Senate
3 June 1902

1^st Parliament · 1^st Session

PETITION
QUESTION
- SOUTH AFRICANWAR
ASSENT TO BILLS
CUSTOMS TARIFF BILL

The President took the choir at 2.30 p.m., and read prayers.

page 13146

PETITION

Senator Lt.-Col. NEILD presented a petition from the moderator of the Presbytery of Wagga Wagga and the clerk of the Presbytery of Albury, praying the Senate to reject the Matrimonial Causes. Bill.

page 13146

QUESTION

SOUTH AFRICANWAR

Declaration op Peace.

Senator O’CONNOR:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · New South Wales . · Protectionist

– With concurrence I beg to move -

The Commonwealth, profoundly rejoicing in the restoration of peace, most cordially congratulates the British Government and people upon its attainment, with fervent Hopes for the unity and prosperity of South Africa.
That the President be requested to convey the above resolution to His Excellency the GovernorGeneral for transmission to the Bight Honorable the Secretary of State for the Colonies.

I do not propose to say many words in commendation of the motion, because it appears to me to express the universal feeling of Australia. The Empire has gone through a great trial. It has metwith some reverses ; it has overcome many difficulties, and I think it has emerged triumphantly by the exercise of stupendous energy and magnificent resources. The price - the awful price - which has had to be paid has, of course, been exacted throughout the Empire as well as in the country of the brave and devoted people who have been our enemies, but who to-day are our fellow citizens. May we not hope that out of this condition of war and its necessary destruction there will come a permanent peace in South Africa, that the Briton and the Boer will unite in a common patriotism for the development of that great country, and that it may not be long before the free institutions that we have in Australia will enable a united people in South Africa to soon attain that measure of prosperity and independence which we have gained ?

Senator Major GOULD:
New South Wales

– It affords me very great pleasure to second the motion. One need hardly add many words to what has been said during the last few days with regard to the rejoicing which must exist in the minds of all British-speaking people over the cessation ofthe war, which, as Senator O’Connor has pointedout, has exacted very severe’ terms, both from the victors and the vanquished. It is with feelings of pride that one can recall the way in which the difficulties that the British Empire had to encounter have been overcome. In the early stages of the war there were some dark days for the Empire, because those were the days of reversals, at a time when Great Britain did not realize the immensity of the task which she had undertaken; but more recently there has been a steady continuance of circumstances which have shown that the war was coming to an end, and, although the end has been delayed, still we feel none the less rejoiceful that it has come at last. And it is gratifying to believe that the war has ended on such terms aswill enable both the British and the Boers to live together peaceably, and to assist in forming a great confederation, which we hope will endure for all time as a union of peacefulness and kindness one towards the other. The war has done more than demonstrated the magnificent resources of the British Empire. It has shown that, no matter how far Britons may be from the centre of British rule, they form one loyal and homogeneous people; that when the Empire is threatened there are in these outlying States men who are prepared to assist in maintaining its integrity. The war has taught the world that the British nation, even if it has to stand alone at times, nevertheless is a nation of great power, great strength, and great resources, and as the result of the war our ties are more closely bound and knit together than ever they were previously. I feel sure that the whole Empire, and also the Boers who form a portion of that Empire to-day, must be. gratified to see that peace has arrived at last.

Senator McGREGOR:
South Australia

– It is with very great pleasure that I rise to support a motion of this description, because I am quite certain that, no matter what position any British subject has taken up in connexion with the war, every one is glad that it is over, and it is only the great calamity that has befallen many of the widows and orphans in Great Britain and’ her colonies that will make any disagreeable memory last for any time. I hope that the prosperity of South Africa will not be retarded, and that it will be only exampled by the good feeling which will exist among the different races who inhabit that part of the Empire. I am sure we are all gratified that the war has come to such a termination, no matter what our feelings may have been with respect to the justice of the conflict. Our enemies were a brave people, and, having secured honorable terms, they may look their fellow British subjects in the face, and live in peace with them. I hope that the peace will be of long duration.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 13147

ASSENT TO BILLS

Royal assent to the following Bills reported -

Governor-General’s Establishment Bill.

Supply Bill (No. 9).

page 13148

CUSTOMS TARIFF BILL

In Committee : (Consideration resumed from Wednesday, 28th May, vide page 12937).

Division IV. - Agricultural Products and Groceries.

Item 23. - Grain and pulse, prepared or manufactured, viz. : -

Oatmeal, rolled oats, wheatmeal, pearl barley, Scotch barley, maizena, corn flour, per lb.,1/2d.

Groats, per lb.,1/2d.

Bran, pollard, and sharps, per cental,1s.

N.E.I., per cental, 2s.6d.

Senator Lt Col NEILD:
New South Wales

– I move -

That the House of Representatives be requested to amend item 23 by inserting after the words “rolled oats” the words “per lb.,1/2d., and on and after 1st July, 1902, £3 per ton.”

The proposed duty on oatmeal and rolled oats is1/2d. per lb., making £4 13s. 4d. a ton, which is a very heavy rate under normal conditions of the market. In proposing that the duty be reduced one-third - namely, to £3 per ton - I shall not attempt any pitiful story on behalf of any section of the community. Oatmeal is an article of consumption by all classes. The normal price is from £11 to £13 per ton, upon which1/2d. per lb., as proposed by the Tariff, amounts to no less than from 35 to 37 per cent. duty. I know that the rate of duty is not so high now, because oats are dear, but I am taking the normal conditions of the market. I am using as my authority a large firm, a limited liability company, which is both an importer and manufacturer of oatmeal. The duty I propose of £3 per ton would amount to about 25 per cent. Oatmeal cannot be regarded as a luxury, but is one of the standard foods of the people. I presume that the Government will oppose the motion on the score of interfering with the revenue. But I put it that a 25 per cent. charge on an article of such general consumption as oatmeal is sufficiently high, and that the prospective revenue, as shown by the Government’s own figures, is high enough.

Senator O’CONNOR:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · New South Wales · Protectionist

– I oppose this motion, not only on the ground that it would mean a decrease of revenue, but also because the great bulk of the oatmeal used in Australia is manufactured within the Commonwealth. The price quoted by Senator Neild is that for ordinary oatmeal manufactured in Australia.

The imported oatmeal is of a special kind, which is sent here in parcels. Our view is that that kind of oatmeal is in the nature of a luxury, and is quite different from the ordinary article of food which is made here. There is no reason why the imported oatmeal should not pay the duty proposed to be charged upon it, and, in addition to that, following out the policy that has already induced us to make a difference between wheat, and barley and oats, I urge that if we can produce this article of a good quality there is no reason why we should not at the same time derive from it an amount of revenue beyond what Senator Neild’s proposal would give us, and also extend some incidental protection to States like Tasmania and New South Wales, where oats am be very successfully grown. I trust that the committee will not interfere with the duty, as it seems to me to be very reasonable.

Senator PEARCE:
Western Australia

– I support Senator Neild’s motion ; in fact, I would support a proposal to make oatmeal free if it were brought forward, because this is a food duty. The larger quantity of oatmeal consumed in Australia is imported, for the reason that New Zealand oatmeal is looked upon by some people as being superior to that made in the Commonwealth. I understand that the two leading brands of oatmeal in Australia are a Victorian brand and the New Zealand Maori brand. The duty proposed by the Government is practically prohibitive, and if we are going to vote for prohibition on any one article let us be consistent and have a Tariff which is prohibitive right through. We have heard throughout the debate that this is a compromise Tariff, and that prohibition is not asked for. But I am told that this duty will amount to £4 13s. 4d. per ton on imported oatmeal, the price of which is about £15 a ton. That is practically a prohibitive rate. The process of manufacture is not costly, and a large amount of Labour is not employed, because the machinery is, to a large extent, automatic. We have protected the oat-growers of the Commonwealth, but there is no reason why we should give double the protection to the man who grinds the oats into oatmeal. The grower does not get 35 per cent. protection. Nor can it be said that a lower duty will force the local manufacturers to come into competition with the cheap labour of other countries, because the greater quantity of imported oats comes from New Zealand, where the operatives are just as well treated us are those of Australia. There is no reason why the manufacturers should not be satisfied with a duty of from 15 to 20 per cent.

Senator O’Connor:

– Why should we not grow as good oats in Tasmania as New Zealand ?

Senator PEARCE:

-That is .a good argument with regard to the growing of oats, but this is a duty for the benefit of the manufacturer of oatmeal. If oatmeal were free of duty the imports would only drive the local article out of the market if the imported article were considered superior in quality, and there is no reason why the Victorian manufacturer should not be able to compete on equal terms with the New Zealand manufacturer. If there were a scarcity of oats in the Commonwealth, and the manufacturer had to pay more for his oats than the New Zealand manufacturer of oatmeal, there might be some reason for a high duty. But as it has been constantly stated that a duty on oats would not raise the price to the consumer to any great extent, it cannot be argued that the oatmeal manufacturer would have to pay more for his raw material if it were imported. There are various kinds of speciallyprepared oatmeal, such as rolled oats, which run up to a greater price. For the ordinary oatmeal, such as we obtain from New Zealand, the quotation of £15 per ton is, if anything, too high. I am given to understand that I could quote it at £12 per ton and that it is often invoiced here at that price. Therefore a duty of £3 per ton is a very high one, and if I thought that the committee would support me I should move that another place be requested to make the item free.

Senator DRAKE:
PostmasterGeneral · Queensland · Protectionist

– It is hardly fair to tell us that the proposed duty of id. per lb. represents a certain percentage upon the wholesale price of bulk oatmeal, because there are various kinds of imported oatmeal which command a much higher price.

