

Mr J H CATTS:COOK, NEW SOUTH WALES

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

Mr LIDDELL:Hunter

Mr TUDOR:Yarra

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:Treasurer · Hume · Protectionist

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

Sir John Quick:

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

Sir John Quick:

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

Sir William Lyne:

Mr Salmon:

Sir William Lyne:

Mr JOHNSON:Lang

Sir William Lyne:

Mr JOHNSON:

Mr FAIRBAIRN:Fawkner

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

Mr FAIRBAIRN:

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

Sir William Lyne:

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

Mr SALMON:Laanecoorie

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

Mr SALMON:

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

Mr SALMON:

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

Mr SALMON:

Mr Page:

Mr SALMON:

Mr Page:

Mr SALMON:

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

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:Treasurer · Hume · Protectionist

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

Mr Salmon:

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

Mr Salmon:

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

Mr Salmon:

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

Mr Fairbairn:

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

Mr Fairbairn:

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

Mr Fairbairn:

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

Mr GLYNN:Angas

Mr EDWARDS:Oxley

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:Treasurer · Hume · Protectionist

Mr EDWARDS:Oxley

Sir William Lyne:

Mr EDWARDS:

Sir William Lyne:

Mr LIDDELL:Hunter

Sir William Lyne:

Mr LIDDELL:

Mr Wilson:

Mr Watson:

Mr LIDDELL:

Mr POYNTON:Grey

Mr Salmon:

Mr POYNTON:

Mr Tudor:

Mr POYNTON:

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:Treasurer · Hume · Protectionist

Mr Hedges:

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:

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

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:

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

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:

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

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:

House of Representatives
4 December 1907

Mr SALMON:
LAANECOORIE, VICTORIA

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

Mr J H CATTS:
COOK, NEW SOUTH WALES

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

Mr LIDDELL:
Hunter

Mr TUDOR:
Yarra

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:
Treasurer · Hume · Protectionist

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

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

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

Mr JOHNSON:
Lang

Mr FAIRBAIRN:
Fawkner

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

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

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

Mr SALMON:
Laanecoorie

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

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

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

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

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:
Treasurer · Hume · Protectionist

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr GLYNN:
Angas

Mr EDWARDS:
Oxley

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:
Treasurer · Hume · Protectionist

Mr EDWARDS:
Oxley

Mr LIDDELL:
Hunter

Mr POYNTON:
Grey

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:
Treasurer · Hume · Protectionist

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr GLYNN:
Angas

Mr LIDDELL:
Hunter

Mr FISHER:
Wide Bay

Mr POYNTON:
Grey

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

Mr BATCHELOR:
Boothby

Sir JOHN QUICK:
Bendigo

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:
Treasurer · Hume · Protectionist

Mr GLYNN:
Angas

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

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

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

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:
Treasurer · Hume · Protectionist

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

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

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

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

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

Mr LIDDELL:
Hunter