Senator PEARCE:

– They are in the minority.

Senator DRAKE:

– I am not sure of that. No doubt the prices quoted for bulk oatmeal by the honorable senator are substantially correct. Hordern’s. of Sydney, in a price list issued by them before the Tariff was introduced, quoted 56-lb. bags of oatmeal at 8s. each. That would give a total of £16 per ton. Uncle Toby oatmeal, in 3-lb. tins is quoted at 10£d. each, or 10s. per dozen; and 5-1 b-. bags are quoted at ls. 2d. The smaller tin commands 3Jd. per lb.

Senator Pearce:

– That is because of the fancy tin.

Senator DRAKE:

Senator Pearce has somewhat mistaken the situation if he thinks that this duty will not give any protective benefit to Australians. He bases his opposition to the duty on the ground that the greater part of the work is done by machinery. I think I can show him that he has not looked into the question very closely. The honorable senator says that the duty will protect only a few millers, and that it will not employ any labour in grinding the oats. i Senator Pearce. - What I said was that there is no difference in cost of labour between Australia and New Zealand.

Senator O’KEEFE:

– The honorable senator also said that it is principally machinery that is used in grinding the oats. We should remember that a great deal of labour is required to take the oats to the mills, to remove the oatmeal from the mills, and to manufacture the machinery for grinding the oats. New Zealand seems to be troubling some honorable senators. I do not see why we should have so much regard for the interests of New Zealand farmers as against the interests of Australian farmers. That colony is not a part of the Commonwealth, and, therefore, we should not be very much concerned about its interests. I hope that the item will not be altered, and that many other items will be passed to-day without alteration and without man)’speeches from either side, for I am as anxious as is any honorable senator on the other side to see the Tariff passed.

– It trenches on prohibition. Three pounds a ton is a fair revenue duty, and, at the same time, it is strongly protective.

Senator STYLES (Victoria). - I wish to point out the mistake that Senator Pearce has fallen into. It is quite true that the duty on oats was imposed at the same time as the duty on oatmeal ; but the honorable senator does not seem to have noticed that the duty on oats is only 30s. per ton, while the duty on oatmeal is 90s. per ton. He has remarked that I did not tell the whole story. Although it is quite true that a duty of 30s. a ton on oats has been imposed, in New South Wales the price of oatmeal was the same after the Federal Tariff was introduced as it was before that time.

Senator Lt.-Col. NEILD (New South Wales).-The Sydney Trade Review and Prices Current shows that there is rather a long price - £24 a ton - charged for one brand of oatmeal, and that other brands are worth £19 per ton. If we deduct the duty of £4 13s. 4d. per ton from the quoted price of these other brands, the result agrees with what has been said by Senator Pearce. Messrs, Gollin and Co. Proprietary Limited, of Melbourne and Sydney - a leading firm - state that the average price of common oatmeal in the market is from £11 to £13 per ton. It is little better than a financial outrage to impose a duty of £4 13s.4d. on a ton of oatmeal worth £11 or £13. It is of no use to quote the present price of oats and oatmeal for the purpose of influencing this controversy. The price of oats to-day is 3s. 4d. per bushel. What is the normal price? The chairman of the grain section of the Sydney Chamber of Commerce tells me that oats usually range from1s.10d. to 2s. 3d. per bushel. If the value of oats has risen from 1s.10d. to 3s. 4d. we can readily understand a very considerable rise in the price of oatmeal. I wish this question to be dealt with from the stand-point of normal conditions of trade, and not from the stand-point of the exceptional conditions existing to-day.

Question - That the House of Representatives be requested to amend item 23 by inserting after the words “ rolled oats “ the words “per lb.1/2d., and on and after 1st July, 1902, £3 per ton”- put. The committee divided -

Ayes……… 8

Noes … … … 14

Majority … … 6

Question so resolved in the negative.

Senator Lt Col NEILD:
New South Wales

– I move -

That the House of Representatives be requested to amend item 23 by adding to the duty “ Bran, pollard, and sharps, percental,1s.,” the words, “and on and after 1st July, 1002, free.”

I move this motion because, leaving out the question of revenue,which would not amount to anything, the articles involved are those upon which it would be impossible to collect any duty whatever except in times of public calamity through drought.

Senator O’CONNOR:
Protectionist

– I think the committee will see that if the line we have already dealt with is to be charged with duty, it must follow that the articles proposed to be made free by Senator Neild should also be dutiable.

Motion negatived.

Senator Major GOULD:
New South Wales

– I move -

That the House of Representatives be requested to amend item 23by adding to the duty, “Grain and pulse . . . n.e.i., per cental, 2s. 6d.,” the words, “and on and after 1st July, 1902, 1s.6d.”

It will be remembered that we had a division upon the duty on grain and pulse, in volving the point whether the goods should be free or not. Now we come to tha grain and pulse, n.e.i. It is plain that this duty is intended to apply to flour, and as we have Agreed to make wheat free of duty, the motion I propose now deals chiefly with flour. It would be only a natural thing that we should free flour from taxation, as we have done with regard to wheat, but all I propose is to reduce the duty by 1s. per cental, making the rate1s. 6d. per cental. This will come to something like 30s. a ton benefit to the manufacturers of flour in the States. The argument used in dealing with wheat, was largely that the States have become exporters in large quantities, and that there was no reason why a protective duty upon wheat should be imposed, especially as the duty represented a tax on the food of mankind. I find on looking up Coghlan’s statistics that the amount of flour imported during 1900 was very small indeed.New South

Wales imported flour to the value of £18,812, chiefly from Manitoba. The other States do not appear to have imported flour from outside at all. The export of flour from New South Wales during the same year amounted to £98,000. Victoria exported to the value of £122,000, and South Australia to the value of £200,000. Altogether the three States I have mentioned exported flour to the value of £420,000. It is also a reasonable thing that some relief should be given to the consumer in connexion with this commodity. The desire of the side of the House for which I speak has been as far as possible to give the consumer the fullest and best opportunity of purchasing whatever he requires for his ordinary everyday consumption at the lowest possible price. I have great reliance upon the vote of the committee in submitting the motion.

Senator O’CONNOR:

– Senator Gould has referred to the fact that the committee has made wheat free of duty, but that need not necessarily influence the vote upon this item. The argument upon which the motion in regard to wheat was carried was entirely different to the considerations that apply to flour. It was urged that wheat was a necessary part of the feed of stock during seasons of drought. I feel sure that, if it had not been for that argument, the majority of the committee would not have differentiated wheat from oats and other grains that were dealt with certainly no such argument can be used in regard to flour. Its manufacture requires elaborate machinery ; and is there any reason in the world why the whole of the flour required should not be manufactured in the Commonwealth, and why we should not export as well ? The fact that we do not export flour does not affect the question of whether there should be a duty or not. It may happen that in some years California will have a glut of flour which may lead to extraordinary quantities being sent here at low rates. That is the reason why we ask the committee to keep on the duty on flour. No doubt if there were a heavy duty on flour it might influence the price of bread in times of great scarcity, but the duty hitherto imposed has not had that effect. Its only effect has been to keep up a permanent steady market, and to encourage farmers to put in large crops of wheat, because they knew not only that they had a large market for their wheat, but that there was also a market for flour. There have been duties in the various States in the past. In ‘Victoria the duty was twice as high as that now proposed. In Queensland the rate was £1 a ton ; in South Australia a little less ; in Tasmania a little less ; and in Western Australia 30s. a ton. It cannot be said that the duties have operated to the detriment of the consumer ; and it is only fair and just to those who produce wheat that they should know not only that there is a market for the export of wheat, but that there is also a demand for it to be ground into flour.

Senator CLEMONS:
Tasmania

– Senator O’Connor was scarcely fair in saying that the arguments used against the duty on wheat were not applicable to the duty on flour. The argument that wheat during times of drought was used as food for stock was only incidentally part of the argument against the duty. For instance, Senator O’Keef e distinctly said that he was in favour of making wheat free, because he recognised that wheat is the raw material of flour, and flour is an absolute necessity as food. It was for that reason, and also because a duty on wheat was unnecessary, that we decided to knock it off. The VicePresident of the Executive Council has quoted the duties that were in force in the various States prior to the Federal Tariff coming into operation. I think that such quotations are always useless. Very often they are utterly misleading. We all know that these duties were imposed not t6 protect the State in question against the out-‘ side world, but rather as an act of retaliation against a foolish neighbour. I am surprised that Senator O’Connor did not refrain from quoting the duties which formerly existed in the various States, for the quotation was decidedly against him. It showed very plainly that prior to federation all the States, with the exception of Victoria, imposed a duty lower than that proposed by the Government. The proposed duty of ls. 6d. per cental will, if carried, amount to 30s. per ton, and I submit to ardent protectionists that such a duty ought to be ample, even from their point of view. I am certain that it will prevent imported flour from entering our local market, unless we should be reduced to the terrible extremity of a local production insufficient for the wants of the Commonwealth. If we were in such a position, a duty of 30s. per ton would certainly be quite enough to bear. As. a matter of fact, however, we know that this duty will be inoperative, and that the freight on flour would alone practically prevent its importation. On the other hand, if we consent to the duty proposed by the Government, we shall run a slight risk of the formation of a millers’ ring to put up prices here.

Senator O’CONNOR:
NEW SOUTH WALES · PROT

– This is only one-half the amount of the duty imposed under the Victorian State Tariff.

Senator CLEMONS:

– The duty proposed by the Government is decidedly above the average of all the previous State duties.

Senator O’CONNOR:
NEW SOUTH WALES · PROT

– I said that, with the exception of Victoria, the duty was either equal to or less than that proposed by the Government.

Senator CLEMONS:

– If that argument is worth anything, I wonder that Senator O’Connor does not accept the motion. He has recited the list of duties formerly prevailing under the State Tariffs, and although he tells us now that in every State, with the exception of Victoria, the duty was either equal to or less than that now proposed, he still opposes the motion. I urge the committee to accept it. If carried, it will afford an abundance of protection to the millers and farmers, and will certainly act against the possible formation of a trust in the Commonwealth to put up the price of flour.

Senator McGREGOR:
South Australia

– I opposed the remission of the duty on wheat, and for the same reason I shall vote against the abolition of this duty. We have been told of the exports- of wheat and flour from the States, and it is because we have extensive exports that we really require protection for the producer of these commodities. We know that the grain and flour export trade is confined for the most part to merchants and big buyers, and if we impose a duty of ls. 6d. instead of 2s. 6d. per cental on flour, it will be quite possible for a ring of exporters to import 1,000 tons of flour at a loss of ls. 6d. per cental in order to bring down the price of the local article. A ring of exporters would be prepared to lose the amount of the duty of ls. 6d. per cental on 1,000 tons of flour if they believed that the effect of the importation would be to bring down the price of 100,000 tons of local flour by 10s. pelton. A “ gag “ which is very often used by wheat merchants, when our producers seek to obtain a fair price for their produce, is that they will import grain from California. Such importations would have the effect of bringing down the price by Id. per bushel, and if by means of importing 1,000 tons of flour at a loss of 30s. per ton, a ring could compel the flour producers here to reduce their price by 10s. per ton, they would be able to make a profit of £50,000 on 100,000 tons.

Senator Major Gould:

– Why should that not occur with the duty at 2s. 6d. per cental 1

Senator McGREGOR:

– There would not be the same danger, and the danger of such a combination would be still less if the duty were 5s. per cental. However, we do not wish to make the impost prohibitive, because in that case there might be the possibility of a millers’ ring. With a moderate duty such as that proposed by the Government, a ring would be impossible, while it would be less possible for the exporter to import with the object of reducing the prices of the local article. These are some reasons why even when we have an export trade we should, remember the people in framing the Tariff. The duty proposed by the Government will be a protection to our producers, and some little guarantee that the market will not be rigged, at least without risk, by the wheat buyers of Australia, who, as we know, are few in number. We know that these things have happened, and I hope the committee will agree to the Government proposal.

Senator MILLEN (New South Wales).Senator McGregor has been careful not to refer to one very important fact. He imagined some wonderful manipulation of the wheat market, but he failed to mention that under the motion to reduce the duty the position of the vendor of wheat would be very much better than it was under the Tariff as first introduced here. When the Tariff reached us it provided for a duty of ls. Cd. per cental on wheat and 2s. 6d. per cental upon flour, leaving only ls. per cental as the difference between the two duties. As we have removed the duty on wheat, Senator Neild’s motion will, if carried, make a difference of ls. 6d. per cental, or afford 50 per cent, more protection against the imported article than was the case under the Tariff as introduced here. If it would be possible for the manipulation suggested by Senator McGregor to take place under the proposal made by Senator Neild, it could have taken place, with 50 per cent, more profit to those who rigged the market, under the Tariff as it reached us. It is absolutely clear that the measure of protection proposed by the motion in conjunction with the previous duty, is 50 per cent, higher than that proposed by the Government. If the Government proposal of a difference of ls. per cental, between the duties on wheat and flour, was considered sufficient, surely it is idle to say that the duty proposed in the motion would be insufficient when it will make a difference of ls. 6d. per cental. I intend to vote for the motion for that reason. If it had proposed that the duty should be ls. instead of ls. 6d. per cental, it would have still afforded the protection recognised by the Government as necessary

Senator EWING:
Western Australia

– I think that the point put by Senator Millen is a very important one, and that no protectionist, who was prepared to adopt the original proposal made by the Government, can grumble at the motion. This is one of the food duties which has been felt to press very heavily upon the people of Western Australia. Throughout that State there has been a great agitation for the abolition of the duty, and I am sorry that it is not proposed that flour shall be duty free, although I have no intention of moving in that direction. In Western Australia there was only a protection of ls. 2d. per cental to the miller ; but the people there considered that it was exorbitant. I am not going to help to make the position in Western Australia worse; therefore I support the motion.

Senator DOBSON:
Tasmania

– I propose to vote for the motion, because it appears to me that the protection which it will afford will be absolutely fair to the producer, apart altogether from the fact that it is really more than the protection which the Government originally proposed. The reduced duty would amount practically to over 30s. per ton. It must be remembered also that the natural protection against flour from New Zealand must represent an extra £1 or 30s. per ton, and that if flour is imported from America there must be a natural protection of about £2 per ton. So that the protection which the motion would give to the miller would be from £2 10s. to £3 10s. per ton, which I think is ample.

Senator PEARCE:
Western Australia

– I shall support the reduction of this duty, because I recognise it as another of the iniquitous food duties. It will only operate when food-stuffs are scarce, and surely at such a time we should welcome imports so that our people might get cheap food? I find that New South Wales, in 1900, imported 59,487 centals of wheatmeal and flour, and exported 528,834 centals. Victoria, in the same year, imported 6 centals, and exported 637,666 centals. Surely an industry which is so well established as this is shown to be by the large exports and small imports quoted does not require protection, and the proposal made by Senator Neild is sufficient? It is very interesting to see the attitude adopted by the British working men on the question of the corn duties. I have here a copy of a cablegram which appeared in the Age of Friday, 30th May, 1902. It reads-

London, 29th May. - A conference of 170 trade union delegates, representing in the aggregate 1 , 000,000 working men, met yesterday in London, and passed resolutions protesting against the new Budget duties on corn and flour.

There might be some defence for a protective duty of this character in the old country if we admit that protection benefits the grower, because, although I do not admit it, we are told that the agricultural industry in the old country is in a languishing condition. “We are exporting food products from Australia, and the old country is now importing food products, and protectionists there might very well say - “ Let us put a duty upon these imports in order that our local growers may have a show.” In Australia, where we produce far more than is sufficient for the local consumption, and where we export large quantities of flour, it is ridiculous in the extreme to suggest a duty upon the article. I have said that it is only in a time of drought and scarcity, when the local supply is insufficient, and when we must import, even if the duty be 10s. per cental, that such a duty becomes operative. It is only when people require to be able to get cheap foods, because they have little money to purchase it, that this duty can become operative, and on that ground it is iniquitous, because that is when people will most feel the pressure of it.

Senator STYLES:
Victoria

– I can well understand that a duty upon grain and flour might be objected to in the old country, because they do not produce any there now. They used to produce grain and flour, and if protection had been continued to them, they would be producing those articles now. But the free-traders ruined the producers absolutely. Senator Dobson spoke of the high freights upon flour being a great protection, and the honorable and learned senator talked of £2 a ton.

Senator Dobson:

– Added to the duty.I was speaking of the total protection.

Senator STYLES:

– I think the honorable and learned senator mentioned £2 10s. as freight from California and the other side of the world. As a matter of fact, the freight to Australia would not be more than about 1 0s. per ton. Flour has been brought to China and Hong Kong at 4s. 6d. a ton from Vancouver and San Francisco, and it could be brought on here for another 4s. or 5s. per ton.

Senator Clemons:

– Has any ever been brought here?

Senator STYLES:

– Yes, flour was brough t to Sydney in 1896. It was taken right by Melbourne to Sydney, as it could not belanded here because there was a duty of £5 a ton imposed upon it in Victoria.

Senator Millen:

– Was that the time when they were mixing flour into dough at Albury and carting it over to Wodonga?

Senator STYLES:

– No, and neither was it the time when free-trade New South Wales charged 2s. 6d. a ton for taking coal over from Victoria. We could bring flour from New Zealand for from 13s. to 14s. . per ton, and we know that that would be no protection at all, because, as I have previously said, it will cost that much to bring it from numbers of railway stations in Victoria to Melbourne. On the question of whether the duty increases the price of Hour, I have alreadygiven a statement which lias not been contradicted. I took the prices at the end of each quarter of the two years-. 1898 and 1900, and showed that the average price of flour in Melbourne to the consumer was 4s. per ton less than in Sydney, though there was no duty upon flour in New South Wales, and in Victoria there was a duty of £5 per ton. The duty in this case made no , difference at all, because internal competition, where there are a number of local producers, will always keep prices down.. Men growing wheat at Wangaratta will prefer to sell it on their farms if possible. Every man wishes to sell in the nearest market, because it pays him better. He gets ready cash, and does not have to pay for borrowed money. It was the internal competition amongst the producers inVictoria that kept the price of flour down, and honorable senators will remember that I showed that not only was flour 4s. per ton cheaper in Melbourne than in Sydney, -but that the Victorian farmer got a penny per bus] iel more for his wheat than the New South Wales farmer, although in Victoria we had a duty of ls. 9d. per bushel on wheat. In New South Wales the middle-man, as usual, took the profit. I cannot understand why there should be any objection to the duties proposed by the Government, which are only half those imposed by the previous Victorian Tariff. No one has ever alleged that there, was a flour ring formed in Victoria, as there was in the case of imported coal. There are too many wheat growers, and too many millers, and they are in too small a way of business to form a ring. I do not mean to say that the manufacturers will not form .a ting. I do not know that they are very much better than the importers. Every man, I suppose, takes advantage of a chance to make the most money he can out of his business. But it is our duty to prevent that sort of thing, and one means of preventing “ rings” is to have a duty upon flour, and upon grain also. I hope the duty of 2s. 6d. will be allowed to stand, though, personally, I should like to see it fixed at 5s. If that would increase the price to the consumer, I would say that we should not impose such a duty, but I have shown that our -experience of a duty in Victoria for years past, has proved that it has not increased the price of flour to the consumer.

Senator PULSFORD:
New South Wales

– The doctrines preached by Senator Styles are a very fair illustration of the unbending spirit of the protectionists, of the lack of compromise on the part of honorable senators opposite, and of the way in which they are prepared to meet the compromises we are continually putting forward from this side. The Government have put before us a Tariff in which they ask for a difference of ls. per cental between wheat and flour. We actually offer a duty of ls. 6d. on flour, and Senator Styles at once declares that if this is accepted, the flour trade of Australia will go to what Mr. Mantalini would call “ the demnition bow - wows.” It is nonsense. Is there any honorable senator who believes anthing of the sort 1 Nearly the whole of last year good quality flour was selling in Melbourne at about £6 per ton. The duty of 30s. per ton which we offer is equal to 25 per cent, upon that price. Is not that more than enough t After all, the duty will be non-protective, because, as Senator

Styles lias shown, the value of the local article will not be affected by the duty. It will have no operation, except at occasional times, when there is a great scarcity of the local supply, as there happens to be to-day. With us flour is a great article of export. We export tens of thousands of tons. But it happens that there is a small quantity of flour coming here from Canada. What is known as Manitoba flour, which is very rich in gluten, and very much liked by bakers, is imported. I believe that even the bakers of Victoria are using a small quantity of this flour to mix with the weaker Australian flour. A small quantityof some special qualities of flour may continue to be imported, and this duty of 30s. per ton which we propose will in that case act as a revenue duty, and a very big revenue duty it will be. Under all the circumstances, I confess that I am astounded at the moderation of honorable senators on this side, and the extent to which we have been willing to sacrifice our principles, to meet those who will not meet us at any price.

Senator HIGGS:
Queensland

– Some honorable senators have stated that agriculture is nearly at an end in the old country; and I must say that the figures regarding wheat production bear out their statements to some extent. The acreage under wheat was 3,630,300 acres in 1874; 1,809,161 acres in 1897; 2,102,206 acres in 1898 ; 2,000,981 acres in 1899; 1,845,042 acres in 1900 ; and 1,7O0,82S acres in 1901. Honorable senators will notice the great diminution in the acreage under wheat production. A large portion of the land has been turned into deer parks. Senator Pulsford has asked that we shall deal with this question in a spirit of compromise. Who has ever known the honorable senator to compromise on the subject of free-trade? He is a staunch, adamantine free-trader, who never gives away a point. With either freetrade or protection I am inclined to think that there would be wheat rings and flour rings. In Queensland there has been a wheat ring ‘for a considerable time. I do not believe that the abolition of the duty would have prevented its formation. Its emissaries go round to the farmers and buy the crops in advance, and so far from the farmers getting the benefit of the present high price of wheat, they have the dismal satisfaction of knowing that they have “ missed the bus. “ Honorable senators who make these propositions seem to me to lose sight of the best method of helping the consumers. If they are so anxious to help the consumers to get cheap food supplies, the way to attain that object is not by abolishing the duty on the articles, but by establishing State central flour mills, at which the farmer can have his wheat turned into flour. Senator Pearce has referred to the iniquitous food duties. If honorable senators should decide to keep down the price of food supplies to a starvation rate, what are the fanners and food producers to do ? Unless these producers can get a fair price for their products they cannot live ; they will have either to leave their farms and compete with the artisans in the manufacturing centres, or to go on to the sheep-walks. If the duty is to be inoperative, there is no harm in letting it stand. There may be a danger in removing the duty, because the products of foreign countries may compete unfairly with our farmers, and make them turn their attention to something else.

Senator Millen:

– Why did it not do so in New South Wales, where we had no duties for years?

Senator Major Gould:

– And where wheat production has increased hand over hand.

Senator HIGGS:

– In New South Wales there have been rings. In a newspaper lately I read about a firm at Wellington that had a record wheat stack. What is a stack of58,000 bags but a corner in wheat production? As many rings could be found in New South Wales under free-trade as could be found anywhere, and the way to operate against the rings is not by the removal of the duties, but through the medium of the State Parliament. I hope that honorable senators will not be drawn off the track by an exaggeration of the cry of a free breakfast table. While a free breakfast table may appear on the face of it a very good thing, it may be the means of doing much harm to the general community, because it may put the artisans, the farming employes, and many of the workers generally in such a position that they will not have the money with which to buy cheap food products.

Question - That the House of Representatives be requested to amend item 23 by adding to the duty “ Grain and pulse . . . n.e.i., per cental, 2s. 6d.,” the words “and on and after 1st July, 1902,1s. 6d.”- put. The committee divided -

Ayes……… 14

Noes……… 11

Majority……… 3

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Item 24. - Hay and chaff, per cwt. ,1s.

Senator MILLEN:
New South Wales

– I move -

That the House of Representatives be requested to amend item 24 by adding the words “ and on and after 1st July, 1902, free.”

– I consider that this duty is almost in the same category as that proposed upon wheat. Prior to federation there was no duty on hay and chaff in New South Wales, Victoria, or New Zealand, and the whole of the trade in hay and chaff which takes place in Australia is practically of an Inter-State character. I find that in1898 £6,000 worth of hay and chaff was introduced into Victoria from the other States, while the importations from abroad amounted only to £20 worth. In New South Wales some £211,000 worth of hay and chaff was introduced from the other States during the same year, and £840 worth from abroad. In South Australia practically £42,000 worth was introduced from the other States, and only £32 worth from abroad. There were no importations into Tasmania. In Queensland £29,000 worth of hay and chaff was introduced from the other States, and £14 worth from abroad, while in Western Australia, where one would have thought that there was a likelihood of importations from abroad, nearly £59,000 worth of hay andchaff was introduced from the other States, and only some £200 worth from abroad. No matter what the duty was, the whole of the trade in hay and chaff in the Commonwealth would be between State and State. Therefore it is an absurdity to impose a duty. The Victorian export statistics are even more striking than those which I have just read. From the 1st of May, 1901, until the end of April last - exactly one year - Victoria exported 1 1 4, 000 bags of chaff and 2,303,000 bales of pressed hay, the bales weighing about 110 lbs. each. In Victoria we are large exporters of hay and chaff ; but in New Zealand they grow Timothy and rye grass, and clover, just as they do in England.

Senator O’Keefe:

– But they impose a duty on chaff.

Senator FRASER:

– Chaff, so to speak, is the manufactured article, and if it is kept in stock for any time it is unfit for use. It is absurd to propose a duty on hay and chaff when we export these articles so largely, and it is idle to say that the farmers would be benefited by such a duty. A “corner” in hay and chaff could not be formed as readily as in relation to other things. “ Corners “ may be formed in wheat and flour, but not in relation to chaff, which is very easily prepared. I blame the Government for imposing duties on goods such as these when they are not required.

Senator HIGGS (Queensland). - I think that the figures which Senator Fraser has supplied are quite misleading, and if I had. had more time to look into the matter, I should have been able to show their incorrectness. I think the honorable senator has quoted from some book prepared by those who are interested, and which is not accessible to me.

Senator Fraser:

– The book is printed by McCarron, Bird, and Company.

Senator HIGGS:

– In dealing with this matter are we to be bound by the duty which obtained in any particular State prior to federation ? If so, I should like to ask honorable senators whether they will adhere to that rule when we come to deal with the duties on boots and shoes and so forth?

Senator Fraser:

Senator Sir William Zeal:

– But they do not bear upon the present position.

Senator HIGGS:

– How can I get at the present position? There are no means of obtaining statistics up to the present moment. The figures before me show that there are 40,000,000 sheep in New South Wales and 10,000,000 sheep in Queensland. I do not understand Senator Millen’s eagerness for the consumer, inasmuch as he voted for the duty on oatmeal. Yet he is going to vote to reduce the duties on fodder in the interests of the large pastoralists.

Senator MILLEN (New South Wales) - I desire to say in reference to my interjection as to Queensland stock - and I appeal to Senator Drake as to whether I am not correct - that official figures have been published showing that the sheep have been reduced from 10,000,000 in 1899 to 7,000,000 at the end of 1901, the number having come down from 19,000,000 or 20,000,000 ; and that in New South Wales the numberhasbeen reduced from 63,000,000 to 40,000,000. In every case the number is coming down.

Senator STEWART:
Queensland

– In dealing with a matter of this kind we ought to be guided largely by what has hitherto been the policy in a majority of the States. AV’e are not providing for any contingency that may arise, but are laying down a policy both for the taxation of the Commonwealth and the development of its resources. In four out of the six States hay and chaff bore a duty. It is only reasonable that the policy which had the approval of the majority of the States of the Commonwealth before federation should be continued. This a matter entirely for the States. If the policy of the Commonwealth is to be protection, and if owing to the drought or some other calamity the people of a particular State find themselves in difficulties, the people in other States should not be called upon to assist them. If the squatters in New South Wales are in such terrible straits - and I believe they are, though my experience of the squatting class has led me to the conclusion that they are very like the boy who was continually crying “ wolf “ - here is an opportunity for the people of New South Wales to assist their own squatters by remitting the duty imposed by the Commonwealth. That will not interfere with the policy of the Commonwealth. The squatters will get the assistance they are clamouring for, and everybody will be satisfied. The same thing could be done in Queensland. But it appears to me that an attempt is being made to break down the policy of the Commonwealth and to throw open our ports to foreign producers. If this duty is now knocked off ic will be exceedingly difficult to re-impose it. Senator Millen has been kind enough to say that if the duty is now remitted he will gladly vote for its reimposition after January 1.

Senator Millen:

– I said that in return for its remission now, I would afterwards vote for its permanent imposition.

Senator STEWART:

– The thing is “ as easy as falling off a log.” The New South Wales Government can recoup the pastoralists. The Commonwealth is not collecting revenue for itself, but for the States. What I am troubling about is not the duty, but the attack upon the policy of the Commonwealth - a policy that will develop its resources, add to its citizenship, and strengthen it in every shape and form. The drought is being made the stalking horse under cover of which the attack is being made. Senator Millen says that th e New Sou th Wales Government is giving the pastoralists cheap railway rates. Let them also remit the difference between the duty and the price of imported hay. Honorable senators do not appear to grasp the fact that we are now united in a Commonwealth. We are one body, so to speak. There may be a drought in Queensland, and splendid seasons in New South Wales, Victoria, or Tasmania. As a matter of fact even now the drought is of a partial character. It lias not attacked Tasmania or Western Australia. The contention I put forward is that if one portion of the Commonwealth is in a position to benefit by the policy of assisting our native industries that opportunity should not be taken away from it. If the people in the State which is affected wish to help some industry the proper course is open to them. If, by the remission of the duty on imported boots, thousands of men in Victoria were te be thrown out of employment, would honorable senators of the Opposition re-impose those duties in order to provide work for the men? They would say “ No, you must take your chance. We have thrown the puppy into the stream, and it can either sink or swim.”

Senator Clemons:

– We know that this puppy can swim.

Senator STEWART:

– But they are. extremely careful not to throw their own puppy into the stream. They will throw in somebody else’s puppy, but they take care to carry their own under their arm. I shall support the duty as it stands.

Senator McGREGOR:
South Australia

– I do not know why honorable senators on the opposition side point to every one who stands up to discuss this question. Those who support the Government proposal have not been discussing itthis afternoon. The delay has been due rather to those who are bringing forward the “ old widow and the poor orphan,” again in the shape of the “ poor pastoralist.” I have as much sympathy with the pastoralist, when he is acting fairly towards the Commonwealth, as has Senator Millen, but we are framing a Tariff to suit not the circumstances of a drought or famine, but to last, I hope, for a considerable number of years, so that the industrial and commercial affairs of the Commonwealth may be placed in a substantial position. The arguments which have been used against the imposition of the duty are exactly the same as those which were levelled against the duty on wheat. It was said that the proposal for the abolition of the duty on wheat was made in the interests of the pastoralists and others who live in the drought-stricken country, but when Senator O’Connor attempted this afternoon to remind the committee of the statement, he was Contradicted. Later on no doubt we shall be told that the present proposal was not made in the interests of the poor pastoralist. I desire to give an illustration of the way in which the poor pastoralist has treated his country. I know of one company that occupied a piece of pastoral land in South Australia for sixteen and a half years. It received from the Treasury £2, 200, or a little more, in respect of pastoral improvements, and at the end of the sixteen and a half years it repurchased those pastoral improvements for £1,300. During the whole term itpaid a little over £400 in rent, and at the end of the period, instead of the State receiving anything out of the company, it actually paid the company £511 for having occupied the land during that time. In every one of the States instances of the same kind occur. Although wehaveevery rightto sympathize with the pastoral industry I wish to show that these people often cry out before they are hurt. We know that many of them have been hurt by the present drought but the States in which they reside will receive the revenue derived from any duty on imported fodder, and will be at liberty to hand it back to those who have paid it.

SenatorFraser. - There will be no duty.

Senator McGREGOR:

-I hope there will be a duty, and that, if it is levied, those who have suffered the distress of which we have heard will obtain a refund. Special cases in any industry should be dealt with in a special way, and not under a general Tariff. It is for that reason that we are endeavouring to maintain the duty as it stands, leaving the States to deal with these special cases.

Senator GLASSEY:
Queensland

-I trust it will not be thought that I have no sympathy for the pastoralists who are suffering from the effects of the drought ; but I think that the motion is unwise. It is not right to make an inroad upon the Tariff merely to serve a temporary purpose. It is certainly to be deplored that the drought is so prevalent, in Queensland particularly, and in most parts of New South Wales; but there are other States whose interests certainly ought to be taken into consideration when we are dealing with a question like this. Would it be wise to expose Tasmania andVictoria, for example, to the inroads which would be made upon the farming industry of these States by the removal of this duty ? It is all very well for honorable senators to say that New Zealand will supply our wants, and that that country is inhabited by people governed under laws similar to our own and under the same flag. But that is not the question. Tasmania and Victoria are members of the Union, and have a right to be considered. I understand that a deputation is to wait upon the Government to urge the remission of the duties on fodder ; but that is another matter, and I would seriously ask the committee to consider whether it would be wise to carry this motion ? Unquestionably serious loss has been occasioned by the drought, but would it be wise to expose those States which produce hay and chaff to importations from abroad? I wish Senator Millen to acquit me of any want of sympathy for the pastoralists. I certainly feel deeply, as do all honorable senators, for both pastoralists and graziers who are struggling on against the drought. Any loss sustained by them is not merely a loss to financial institutions, who are doubtless able to stand it, but a loss to the Commonwealth and an injury to us all. The proposed abolition of the duty, however, is to apply for all time, and much as I sympathize with those who are suffering by reason of the. drought, I must, in the interests of the Commonwealth, support the duty. If the Government deem it necessary to remit it for a time in order to tide over a difficulty, I am satisfied that they will be ready to extend that relief.

Senator HIGGS (Queensland). - Senator Millen quoted certain figures which are not available to me–

Senator Millen:

– They are available to the honorable senator just as they were available to me..

Senator HIGGS:

– The honorable senator quoted figures showing that the number of sheep in Queensland had been reduced from 20,000,000 to 7,000,000, as illustrating the condition of the class for whom he wasappealing. I would point out that in1892, when we had these 20,000,000 sheep, the value of exports of fresh and preserved meat from Queensland was £375,958.

SenatorFraser. - That relates principally to beef, not to mutton.

-We know how uncompromising the honorable senator is, but we also know that the acceptance of the Canadian Tariff was proposed by the Argus, which has a very great deal of influence with the free-trade party. I was going to quote some statistics compiled from official sources in the office of the Government Statist in Victoria, but I shall not do so. This compilation, which was taken exception to by Senator Zeal, is one of the handiest publications in the Commonwealth. It contains a fund of information with regard to not only the subject before the committee, but very manyothers.

Question - That the House of Representatives be requested to amend item 24 by adding the words “and on and after 1st July, 1902, free” - put. The committee divided -

Ayes … ……… 14

Noes … …… … 12

Majority … …… 2

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Items 25 (Honey, jams, and jellies), 26 (Hops), 27 (Limejuice and other fruit syrups), 28 (Linseed), 29 (Linseed meal), 30 (Linseedand oil cake), 31 (Liquorice), 32 (Macaroni and vermicelli), and 33 (Malt), agreed to.

Item 34 - Malt extract, non-spiritous, per lb., 2d.

Senator CLEMONS:
Tasmania

– I am anxious for information with regard to this item. I wish to know whether what is meant is that class of infants’ and invalids’ food which we know under the term of malt extract? If so I would point out an anomaly. Here malt extract is taxed at 2d. per lb., whilst on the exemption list opposite “ oilmen’s stores,” infants and invalids’ foods are made free ofduty. If by malt extractsomething else is meant I have no objection to the item.

Senator O’CONNOR:
Protectionist

– The malt extract referred to in this item is a preparation largely used for the making of malt bread. It is used in a wholesale way. The malt prepared in bottles and used as a medicine is a different thing altogether, and is placed upon the free list.

Item agreed to.

Item 35 - Matches and Vestas, viz. : -

For each 100 matches or vestas or part thereof -

Wax … … per gross 6d.

Wood or other … ,,6d..

Senator Lt Col NEILD:
New South Wales

– I move -

That the House of Representatives be requested to amend item 35, by adding to the duty “ Matches and vestas . , Wax, per gross6d,” the words “and on and after 1st July, 1902, 3d.”

– I thought it an obvious matter of first principles that if the consumption of matches is of a certain extent, the number of boxes used will not be increased by the removal of the duty. After the speech made by Senator Neild we must leave the local production out of the question. The only result ofthe proposed reduction would be to destroy a very large amount of revenue which we receive at present from the duties on matches. And why is the reduction proposed ? Really, it seems to me, because my honorable friend has become absolutely inflamed in his desire to relieve the work-people of this local trade from the unhealthy life they are living and from the receipt of the low wages to which he referred. The honorable senator seemed to me to carry his argument to extreme lengths when he actually complained that the local production was cheaper than the imported match. We have always’ been taught by our honorable friends opposite that their great gospel is the gospel of cheapness, and that their objection to protection is that it increases the cost to the consumer of the article affected. Yet when this poor little industry reduces the price to the consumer Senator Neild complains. The honorable senator has based his motion upon such a ground that under no circumstances should the committee listen to it. There is another reason why the motion should not be carried. The duties imposed on matches in the several States prior to federation were as follow : - Victoria, wax matches1s. 3d. and1s. per gross of boxes, wooden 6d. per gross of boxes, safety matches free ; Queensland, wax matches 25 per cent., wooden free or 25 per cent. - I presume that safety matches were free ; South Australia, 1s. per gross on wax matches, and 10 per cent. on wooden matches ; Tasmania, 20 per cent. and Western Australia, 15 per cent., on both kinds. Ithink it will be seen at once that from the stand-point of revenue there is nothing unreasonable in these duties. A very strong reason for imposing a larger duty than those which were imposed before on wooden matches in many of the States, is that the wooden match boxes are used largely for advertising purposes, and that a great part of the cost of the manufacture of the matches is borne by the advertisers. In that way they can be sold very cheaply. It is only fair, therefore, that the imported matches should bear a reasonable amount of duty. I have dealt with the question only from the revenue point of view. Itwould be impossible to give up the revenue derived from this source without serious detriment to the finances of the Commonwealth. ‘ If that is so, is there any reason why the industry, small though it may. be, should not receive incidentally the benefit of a duty which is imposed for revenue purposes? Whatever the intention of a duty may be, if it has the effect of affording protection to any industry, is that a reason why we should not obtain a revenue from it? Under these circumstances, I hope that the committee will not be led away by Senator Neild’s fulminations against the local match industry, but that honorable senators will remember that the reduction of the duties certainly would not lead to any increase of revenue.

Senator HIGGS:
Queensland

– I imagine that the tone in which Senator Neild addressed himself to this question was due to the manner in which the local match industry has been treated by his great leader, Mr. George Reid, who, upon the public platform, has again and again used this particular industry in order to ridicule the theory of protection. I take the stand that, if matches are necessary for the use of the community, and can be produced here under healthy conditions, there is no reason why we should not encourage the industry. Senator Neild has said that the match factory established in Victoria is not a local, but a foreign one. Our object in imposing protective duties, however, is to induce people who have hitherto carried on industries abroad to establish factories here and employ our wage-earners. In that way a certain amount of money is circulated in the Commonwealth. Some people have such a peculiar method of buttressing their arguments, that it has been said that the people of Victoria have been paying £14,000 per annum, not for the purposes of revenue, but merely to keep this industry alive. The sum of £14,000 per annum, paid into the Victorian Treasury by way of duty on matches, had to be obtained in some way, and it does not follow that the money was used to keep up the local match industry. Since Senator Neild has given us the benefit of his research into the conditions of that particular factory, which he has described as a starveling and a wretched abortion, I think that I should give the side of the match industry. Messrs. Bell and Co., of Melbourne, addressed the following memorandum to me : -

Melbourne, 2nd June, 1902.

Duty on Wax Vestas. - The Customs duty on vestas has been reduced, as you are aware, from 1s., the old Victorian duty, to 6d. per gross. We are now in this unfortunate position, that all our protection has been taken away, for while (id. duty nominally remains, the bulk of our raw material, including stearine, glue, paper, &c, is subject to a duty to the extent of6d. per gross. It is now proposed to suggest a further reduction of 3d., whereas as we are already completely crippled by the reduction to6d., our factory is being worked absolutely at a loss in our hopes of being able to secure more equitable treatment before the Tariff is finally disposed of. We naturally wish to protectthecapital which we have invested in this industry, but if it were a question of starting to-day with a duty of (id. we would not entertain it for a moment. The right honorable the Treasurer stated to the House of Representatives that after full inquiry and perusal of our balancesheets and bank booksby the Government the reduction of the duty on wax vestas to (id. deprived us of the whole of our profit, and the carrying on of the industry under the circumstances would be a matter of great uncertainty. This statement alone, even without any of ours, should be sufficient to convince the members of the injustice which has already been done to us, and induce them to deal with this item in such a manner as to give us a chance of carrying on an industry which has cost us much time, thought, and money to establish. We enclose some facts regarding the industry for your information.

The occupation is a perfectly healthy one. Not one single case of sickness in any way attributable to employment in this industry has occurred since this factory was opened seven years ago in Melbourne. (See copies of Government reports attached.)

Senator Clemons:

– We all have this memorandum.

Senator HIGGS:

– I believe the honorable and learned senator has a copy of it, but he forgets that the many thousands of readers of the records of this Parliament of the Commonwealth will desire to know what has induced the Senate to come to certain conclusions. The memo continues -

The wages paid for the week of 48 hours are as follow : - Girls range from6s. for beginners to £1 2s.6d. for experienced hands ; men from £1 10s. to , £3 ; boys, from begin ners at5s. to 1 3s. The number of persons employed till the reduction of duty to (id. was 70, but to supply the Australian demand for wax vestas, factories employing at least 1,000 persons would be necessary. The wax vesta industry is indigenous, as the largest portion of its raw material, consisting of stearine, glue, strawboard, &c, are products of this country, and it supplies also a large amount of support to the printing, paper-makings and case-making trades. If the vestas required for Australia are not made within the Commonwealth, the whole trade may be expected to go into the hands of the Belgians and Italians, as the British manufacturers are being driven out of the market owing to the starvation rate of wages paid in the countries named.

Extract from the report of the Victorian Chief Inspector of Factories, Workrooms, and Shops, for the year ending 31st December, 1900: - Miss

H.thear reports- “In connexion with the match making industry and the manufacture of indiarubber goods, I have made inquiries as to health of employes and have not learnt of any cases of illnesses arising from the work.

Copy of Government report in regard to R. Bell & Co.’s wax vesta factory, at Melbourne, Victoria: -

Chief Inspector of Factorial,

Government Office,

Spring-street, Melbourne, 1 1th December, 1900.

Gentlemen, - I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of6th instant, and to inform you that, relying on your assurance, that my reply will not in any way be used as an advertisement, I have no hesitation in stating that this department is quite satisfied with the arrangement and conduct of the match factory at Richmond. No case of illness attributable to the process of making the matches has ever been brought under my notice.

I have the honour to be, Gentlemen,

Your obedient servant,

Harrisonord,

Chief Inspector of Factories.

That to me was a very welcome document, because I was under the impression that the match-making industry could not be carried on under healthy conditions. We have here official evidence that it can. When Senator Neild speaks of this wretched, paltry, starving industry, I ask him, seeing that he is so anxious about the widow and orphans interested in the banks - What does he think is going to happen to the employes in this wax vestas factory who will be thrown out of employment if thisduty is reduced ? Will Senator Pulsford find any room for them in the great importing industry, in his “figure factory,” or elsewhere? Forty persons more or less added to the employes are not of much consequence, in the opinion of honorable senators who are interested only in getting free fodder for pastoralists. This motion is another blow at a primaryindustry. I find that in Queensland we imported from the United Kingdom 11,560 packages of matches ; from New South Wales, 259 packages; from South Australia, 15 packages ; from Germany, 405 ; from Italy,388, and from Belgium, 900 packages, or a total of 13,527 packages. I have no doubt that there has been exported from the United Kingdom to Australia a large quantity of matches made in Japan. The Japanese have made such strides in match-making that they are becoming the strongest competitors of Sweden. This is apparently very amusing to some honorable senators who come from Tasmania, but I did not notice any of them get upand propose any reduction in the hop duty.

Senator Clemons:

– They would have supported it if it had been proposed by the honorable senator.

Senator HIGGS:

– It is not my duty to carry out free-trade principles. I think it is a very reasonable proposition that we should endeavour to encourage all the industries required for the development and comfort of the Australian race. Even if there were only two people employed in the match-making industry, why should we not encourage them? This encouragement might possibly prevent certain people standing for Parliament later on. If honorable senators continue destroying industry after industry, what a fine crop of candidates we shall have at the next senatorial election !

Senator O’CONNOR:
Protectionist

– I desire to correct a statement which I made just now. Senator Macfarlane said that the estimate to which I referred was made upon a duty of1s. per gross. I thought it was not so at the time, but 1 find that the honorable senator was perfectly right. That will reduce the estimate of revenue from wax matches to £10,500, which, with the revenue estimated from wooden matches, £13,500, makes a revenue of £24,000. The actual collection for six months amounted to nearly £11,000, and that amount doubled will produce a revenue very nearly amounting to the estimate.

Senator CLEMONS:
Tasmania

– I am glad to hear Senator O’Connor correct his mistake. I hope the honorable and learned senator will not attempt to correct all his mistakes, because time is getting on. I should like to add a little to the corrections he has made. I have no desire to misquote the honorable and learned senator, but I believe he said that the duty on matches had been1s. per gross for only a part of the time covered by the six months. The obvious inference was that the duty had been reduced at an early stage of the consideration of the Tariff. But as a matter of fact the duty of1s. was collected for the whole period of six months, less five days. That, I think, is a necessary amplification of the honorable and learned senator’s correction. Senator O’Connor hasa happy knack of confusing these items. But members of the committee are not entirely ignorant of the fact that the duty upon wooden matches, whatever it may be, is entirely a revenue duty, and the £10,000 or the £11,000 revenue mentioned by Senator O’Connor includes the revenue derived from wooden matches as well as from wax matches. I venture to say that one-half of the revenue was derived from wooden matches, for the obvious reason that they are not manufactured anywhere within the Commonwealth. If I were convinced that Senator O’Connor is right as to the revenue-producing effect of these duties, I should oppose their reduction by one farthing. On the contrary, I am convinced that the .reduction of this duty on wax matches will increase the revenue, and I therefore support the motion which has been made.

Senator Fraser:

– The reduction of the duty would not increase the importation.

Senator CLEMONS:

– I am sorry to disagree with Senator Fraser. I think I shall be able to convince the honorable senator that it would increase the importation. That the reduction of the duty from 6d. to 3d. per gross on wooden matches would decrease the revenue, I admit, and I regret the fact. Victorian senators have, no doubt, a better knowledge of what has taken place in the Victorian Parliament than I am, but some of them may have forgotten that it is not long since the duty on safety matches in Victoria was entirely removed. The reduction was made at the instance of Mr. Duncan Gillies, in order, as he said, to encourage their use. We have to recognise that the use of safety matches should be encouraged, and it is because that is desirable that it seems unfair that wooden matches should be taxed at 6d. per gross, while wax matches are taxed, as we propose, at 3d. per gross. For that reason I admit that a certain amount of revenue is going to be lost. The reasons why we should reduce the duty on wax matches are many. What was the effect of a revenue duty in Victoria? Prior to 1894 Victoria had a duty of ls. per gross, and it yielded a revenue of £14,000 per annum. In that year Messrs. Bell and Company established their factory in Victoria, and, as a result of their output, the revenue fell, until in 1900 the State got only £2/900. In 1900, in Melbourne, the locally-made matches were selling at 2s. lOd. per gross, while in Sydney imported matches were selling at about 2s. per- gross. The price of matches throughout the world has diminished tremendously in recent years. There has not been a fall in the price of matches in Victoria because she has had a duty. New South Wales has been importing matches, and, of course, she has derived the benefit of the general fall in prices. It is extremely questionable whether we ought to do anything to encourage the making of matches in the Commonwealth. I should be glad if not a single wax match was made here. Even with the proposed duty of 6d. per gross, the enhanced price that will be derived from the sale of matches in the Commonwealth will go to the makers of them. With a duty of 6d. per gross, for every £1 that will be spent in wages in the industry, £2 will go to the proprietor of the factory. The only factory which is making matches in Australia is one which is owned in London. The sole reason why it was established here was because a heavy duty was imposed in Victoria. It has been urged in the circular that has been read that we are going to do something that is harsh and cruel again, and destroy an industry. It was only the other day that we reduced the duty on stearine and parafine wax. Both these articles are rawmaterials of the manufacturer of wax matches. Therefore, if there is any injustice from the point of view of the local manufacturer, we, at any rate, on this side, considerably helped him by reducing the duty on stearine from Id. to 1/2d. per lb., and on paraffine wax from Id. to -Jd. per lb.

Senator O’Connor:

– Why did the honorable and learned senator encourage this industry by admitting its raw material f ree ?

Senator CLEMONS:

– I had not the slightest intention of helping this industry when I opposed the duties to which I refer. I was thinking of the candle-makers solely, but as a result of the reduction of the duties, the wax match industry has been materially assisted. The circular which has been issued by Messrs. Bell and Company in regard to the wages of their hands is enough to make any honorable senator, no matter what fiscal view he holds, hesitate before he encourages such work. On their own showing, they pay the girls from 6s. to 22s. 6d. a week - the latter being the wage of experienced hands. I am prepared to say that there are very few experienced hands in the factory, and that the vast majority of the employes get considerably less than 22s. 6d. per week. In Victoria, in 1S95, there was a. Tariff Board which inquired into the industry, and in his evidence the manager of Bell’s factory said that the girls averaged about 10s. per week. In their report the Tariff Board stated that the number of hands employed at the time of the manager’s examination was 53, of whom 48 were girls, three were men, and two. were boys, and that the employes averaged 9s. 3d. per week. In 1901 the Chief Inspector of Factories iri Victoria reported that altogether there were employed in the previous year in the making of these matches eight males and 41 females, that the wages per week were stated to average for the males 18s. 8d., and for the females 14s. lid., that they worked 46 weeks in the year, and that the wages received by all the employes amounted to £1,750 for the year. With these figures in our possession, we ought to hesitate to encourage the industry. If by the imposition of a duty of 3d. per gross we do anything to discourage the making of wax matches in the Commonwealth, we shall have done good work.

Senator O’KEEFE:
Tasmania

– The question of encouraging this industry does not concern me very much. Regarding the figures which have been quoted by Senator Clemons, we were all pretty well acquainted with the facts connected with the industry. I do not think that many honorable senators are going to look at the question very largely from the point of view of protection. The simple course for the representatives of the smaller States, who wish to conserve as much revenue as they can, is to consider the duty from the point of view of revenue. Senator Neild mentioned the fact that Messrs. Bell and Company say that with a duty of 6d. per gross their industry will be snuffed out. If that is so, what is going to be the result of reducing the duty to , 3d. per gross 1 We shall simply get half the revenue that we would get from a duty of 6d. per gross, because we shall have to import all the matches we use.

Senator Clemons:

– The local production pays no duty.

Senator O’KEEFE:

– According to the argument of Senator Neild there will be no local production, even if we leave the duty at 6d. per gross. The industry should not appeal to us very greatly on the ground of protection, but still a principle is at stake, and I do not agree . that it should be discarded entirely. Lookingatthequestion from the revenue point of view only, it will be very foolish of the representatives of the smaller States to reduce the duty.

Senator STYLES:
Victoria

– I should like to see a duty imposed that would enable all the matches we consume to be made in the Commonwealth. It appears, according to one honorable senator, that wax matches were selling at 2s. per gross in New SouthWales and at 2s. lOd. per gross in Victoria. I propose to quote an extract from Sowden’s Commercial and Political Japan to show what is done in Japan. My honorable friends opposite cannot possibly take exception to the statement of a free-trade writer. I do not believe that there is an honorable senator who would care to admit or to buy matches made under the conditions which are described in this pamphletIt is within my own knowledge that large numbers of J apanese wooden matches havebeen sold in Victoria. It is impossible to tell them from British or European-made goods, as the boxes are covered with the usual advertisements. Mr. Sowden, in his pamphlet - and it must be remembered that he is the free-trade editor of the free-trade South Australian Register - says -

At the railway station you may buy for Id. per dozen boxes samples of Japanese-made lucifer matches,

I can well understand that the heart of a free-trader must have gushed with gratitude at the chance of buying a dozen boxes of ‘ matches for Id. of which half-a-million’s worth sterling are exported annually to Australia and elsewhere.

Senator Pulsford:

– It is not true.

Senator STYLES:

– I doubt whether the honorable senator would dare to tell this free-trade gentleman that the statement was untrue.

Senator Pulsford:

– It is not true in any shape or form that that quantity is imported to Australia.

Senator STYLES:

– The pamphlet says : “ To Australia and elsewhere.” The honorable senator is so anxious to show that another free-trader is wrong, and that he is the only man who is fit to run a figure factory, that he did not listen properly to the statement -

Outside hundreds of houses in nearly every Japanese town may be seen heaps of the matchboxes spread to dry. The making of these boxes is chiefly women’s work: A particularly smart housewife whom I saw employed with the paste and the paper completed, with the aid of her little ones, 2,500 boxes per day of thirteen or fourteen hours, and was paid a trifle more than a farthing per 100, say 7d. or 8d. daily. Similar illustrations of the i astonishing cheapness of labour might be multiplied, but enough has been said. This aspect of the industrial problem may be left with the hardly necessary intimation that the wretched wage of the Japanese is still a living wage and even a saving wage.

He goes on to say -

At present the combined earnings of a Japanese family - practically every one of them, to the smallest chit of a girl, at work - represent the living wage of ‘the household. Manufacturers labour, and eat, and sleep in the same building, and if only one member of the circle be disabled for any length of time, the general earning power is affected, and the rest suffer.

Senator DAWSON:
QUEENSLAND · ALP

– How much does the honorable senator think is earned in England by the makers of match boxes 1

Senator STYLES:

– I should say more than 8d. for a whole family at any rate -

It is simply impossible for the living expenses to be reduced below their present level.

The free-traders would have us admit the goods they produce into the Commonwealth without paying one farthing of duty.

Senator Pearce:

– We say - “Save our people from such an industry.”

Senator STYLES:

– Put on a duty and have an industry in which we can employpeople at a proper wage. That is what the protectionists want.

Senator Millen:

– But Messrs. Bell and Co. say that 6d. is not enough.

Senator STYLES:

– Then make it ls. This free-trade writer adds -

A family of twelve can dine at a cost of Jd. each, when all that is eaten is a handful of rice, with the addition of a spray of seaweed, or a bit of fish or vegetables, if the diners are minded to indulge in luxuries.

I want to know whether any member of this Chamber, be -,he free-trader or protectionist, would care about admitting goods made under such shocking conditions into the Commonwealth? This free-trade pamphlet shows what a dreadful condition of things exists in Japan.

Senator Pearce:

– Can the honorable senator tell us what is earned at the Belgian match factories ?

Senator STYLES:

– I have no doubt work-people are sweated there, but that is no reason why we should allow it to be done here, or why we should allow sweated goods produced in those countries to be introduced into the Commonwealth almost free of duty. I appeal to the free-traders to think over this matter, and if they do that I doubt whether there is an honorable senator who will vote so as to admit wooden matches produced under this shocking condition of things.

– That does not make any difference in regard to the question of wages, because according to the statement which they made in 1895 and the Victorian Inspector of Factories’ report of 1901, they are paying less wages, and employing fewer hands than in 1895. If that is to be pointed out as evidence of progress in the industry, a little retrogression is, I think, desirable. But taking their own statement as to the miserably small amount they pay in wages, in proportion to their enormous output, it is idle to suppose that they have the slightest intention of closing up, if the duty remains at fid. per gross, nor do I believe that they will close if the duty is reduced to 3d. If all the predictions which have been made came true, then and then only would the carrying of this motion tend to divert the revenue.

Senator STYLES (Victoria).- My honorable friend, although very often right, is sometimes very wrong. If he had taken notice of what I said at the outset of my remarks, he would have seen that his figures taken from the Statistical Register do not count for very much, because I explained that Japanese matches, labelled exactly in the same way as those from Sweden, are imported.

Senator Millen:

– The honorable senator means that the Victorian Statistical Register is inaccurate ?

Senator STYLES:

– The officers do not know.

Senator Millen:

Senator GLASSEY:

– I am anxious, not only to preserve the revenue, but also to preserve the industries of the Commonwealth, even if it be the wax match industry. I would appeal again to my honorable friends to have some little consideration for Queensland, where we have to depend considerably on amounts such as this duty would produce to carry on the government of the State. If one source of revenue after another is cut off, where are we likely to be landed ? What condition of mind will the people of Queensland be in when they read in the press that time after time the sources of their revenue are reduced to such an alarming extent ? What feelings are they likely to have towards the Commonwealth, which we all so readily agreed to enter, and which we are so anxious to maintain on just and fair lines 1 The wax match industry may be considered an insignificant one, but every industry that employs a number of hands is worth preserving. If employes are underpaid, let us endeavour, so far as we are capable, to raise the wages paid in the industries. If the hours of labour are excessively long, let me join with Senator Barrett and others in appealing to the State Parliaments to callow the Commonwealth Parliament to deal with factory legislation, so that we may have one uniform system, and insure that no labourer, man or woman, boy or girl, shall be sweated in any industry throughout the Commonwealth.

Senator HIGGS (Queensland). - I cannot allow Senator Clemons’ statement about fiscal anarchists to pass unchallenged. He ridiculed the idea of beginners in the wax match industry being paid 6s. per week. I wish to know how much apprentices to the law get when they start. If any wages had been paid in that industry I might have been an ornament to the profession. The honorable and learned senator said that it is very advisable to encourage the use of wooden matches. That proposition seemed to be so obvious that he did not explain, and I suppose the reason is that a greater number of fires are likely to occur in the pastoral districts from the use of wooden matches. I have travelled a little in the pastoral districts of Queensland, and a very erroneous impression exists with regard to the uSe of wax matches there, because very often it is the lightning that sets the grass alight. Senator Styles was challenged by Senator Clemons in regard to his figures. On referring to the Statesman’s Year Book for 1902, I find that the exports of matches from Japan to various places, in 1900, amounted to no less than 5,760,869 yen or over £500,000. Senator Millen stated that only £960 worth of these exports came to Australia ; but he must remember that the exports of J apan are increasing year by year. In 1900 the exports of all classes of goods from Japan to Australia amounted to 2,530,525 yen. I wish to draw attention to the great advance.in Japanese production, and to the possibility ‘that, although only £960 worth of matches was sent here a few years ago, the imports may amount to a very much larger sum later on. Whereas, in 1896, the total exports from Japan amounted to 118,052,631 yen, in 1900 they had increased to 209,562,906 yen - a very great advance, owing, as we say, to the establishment of foreign factories run by British, German, and American patriots. I would draw attention to another aspect of the case stated by the honorable senator regarding the match industry in the old country. He said that a great deal of misery and sweating existed in the industry. I agree with him, but tlie honorable senator has not proved that there has been any disease in Australia such as he says exists in the old country. The decision of the committee of inquiry in the old country reported that these diseases were inseparable from the match making industry, but in all probability that report was drawn up so as to let down as lightly as possible the shareholders in the great match making companies whose operations gave rise to the inquiry. It will be remembered that at the time of the inquiry it was stated that the direst distress was being caused in companies the shareholders of winch were clergymen, lawyers, and business people. But the statement that diseases are inseparable from the industry is not borne out by the Government factories inspector in Victoria. That gentleman says he has no hesitation in stating “ That this department is quite satisfied with the arrangements and conduct of the match factory at Richmond.” Senator Barrett has stated that Mr. Ord, if he errs at all, errs in the direction of the rigid administration of the Factories Act. Therefore he cannot be accused of allowing Messrs. Bell and Co.’s factory to go unchallenged if anything wrong takes place in connexion with it. Are we willing to allow the productions of factories in other parts of the. world, where diseases are rife, to be imported 1 Would it not be better for us to have in the Commonwealth a factory which we can control in some way by making it subject to our factory laws and regulations ? It is almost impossible to prevent the establishment of rings, trusts, and combines, and therefore it would be better for us to have them in the Commonwealth, where we can control them in a reasonable way.

Question- - -That the House of Representatives be requested to amend item 35 by adding to the duty “Matches and vestas . . Wax per gross, 6d.,” the words “ and on and after 1st July, 1902, 3d.”- put. The committee divided -

Ayes …….. … 12

Noes … … … 12

Question so resolved in the negative.

Motion (by Senator Lt.-Col. Neild) -

That the House of Representatives be requested to amend Item 35 by adding to the duy “Matches and vestas . . . Wood or other, per gross6d.,” the words “and on and after the 1st July, 1902, 3d.” put. The committee divided -

Ayes……… 12

– A vote having been taken on these two sub-sections, I am not prepared to disturb it, but I say unhesitatingly that the question should be put.

Item 35 put and agreed to.

Progress reported.

Senate adjourned at 10.31 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 3 June 1902, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1902/19020603_senate_1_10/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant

Senate 3 June 1902

PETITION

QUESTION

SOUTH AFRICANWAR

Senator O’CONNOR:Vice-President of the Executive Council · New South Wales . · Protectionist

Senator Major GOULD:New South Wales

Senator McGREGOR:South Australia

ASSENT TO BILLS

CUSTOMS TARIFF BILL

Senator Lt Col NEILD:New South Wales

Senator O’CONNOR:Vice-President of the Executive Council · New South Wales · Protectionist

Senator PEARCE:Western Australia

Senator O’Connor:

Senator PEARCE:

Senator DRAKE:PostmasterGeneral · Queensland · Protectionist

Senator PEARCE:

Senator DRAKE:

Senator Pearce:

Senator DRAKE:

Senator GLASSEY:Queensland

Senator PEARCE:

Senator GLASSEY:

Senator STEWART:Queensland

Senator Clemons:

Senator STEWART:

Senator MATHESON:Western Australia

Senator McGREGOR:South Australia

Senator Pearce:

Senator MCGREGOR:

Senator Pearce:

Senator McGREGOR:

Senator STYLES:Victoria

Senator Pearce:

Senator STYLES:

Senator Millen:

Senator McGregor:

Senator STYLES:

Senator Dobson:

Senator STYLES:

Senator Millen:

Senator STYLES:

Senator O’KEEFE:Tasmania

Senator O’KEEFE:

Senator Styles:

Senator PEARCE:

Senator Styles:

Senator PEARCE:

Senator McGregor:

Senator PEARCE:

Senator Styles:

Senator PEARCE:

Senator Fraser:

Senator PEARCE:

Senator Lt Col NEILD:New South Wales

Senator O’CONNOR:Protectionist

Senator Major GOULD:New South Wales

Senator O’CONNOR:

Senator CLEMONS:Tasmania

Senator O’CONNOR:NEW SOUTH WALES · PROT

Senator CLEMONS:

Senator O’CONNOR:NEW SOUTH WALES · PROT

Senator CLEMONS:

Senator McGREGOR:South Australia

Senator Major Gould:

Senator McGREGOR:

Senator EWING:Western Australia

Senator DOBSON:Tasmania

Senator PEARCE:Western Australia

Senator STYLES:Victoria

Senator Dobson:

Senator STYLES:

Senator Clemons:

Senator STYLES:

Senator Millen:

Senator STYLES:

Senator PULSFORD:New South Wales

Senator HIGGS:Queensland

Senator Millen:

Senator Major Gould:

Senator HIGGS:

Senate
3 June 1902

Senator O’CONNOR:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · New South Wales . · Protectionist

Senator Major GOULD:
New South Wales

Senator McGREGOR:
South Australia

Senator Lt Col NEILD:
New South Wales

Senator O’CONNOR:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · New South Wales · Protectionist

Senator PEARCE:
Western Australia

Senator DRAKE:
PostmasterGeneral · Queensland · Protectionist

Senator GLASSEY:
Queensland

Senator STEWART:
Queensland

Senator MATHESON:
Western Australia

Senator McGREGOR:
South Australia

Senator STYLES:
Victoria

Senator O’KEEFE:
Tasmania

Senator Lt Col NEILD:
New South Wales

Senator O’CONNOR:
Protectionist

Senator Major GOULD:
New South Wales

Senator CLEMONS:
Tasmania

Senator O’CONNOR:
NEW SOUTH WALES · PROT

Senator O’CONNOR:
NEW SOUTH WALES · PROT

Senator McGREGOR:
South Australia

Senator EWING:
Western Australia

Senator DOBSON:
Tasmania

Senator PEARCE:
Western Australia

Senator STYLES:
Victoria

Senator PULSFORD:
New South Wales

Senator HIGGS:
Queensland

Senator MILLEN:
New South Wales

Senator O’CONNOR:
Protectionist

Senator Major GOULD:
New South Wales

Senator HIGGS:
Queensland

Senator FRASER:
Victoria

Senator STYLES:
Victoria

Senator Lt Col NEILD:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT

Senator Lt Col NEILD:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT