Senate
9 July 1902

1^st Parliament · 1^st Session

CUSTOMS TARIFF BILL

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

page 14210

CUSTOMS TARIFF BILL

In Committee (consideration resumed from 8th July) :

Division VI. - Motels and Machinery.

Item 79. -Rails, fish-plates, fish-bolts, tieplates, switches, points, crossings, and intersections for railways and tramways, ad valorem, 15 per cent.

Upon which Senator Clemons had moved -

That the House of Representatives be requested to amend item 79 by adding the words “and on and after 1st August, 1902, 10 per cent.”

Senator McGREGOR:
South Australia

– I desire to corroborate the remarks of Senator Styles with regard to privatelyowned railways in South Australia. The Glenelg railway line, which was taken over by theGovernment, cost the State just twice as much as would have been required to purchase the land and build the line in the first instance. The Government should adhere to their proposal to impose a duty of 15 per cent, upon rails and railway material, because it is only by this means that the Commonwealth can exercise any control over syndicate-owned railways in the various State’s. A movement is on foot in South Australia at present to grant concessions to a syndicate, in consideration of their constructing a railway line from Oodnadatta to the Northern Territory. When such concessions are granted, they are generally of a sufficiently liberal character to enable those who obtain them to easily pay such a small duty as that now proposed. The spikes used in railway construction are not included in the item, but I suppose that they would come under the head of “fasteners.” Railway spikes, bolts, and fish-plates are being manufactured within the Commonwealth at the present time, and they should certainly be subject to a duty. The item we are now considering will not affect the States Governments, because if they have to pay a duty of 15 per cent, upon any railway material they may introduce they will be credited with the amount collected. On the other hand it will enable us to protect the iron industry and to secure some revenue from those who own private railways or engage in other enterprises in which railway material is employed. If no duty were imposed upon rails, or even if the imposts were reduced as proposed, it would be possible for the State Governments or private individuals to import railway material to the prejudice of any State-owned or other iron works which might be established in Tasmania or elsewhere, and I hope, therefore, that the 15 per cent, duty will be adhered to.

Senator Lt Col NEILD:
New South Wales

– I should like to have the opinion of the Vice-President of the Executive Council with reference to this proposal in its relation to section 114 of the Constitution, which reads as follows : -

A State shall not, without the consent of the Parliament of the Commonwealth, raise or maintain any naval or military force, or impose any tax on property of any kind belonging to the Commonwealth ; nor shall the Commonwealth impose any tax on property of any kind belonging to a State.

When this matter was discussed in another place the opinion was expressed that railway material imported for the use of the States Governments could be taxed by the Commonwealth, but, in my view,anysuch proposal would beobjectionablefrom two stand-points. In the first place, we should be creating work for the High Court, and causing unnecessary friction between the Commonwealth and the States ; and, secondly, it would be against the interests of public morality and of the finances of Australia generally if we taxed importations by the States Governments, because the price of railway material would be increased, and the States Governments would require to borrow considerably more money for the purpose of carrying out railway works. They would, in effect, borrow large sums of money in order to pay duties which they would afterwards pass into their own pockets as ordinary revenue. A more outrageous proposition could carcely be submitted. Referring to some remarks made by Senator McGregor, the States Governments have not always paid excessive prices for the railway properties which they have taken over from private companies. I had charge of a Bill which was passed by the New South Wales Legislature, authorizing the construction of a private railway in the vicinity of Sydney for a length of 12 or 15 miles. The construction of that line cost £50,000 - one bridge involved an expenditure of £15,000 - and, although the whole twelve miles were never built, the more expensive portion of the line was, and the Government bought the entire undertaking, lock, stock, and barrel, for about £22,500. In New South Wales for many years Bills have been passed authorizing the construction of works of this character, but all measures of this nature which are now passed by the New South Wales Legislature contain a limitation, authorizing the Government, after a few years, to take over the works at cost price, with 10 per cent, added, if it so desires.

Senator McGregor:

– Does the Act having reference to the construction of the

Silverton tramway contain any such provision ?

Senator Lt Col NEILD:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT

-Col. NEILD.- I think it is exceedingly probable that in respect of the Silverton tramway no such proviso was enacted. The Act sanctioning the construction of that line was, I believe, passed before the New South Wales Parliament adopted the practice of authorizing the Government to take over such undertakings at cost price plus 10 per cent. .1 do not know whether I shall be able to secure any information from the Vice-President of the Executive Council in regard to this matter, as he is still absent from the chamber, and if not I shall vote for a reduction of the duty. Either this is a proposal to tax State property, or it is not. If it is not, the amount to be collected under it is unworthy of consideration ; but if it is, it is objectionable, first, because it seems to conflict with section 114 of the Constitution, and, secondly because it is unwise to place the States under the necessity of borrowing money to pay customs duties. The section to which I have referred contains the words, “ any tax on property of any kind.” Surely rails come under the heading of “property”; to use a legal term, “chattel property.” Moreover, a decision was recently arrived at in another place which forbids any hope being entertained that the iron industry will be established within the Commonwealth for a long time to come. Certainly no State Government is likely to embark upon the production of iron, and private enterprise cannot do so if it is to be subjected to such serious disabilities as the possibility of State Government opposition, or competition. Quite recently people who had command of large capita], who had ordered machinery and who had everything in readiness to carry on the industry, came out from England to New South Wales with the intention of commencing operations upon a very large scale. However, in consequence of the decision which was arrived at elsewhere, they became frightened, cancelled all arrangements, and are returning to the old country.

Senator DRAKE:
PostmasterGeneral · Queensland · Protectionist

– The subject to which Senator Neild has referred was brought forward in the debate of yesterday, and all the points which he has endeavoured to make were made by Senator Pulsford, not perhaps with so much rhetorical fullness, but still with precision, and in a sufficiently clear manner to be understood by all members of the Senate. I stated last evening that the better opinion up to the present time is that the expression “property,” in- section 114 of the Constitution, does not cover imports of this kind. During the bookkeeping period, if duty were collected upon State imports, it would be returned to the States at the end of each month, so that they would not be placed at any disadvantage. Senator Neild thinks that the Government proposal is a very objectionable one, because rails would be imported and paid for out of borrowed money, and a certain amount would go to the States by way of revenue. What is objectionable in that 1 A great many enterprises are carried out in Australia by means of borrowed money, and I have never yet heard the argument advanced that the people who undertake those works ought not to pay whatever duty the States have levied upon the material imported. We have been reminded that up to the present the raw material has not been produced in Australia. That is true ; but we hope that it. will be, and the Government propose that for a time, at all events, the raw material shall bear a duty of 10 per cent. Under these circumstances, is a duty of 15 per cent, upon the manufactured article excessive? Last night I asked the Senate to contemplate the probability of the great iron industry becoming established. If it is the intention of Parliament to take certain steps to assist in bringing about that result, is it desirable that at the present time we should ‘ refuse to give the proposed ‘ encouragement to works which are already established? There is an iron foundry at Lithgow, in New South Wales, which, I believe, is in a somewhat precarious position, and the probability is that a duty of 15 per cent, might enable it to continue operations. Whilst we are contemplating the establishment of this great industry, is it wise that we should go out of our way to hasten the downfall of works which are already in existence ? I think not. If we take any step, it should be in the direction of ensuring the maintenance of the iron industry. No enterprise’ can, in a sense, be considered more valuable to a country than can the iron industry, for the reason that it is the base of nearly every other industry. If we wish to build up a nation, we cannot too early endeavour to secure the firm establishment of that industry.

Senator Major GOULD:
New South Wales

– ThePostmaster-Generalhas spoken as if it were a foregone conclusion that Parliament would adopt certain duties which are proposed in the Tariff, and that the Bonus Bill would be passed in an acceptable form. But the Bonus Bill may not be passed at all. We cannot be blind to the fact that at present that measure is in a very precarious position. The motion now before the committee is in perfect consonance with the decision which has already been arrived at by the Senate concerning a reduction of the duties proposed by the Government upon certain lines. We know that in New South Wales the iron industry has existed for a number of years without any adventitious State aid. Surely, therefore, a 10 per cent, duty will be of material assistance to it. I think that logic is entirely in favour of the duty proposed in the motion. Whilst I recognise that it is desirable that industries should exist in the various States, I wish to see those industries flourishing under healthy, and not under artificial, conditions. I am convinced that the resources of our States are such that if these industries are only allowed a fair field, they will become securely established, and will be able successfully to compete either in their own markets in the States or in the markets of the world. If theBonus Bill be carried, and Parliament considers that some additional duty should be placed upon this particular class of metals it will be entirely in its hands to deal with the matter at a future period. But if -that measure be not passed, we shall be charging 15 per cent, upon rails, fish-plates, and fish-bolts, whilst upon machinery generally we shall be levying only 10 per cent. I hold that we should not handicap any of our industries. Take, for instance, the case of our coal mines ; they lay down a good many miles of railways. There is an industry which is at once interested in the price of rails, fish-plates, fish-bolts, &c. The Government proposal, therefore, constitutes a severe tax upon that industry which is doing immense good in the interests of the States generally. Then, as Senator Neild has pointed out, we have to consider what would be the effect of this proposal upon the construction of railways. The point came up when the Customs Bill was under consideration, and it was urged that it would be very much better to allow the States to build their railways at the lowest possible price, rather than to add fictitiously to the charges. If we charge a duty of 15 or 20 per cent, on the materials imported by a State for railway construction that duty will, during the bookkeeping period, be refunded to it, but the original cost which stands as a debit against the State would be increased. That is not reasonable. The question of whether the States are liable to pay these duties will no doubt be determined by the High Court, and is not to be put aside in the light and airy manner adopted by the Postmaster-General just now, when he said that so-and-so was the law. The Constitution provides that the Commonwealth shall not tax the property of a State, nor shall a State tax the property of the Commonwealth. That provision, to my mind, applies as much to material which may be imported by a State Government as it does to real property, and we know that whatever legislation we may pass must come within the powers given to the Parliament.

Senator Drake:

– That is not a factor in this discussion.

Senator Major GOULD:

– It has been introduced, but we may put it aside, because it is a matter which will be determined byandby. I submit that a duty of 10 per cent, on these materials which would place them on the same line as mining and agricultural machinery - and we have to remember that mines require the benefit of rail way communication with main lines and have to provide it at their own expense - would be a reasonable one, and I hope the committee will agree to the motion.

Senator Lt.-Col. NEILD (New South Wales). - I cannot allow the exceedingly lax proposition submitted by the PostmasterGeneral to pass without a reply. It is really astounding that an honorable and learned gentleman who has been trained in the highest school of thought should say that there is no difference between a private work, constructed with borrowed money, being carried out with rails upon which duty had been paid, and borrowing money to carry out a public work on the materials for which duty would also have to be paid. Cannot the honorable and learned senator see the difference between an actual charge, and a fictitious one? The actual charge would occur in the case of the private work in connexion with which the duty would be compulsorily paid, and would be part of the total. But in the case of materials required for a public work the duty would be -paid by and refunded to the very persons who were carrying out the undertaking, that is to say, the Government. They would themselves receive and use as cash the duty which had been paid with borrowed money. There is a great difference between the two things, and it is an unreal proposition that they stand on the same plane.

Senator BARRETT:
Victoria

– I do not intend to discuss the question of the right of the Commonwealth to tax the property of a St’ate, for when I find eminent lawyers disagreeing as to the meaning of the section of the Constitution, I feel that to a certain extent it would be presumption on the part of a layman to give any definite opinion upon it. The question, however, is not altogether novel ; it has cropped up in America. I would remind Senator Neild that there is another section in the Constitution, which provides that when a law of a State overrides a law of the Commonwealth, the Commonwealth law shall prevail, and that I think has a bearing on the subject. However, as the Postmaster-General has pointed out, we need not trouble ourselves about the question, for when the proper time comes the law will be interpreted by a tribunal which will not only command respect but be able to enforce its decision. Senator Gould’s argument would be very good if rails, fish plates, fish bolts, and other articles mentioned in this item were not made here. We know, however, that in several of the States the industry has been established, and that it is struggling. It has been pointed out that rails have been manufactured at the Eskbank iron works, New South Wales, but I join issue with Senator Gould and other honorable senators from that State, when they say that the industry there has not enjoyed the benefit of any duty. In one sense that statement is true, but although the industry in New South Wales has not enjoyed the benefit of a protective duty, we know that the proprietors of the Eskbank Iron Works have been materially assisted by an arrangement entered into with them by the New South Wales Railway Commissioners. Under that arrangement the industry has received to a certain extent the protection which it would have obtained under a customs duty. Mr. Sandford has said over and over again, that but for the concessions received from the Railway Commissioners, and the peculiar position in which the industry is placed, they would not have been able to do anything.

Senator Keating:

– Those concessions were given to the industry at the expense of the community.

Senator BARRETT:

– Certainly ; but I think it would be better to help the industry by means of a customs duty. Rails have also been manufactured in Victoria at the Victorian rolling mills, West Melbourne, at Forman’s foundry, South Melbourne, and by Thompson and Co., of Castlemaine, who have special machinery for the purpose. If these firms receive some encouragement, they will be able, with the assistance of the machinery they possess, and aided by the experience they have gained, to supply, to a large extent, the demand for these materials. I am told that rails have also been manufactured at Brown and Brown’s foundry at Pyrmont, Sydney. Taking all these circumstances into consideration, I think we shall be justified in doing something to aid this industry. A 10 per cent, duty would be simply a revenue one, but nothing less than a duty of 15 per cent, can be of any assistance from the stand-point of protection. As pointed out by Senator Gould, there is some connexion between this item and one which we shall have to discuss later on, but whatever may be the resul t of the Government proposals in that direction, I think it is manifestly our duty to protect this industry, which is already in existence.

Senator STYLES:
Victoria

– I should like to invite the attention of Senator Neild to a few figures. He made what was seemingly a good point, but like many other free-trade arguments it will not bear examination. He said that a railway might be constructed by a State at a cost of £1,000,000, but nowadays we do not make railways costing so large a sum.

Senator Lt Col NEILD:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT

-Col. Neild. - We do in New South Wales.

Senator STYLES:

– We used to do so a long time ago ; but we will assume that in New South Wales they propose to construct a railway 250 miles long at a cost of £1,000,000. That would be at the rate of £4,000 a mile, which is not a very great price, considering that in New South Wales the average cost is over £14,000 a mile.

Senator Lt Col NEILD:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT

-Col. Neild. - If the honorable senator looks at the latest returns, he will see that the cheaply constructed lines have reduced the average cost from £14,000 to something like £12,000 a mile.

Senator STYLES:

– I do not know that that is of very great consequence. I wish to point out that even if 250 miles of railway could be constructed for £1,000,000, the permanent-way iron required for it would cost £165,000, on which a protective duty of 15 per cent: would amount to £24,750. A duty of 10 per cent., to which Senator Neild and his honorable friends are willing to agree, would amount to £16,500 on the same material; so that if I had taken the honorable senator’s own figures he would have been in a mess. The difference between a protective duty of 15 per cent, and a revenue duty of 10 per cent, on the material required for this 250 miles of railway would be only £S,250 ; so that all this fuss is made about a difference of £33 a mile. Does any one mean to tell me that of £33 a mile is going to make any material difference in the construction of a line costing £4,000 and upwards per mile ? What absolute nonsense it is to suggest such a thing. I desire to direct the attention of my honorable friends of the f ree-trade persuasion to a cablegram which appeared only the other day in the Age. When I read it I felt ashamed that the people of Great Britain, and more especially of England, the birthplace of the railway systems of the world, should submit to anything of the kind. The cablegram is as follows : -

London, 3rd July. Messrs. Nevins and Sons, a leading American firm, have obtained the contract for the construction of a line of electric railway from Manchester to Liverpool with branch lines, which will bring the total length of rails up to 147 miles. The contract price is £4,000,000. The conditions provide that all the materials shall be of American manufacture, but that only British labour shall be employed.

The British people are to do the drudgery of the work while the. astute American takes the cash. All the materials for the work are- to be imported from America into” free-trade England. I have no desire to reflect upon the Americans. I think they deserve every credit; but I do desire that our free-trade friends shall understand the effect of their policy upon the country from which most of us have sprung. I repeat that when I read this cablegram the other day I felt ashamed that the people of

England should submit to such a bargain with any foreign country

Senator EWING:
Western Australia

– I remind the honorable senator that Mr. Kingston admitted that if duties were imposed upon articles of this kind in the early life of the industry, the effect must be to raise the price. The effect being to raise the price, is it not manifest that it is our duty, in the interests of State development, to see that the States pay as little as possible for this material 1

Senator Playford:

– They get it all back again.

Senator EWING:

– The honorable senator forgets that the money will be returned upon a per capita basis after the .first five years from the establishment of the Federation, when the States will not get it back in the proportions in which they have contributed it. Western Australia may be building £1,000,000 worth of railways, and paying £50,000 in duties upon railway material ; but when the revenue is returned on the per capita basis she will not get back anything like the amount she will pay. I do not believe that the Commonwealth has any power to tax goods imported for the use of a State, because in the United States, without any provision of this kind and without any direct prohibition, the courts have held that no such imposition can be maintained. However, I do not think that comes into the question. The real question for us is this : Assuming that the States have to pay this duty, are we going to ask them to pay 15 per cent, or 10 per cent? Surely every industry in Australia, farming, squatting, mining, timber - getting, and every other industry, is dependent upon the development of railway communication? That being so, I shall record my vote in favour of the lightest tax which can be placed upon the shoulders of the States, in connexion with their development of the resources of the country by means of railways.

Senator GLASSEY:
Queensland

– Senator Ewing is very emphatic about imposing a low duty with a view to preventing the States paying a reasonable amount on the railway material they use.

Senator Ewing:

– Not a reasonable amount, an unreasonable amount.

Senator GLASSEY:

– I think 15 per cent, is not an unreasonable amount, and I should not think 20 per cent, unreasonable, if we mean to encourage the development of industries already in existence, and if we mean to give some heart to those who are thinking of investing their capital in this industry. I am as anxious as any honorable senator present to relieve my own State of unnecessary burdens ; but, as I said last night, there are private railway companies carrying on operations in Queensland and in some of the other States. Acts have been passed in my own State empowering mining companies to construct railways, some of them of considerable length. One of these railways, the Chillagoe railway, is almost completed, and is 90 odd miles in length. When speaking last evening, it was in my mind that there was a provision in the Acts empowering the companies to construct these railways that the materials used should be admitted duty free ; but I found upon looking over the Acts to-day that there is no such provision in any of them. I am very pleased that is so, because I think that the companies formed to open up these mineral fields arc entitled to pay a reasonable duty upon the materials they require in order that encouragement may be given to establishments such as that at Lithgow, and to others which we hope to see established at an early date. We have had New South Wales free-traders continually telling us that this industry has grown and developed until it has reached, importance in that State, without any aid or encouragement at the ports. We have heard the same statement again from Senator Gould to-day. We know that it is not a fact, and that, on the contrary, the industry in New South Wales has been encouraged in a variety of ways, as has been stated by Senator O’Connor time and again. There are on the Queensland statute-book several Railway Construction Acts which were passed at the instance of private mining companies. There are Acts authorizing the construction of the Gladstone to Callide railway, which will be 70 miles in length ; the Albert River, Burketown and Lilydale tramway - this is called a tramway because it is a line upon a narrow gauge, but will extend for a long distance ; the Normanton and Cloncurry line, about 200 miles in length; the Glassford Creek tramway, a line of considerable length, and the Mount Garnet Freehold Mining Company’s railway, another line of considerable length.

All these lines were projected by private companies, and why in the name of common sense should not those companies pay a reasonableduty upon the materials they will require ?

Senator Matheson:

– Have these lines been built ?

Senator GLASSEY:

– The Chillagoe line is nearly if not wholly completed., In some cases the necessary preliminary arrangements are being made with a view to construction, and I think the company interested is nearly ready to make a start with the line from Gladstone to the Callide coal-fields. I do not care where in the Commonwealth iron works are established, encouragement should be given to place them upon a substantial footing. I do not think a duty of 10 per cent, will be at all adequate for the purpose, and personally I should prefer that the duty should be even higher than 15 per cent.

Question - That the House of Representatives be requested to amend item 79 by adding the words “ and on and after 1st August, 1902, 10 per cent.”- put. The committee divided -

Ayes … … … 13

Noes …. … …8

Majority … … 5

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Item 80. Rolled iron or steel beams, channels, joists, girders, columns, trough and bridge iron or steel, not drilled or further manufactured ; shafting, cold rolled, turned, or planished ; also bolts and nuts, advalorem, 15 per cent.

Barbed wire, ad valorem,, 10 per cent.

Senator PULSFORD:
New South Wales

– I move -

That the House of Representatives be requested to amend item 80 by adding to the duty “ Rolled iron or steel beams …. ad val orem, 15 per cent.” the words “and on and after 1st August, 1902, 10 per cent.”

The articles which are dutiable under this item are mainly what is known as structural iron. They include girders, columns, and other materials used in the construction of large buildings. The duty, as it stands, is a very heavy bar against development. It ought not to be contained in any reasonable Tariff framed with the idea of allowing natural and proper development to take place.

Senator DRAKE:
Protectionist

– This item differs very much from that which wo have just discussed, inasmuch as previously it was proposed to put a duty upon an article which had practically been admitted duty free in all the States. But now the proposal is to put a duty on an article which has been taxed in every State except New South Wales in the past. Under the protection of such duties, industries have been established in a number of the States. The duty in Victoria has been £3 per ton, in Queensland 25 per cent., in South Australia £2 per ton, in Tasmania 20 per cent., and in Western Australia 15 per cent. Considering the duties which have been charged in the States previously, 15 per cent, is very moderate, and if it is cut down the result will certainly be an increased importation, and the destruction of industries.

Question put. The committee divided -

Ayes … … 11 .

Noes … … … 9

Majority……. 2

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Senator PULSFORD:
New South Wales

– I venture to say that barbed wire ought to be added to the list of exemptions like wire netting, but in view of the fact that we want to get on with business, and that the duty proposed is only 10 per cent., I am willing to let that part of the item pass.

Division VIa. - Metals and Machinery.

To come into operation on dates to be fixed by proclamation, and exempt from duty in the meantime, except as to iron, galvanized, plate and sheet. Proclamation to issue so soon as it is certified by the Minister, that the manufacture to which the.proclamation refers has beensufficiently established in the Commonwealth, according to the provisions of any law relating to bonuses for the encouragement of manufactures or to the establishment of manufactures under the direct control of the Commonwealth or State Governments, but no proclamation to issue except in pursuance of a joint address passed on the motion of Ministers by both Houses of Parliament, stating that such manufacture is sufficiently established.

Item 81. Iron and steel -

Scrap iron and steel, and pig-iron : ingots, blooms, slabs, billets, puddled bars and loops, or like crude manufactures less finished than iron or steel bars, but more advanced than pig iron (except castings) ; bar, rod, angle, tee, sheet, plate, wire and hoop, except galvanized plate and sheet, 10 per cent., ad valorem

Galvanized and tinned plate and sheet, ad valorem, 10 per cent.

Machinery, machines, and parts -

Reapers., and binders, ad valorem. 15 per cent.

Other machinery, machines, or parts, rereferred to in proclamation, ad valorem, 15 per cent.

Wire netting, advalorem, 10 per cent.

Iron and steel tubes and pipes, not dutiable underDi vision VI.,advalorem, 10 per cent.

Spelter, ad valorem, 10 per cent.

Senator PULSFORD (New South Wales). - It is very desirable that the whole of this division should be eliminated from the schedule. There are many reasons why the committee should, not accept it in its present form. In the first place, under the preliminary paragraph, legislation is proposed that is not to come into effect to-day nor even next year, but at the expiration of a period during which bounties are to be given, and which has not yet been agreed to, and seems very likely not to be agreed to at all. Surely the committee will not put itself into a foolish position by seriously entertaining a proposal of that nature. Even if the division is carried as it stands, the duties provided for in it can take effect only upon the resolution of both Houses of Parliament, so that several Parliaments may come and go before it has any practical operation. But why should we attempt to tie the hands of those who will come after us? Why should we take an action which is so unusual, and so repugnant to the ordinary principles and usages of legislative bodies ? Furthermore, we are obviously very much in the dark as to what the future development of the iron industry will be. We do not know, indeed, what the value of the iron ore of Australia is, or that it can be manufactured into iron as satisfactorily as we hope. Then, again, we do not know that the Commonwealth has anyright to impose duties upon materials imported by the States. The powers of the Commonwealth and the privileges of the States in that matter will not be absolutely known until the High Court has been established, and has dealt with the question. I believe, that notice of appeal has already been given by the Government of New South Wales against the imposition of duties upon railway material imported by them. That is another reason why we should postpone the consideration of this matter. The division involves the whole subject of bonuses, which is a very debatable one, and one which occupied the attention of the members of the House of Representatives for some days. If this Chamber has a desire to finish the consideration of the Tariff as soon as possible, it will, therefore, content itself with dealing only with such duties as can immediately become operative, and not spend any time in discussing proposals which can have effect only in the future, and which may never have effect at all. It is against the public interest that we should occupy time in discussing remote contingencies. It has never before been proposed in Australia to impose taxation upon pig-iron, and this does not appear to be a good time to begin to do so. I should like to know, too, how the Government can, by proclamation, impose duties upon articles which the committee decided shall be free. Under this division an attempt is made to impose duties upon reapers and binders, which every one whose judgment is to be relied upon thinks should be admitted free, and to impose a duty upon wire netting, which the committee decided last night should not be taken off the list of special exemptions. The Government have erected outside these buildings, to be illuminated to-morrow night, the motto of the Cobden Club -“ Peace on earth ; good-will to men.”

Senator O’Connor:

– Did the Cobden Club suggest those words to those who first used them?

Senator PULSFORD:

– I hoped that the adoption of that motto by the Government was a sign of repentance, but I find that it is not. I move -

That the House of Representatives be requested to omit, on and after 1st August, 1902, the introductory note to Division VIa.

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

– Senator Pulsford has not occupied much time in giving reasons for his motion, and to me it appears that he has not gone more than skin-deep into the question. He does not seem to have realized that Division VIa. provides for not only the coming into force upon proclamation of protective duties, but the whole system by which the Government propose to encourage the manufacture of iron. Perhaps the honorable senator does not see the importance of these proposals because he does not understand them ; but I regard the division as one of the most important in the Tariff. That portion of the division which provides for the coming into force of duties at a future date is a necessary portion of the Government policy for the encouragement of the manufacture of iron. The honorable senator’s suggestion that the proposals are out of order can be refuted in one sentence. What we provide in the Tariff is that until this division comes into operation certain duties specified in other divisions shall have effect, and that when it comes into operation they shall cease to have effect. The Tariff must be read as a whole, and it provides that the articles to which Senator Pulsford has referred are to be admitted duty free until a proclamation with regard to them as issued under Division VIa. The honorable senator says that it is improper for us to endeavour to tie the hands of future legislators. That objection involves the whole policy underlying these proposals. The Government wish to provide for the granting of bonuses for the production of the various articles mentioned in the division ; but when, by the operation of these bonuses, the industry attains a sufficiently prosperous condition to enable these articles to be produced at reasonable rates, duties will be imposed which will give the manufacturers protection against the outside world, and the bonuses will cease. I think it will be admitted that, of all industries, the manufacture of iron is the most inportant. It is the backbone of all other industries. It is admitted that in regard to the amount of employment afforded, and its diversity, no enterprise can be compared with the iron industry. No nation can be said to have advanced to any fair degree of prosperity without being in a position to utilize its own natural supplies of iron and manufacture’ a large portion of its requirements, and in no country has the iron industry ever been established without the assistance of either protective duties or bonuses. Inasmuch as it has been worth the while of America, and Canada, and other countries to either subsidize the iron industry, or to impose very heavy protective duties for its encouragement, we are justified, in following the same policy here, in assuming that the same results will follow. Why is it necessary to offer encouragement for the establishment of the iron industry at this early stage? Because the manufacture of iron under present-day conditions necessitates the employment of very expensive plant and machinery. The best of labour and timesaving appliances have to be used so that the product may be turned out at the lowest possible cost, and it is only by the expenditure of a large amount of money that this result can be attained. It is estimated that the value of the plant that will have to be laid down in any ironworks that may be established here will amount to anything from £500,000 - at the very lowest - to £1,000,000. The capital required to carry out the works now projected at Lithgow will amount to something like £750,000, of which £350,000 will have to be spent upon new plant. In other places it may cost more, and perhaps in some instances it may cost less, but. in order to establish anything like an efficient plant for utilizing our native ores from £500,000 to £1,000,000 will be required. Then we have to consider whether it would be worth the while of capitalists to invest such a large amount of money without protection or encouragement of any kind. What is the position ? As we all know, pig and other iron in an unmanufactured form is brought here for the most part in sailing ships. A comparatively small proportion is conveyed here in steamers. It is frequently used as “stiffening” in the loading of sailing ships, and is subject to no freight charge whatever. In some cases freight may be charged, but the ratesare not comparable with thoselevied on, other classes of cargo, and the great bulk of the pig-iron and other rough classes of iron brought here from abroad are not subject to a charge of more than1s. or 2s. per ton for freight. Therefore, these classes of material may be landed here at a cost of 1s. or 2s. over and above the price f.o.b. in the home ports. This would apply to American iron as well as to that which comes from England, Scotland, or Europe. Under these circumstances, what my freetrade friends are so fond of calling the “natural protection “ practically disappears. The freights upon iron imported from abroad have, when we are discussing the position of our own manufactures, to be compared with those which would require to be paid for conveying the local product from one part of Australia to another. I take it that any local ironworks, if they are to be successful, must have an Australian business, because no enterprise of the kind would have a sufficient scope for its operations in the market of any one State. It is highly probable that different classes of iron will be manufactured in different parts of Australia, and that the products of the various works will be conveyed from one State to another, according to their suitability for a given purpose. The iron made at Lithgow, for instance, may be specially adapted for some work, but may not be as good for other purposes as that which it is intended to manufacture at the Blyth river. We will assume that pig-iron is being made at Lithgow, which will be suitable for manufacturing purposes in Brisbane, Adelaide or Melbourne. Certain freight and railway charges will have to be paid to secure the con veyance of the Lithgow iron to these places. I find that it would cost at least 7s. 6d. per ton to convey pig-iron from Lithgow to Melbourne, as against the1s. or 2s. per ton charged for the conveyance of the same class of article from, say, England to Melbourne. The railway charges and freight upon pig iron conveyed from Lithgow to Fremantle would amount to 17s. 6d. per ton, whilst upon pig-iron conveyed to Brisbane the charges would probably amount ‘to 7s. 6d. per ton. If the local manufacturers of iron are to carry on an Australian business, it is necessary to compare the freight and other charges which they will have to pay with those to which iron brought from other parts of the world would be subject, and it cannot be gainsaid that the natural protection that is so often spoken about is hardly a reality in the case of English, American, or Scotch iron. On the other hand, the local manufacturers will be placed at a great disadvantage in the matter of freight and charges.

Senator Macfarlane:

– It would cost nomore to send iron from the Blyth River works to Melbourne than from England to Melbourne.

Senator O’CONNOR:

– I do not suppose that the whole of the Australian business in iron will be carried on by the Blyth River Company. No doubt their business will be very extensive, but iron manufactured in other places will probably be found more suitable for certain purposes. At Blyth River there are greater facilities for shipping than at Lithgow ; but in the case of iron shipments from the Blyth River to Fremantle, or Brisbane, or to any of the northern Queensland towns, where iron is largely used, the freight would be considerably more than from England. Assuming that a factory capable of turning out pig-iron were established at Melbourne, the freight upon that .product from Melbourne to Fremantle would amount to I83. per ton. The freight to Sydney would be 7s. 6d. per ton, to Launceston 7s. 6d. per ton, and to Hobart 10s. per ton. That is the position in which we stand in regard to one of the most important items intended to give what is called “ natural protection.” Another matter is the cost of production. Mr. Jaquet, the expert who has been employed in New South Wales to report upon the question of iron production, estimates that the cost of producing a ton of pig-iron at Middlesborough in England, is £2 12s. The cost of the production of a ton of iron at Pittsburg is £1 12s. 5½d., whereas at Lithgow it is £2 7s. 7d. At -the latter place, therefore, the cost of production is 5s. per ton less than that at Middlesborough, and about 5s. more than that at Pittsburg. When one remembers the freight charges upon iron brought from England and America to Australia, it will be seen that the difference in the cost of production places our manufacturers at a still further disadvantage as compared with the American, and that, although the local cost of production is less than that of English iron, it certainly does not more than compensate for the extra freight charged between the various ports of Australia. Therefore, before spending from £500,000 to £1,000,000 in an enterprise of this kind, any person would naturally be careful to study the position in which he would stand in regard to competition with the outside world, and would want to be assured that he would gain a large portion of the Australian market. Unless he were absolutely certain of securing that market, either immediately or in the course of a few years, it would be idle for him to enter upon an industry of this character. Where he has - as in the case of America and England - practically an unlimited market, the case is quite different ; but where the market is a limited one, and a manufacturer would have to contend with the rest of the world, undoubtedly he will hesitate before investing a large amount of money in an enterprise of this kind. The only way in which we can secure the Australian market to our own people is by imposing such a heavy protective duty upon the manufactures of iron as will prevent any effective competition from outside, or by granting a bonus for a certain period to enable them to compete upon something like favorable terms with manufacturers all over the world who are sending their “material to these States. There .is one very strong reason why we cannot at once apply the protective method. As we all know, iron, is the raw material of an immense number of industries. Perhaps it will assist honorable senators to realize the extent of this industry if I give a few illustrations of the quantity of pig-iron which is involved in certain classes of imports. I have in my hand a list - which is at the service of any honorable senator who desires to peruse it - dealing with all the principal heads of iron manufactures imported into Australia. Let me take the class of imports with which we are most familiar, namely, that of agricultural machines and implements. Taking the value of pig-iron landed in Australia at £2 15s. per ton, I find that in 1.899 the net value of the agricultural implements imported into Australia was £343,205. A gentleman who is the manager of one of the leading iron foundry businesses here, and who is a thoroughlypractical man, estimates the quantity of pig-iron contained in manufactures of that value at 7,550 tons, which are worth £20,762. The value of fuel and material he calculates at £154,440, and the added value given to it in the course of other processes - chiefly by labour - at £188,765. Let me take another large item, namely, that of iron, galvanized and sheet, which is the class of iron now being manufactured at Lithgow from scrap. The value of the imports of this class of iron in 1899 was £819,558, involving the use of 53,000 tons of pig-iron, worth £145,750. The value of fuel and other material used in its manufacture is estimated at £368,802, and that of labour at £450,756.

Senator Pearce:

– Those figures exceed the total you have given.

Senator O’CONNOR:

– There is, I see, a mistake somewhere. From these figures senators will realize what an immense quantity of pig-iron is involved in our annual imports of manufactures of iron, and what an enormous amount of labour must be employed in obtaining it. According to the figures used by the Minister for Trade and Customs in the other House, these imports in 1899 aggregated a value of £5,521,501, involving the use of 330,876 tons of pig-iron. When we find that the conditions under which the iron manufacturer must start operations in Australia are such as. to place him at a disadvantage in many cases as compared with the manufacturer of iron in America and other places, it will be seen that it is impossible for him to predict with any safety that if he invests £500.000 or £1,000,000 in this industry he will secure a large share of the Australian market unless State aid of some kind is extended to him. The reason why it was evident to the Government that it is impossible to protect the iron manufacturer by the immediate imposition of a protective duty is that the first effect of any such duty must necessarily be to considerably increase the price of that commodity to the consumer. All protectionists admit that the initial effect of a protective duty, before there is an extensive local production, must be to raise the price of any article. Therefore, the immediate effect of imposing a sufficiently heavy duty to protect the iron manufacturer would be to materially enhance the price of the raw material of many industries in which thousands of citizens of the Commonwealth are employed. It is impossible to begin in that way. The Government therefore adopted the only other method possible, namely, that of offering a bonus for the production of iron until the industry had been put upon its feet. Then, when it has become fairly established, we may fairly impose a duty which the consumer will not feel, but which will be a guarantee to the manufacturer who has embarked his capital and energy in the enterprise that a certain measure of protection will be continued to him. The system must be a continuous one. In the first place, therefore, we propose to offer a bonus to assisthim to put his factory in a stable condition, and afterwards we purpose imposing a protective duty to enable him to carry oh his industry and to successfully compete against the influx of pig and other iron from other parts of the world. That being so I think that if the honorable senator who offered this objection looks at the matter fairly, he will see that this is not a case in which we are anticipating what other Parliaments will do, or one in which we are interfering improperly with the discretion of future Parliaments; but that it is a case in which we are following the only method that can be adopted in order to give practically a guarantee on the faith of the nation that this protection and this advantage shall extend for a certain number of years. We cannot expect any person to invest a large amount of money in such an industry as this if the policy of the country may be changed from year to year. Unless we have some permanence, some stability about our policy, we shall not attract any capital into the industry.

Senator Fraser:

– The capital is going the other way now.

Senator O’CONNOR:

Senator De LARGIE:

– I think that the cost of labour in Australia is rather more than that. I should like to read a few extracts from Mr. Jaquet’s admirable report, to show that we have excellent ore here, and that what is required to establish the iron industry in our midst is a sufficient amount of protection. Of course, to give protection to this, as to any other industry, will mean a considerable cost to the country. With regard to the iron ores of Victoria, on page 148, Mr. Jaquet says -

In 1875 a series of samples of Victorian iron ores were sent to England, and examined by a Mr. Houlsam, a gentleman engaged in the iron trade. Referring to the ores imported into England from county of Antrim, Ireland, he declared the Victorian ore was very similar.

The ore from the county of Antrim is among the very best sent to Scotland, and if the Victorian product is as good, there is no reason why we should not make iron equal to the best in the world. Regarding the Tasmanian ores, Mr. Jaquet says -

The Blyth River hematite is one of the finest and purest in the world, ranking with the famous Spanish, Algerian, and Cuban ores, which arc now exported in large quantities to the United Kingdom, United States, France, and Germany, for the manufacture of Bessemer steel. . . It is, too, most favorably situated for economical working, the steep sides of the river f orgo giving exceptional opportunities for mining y open quarrying. The ore could be lowered to the river by self-acting, railways; or by shoots,, in some places by gravitation. The cost of mining ought ito be very cheap.

The Blyth River ore has been declared by men well able to ‘express an opinion to be of the very highest quality. In Western Australia, I ‘ believe, we have larger iron” deposits than exist in any other part of the Commonwealth, and from some of the Western Australian ores hematite iron of ‘ fairly good quality, well suited for the making of Bessemer steel, has been produced. There can be no doubt that we have any quantity of ore suitable for the manufacture of iron. In New South Wales we possess an ample supply of coal for smelting purposes, and we also have plenty of limestone for fluxing. The cost of coal production is a very important matter in connexion with the manufacture of iron, and upon this point our mines bear very favorable comparison with those in other parts of the world. I find that in the United States the average cost of coal production is 5s. 4d. per ton. Australia comes next- with an average cost of 6s. Id. per ton, Great Britain following with 6s. 2d. per ton, Germany with 6s. 4d., Belgium with Ss., and France with Ss. 7d. According to figures recently published, the cost of producing iron in America has been greatly reduced, owing to the improved methods of smelting adopted there. It is stated that one blast furnace can produce something like 5,000 tons of iron per month. When I was working in the iron trade in the west of. Scotland fifteen or twenty years ago, the average capacity of a blast furnace was 600 or 700 tons per week. It will thus be seen that in the interval a great improvement has been effected. Mr. J. M. Swank, general manager of the American Steel and ‘Iron Association, gives the following figures for 1901 -

Four hundred and six blast furnaces produced 24,812,037 tons of pig-iron ; 9.1. steel converters made 12,938,000 tons of steel blooms ; 527 rolling mills produced 23,220,350 tons of rolled iron and steel.

– The policy of every State in Australia, unlike that of Canada or America, has not been to encourage the immigration of the bone and sinew of the old world. If we had such a policy, the position would be different. First of all, I say that it is dangerous to put three alternatives before the committee under which we pledge ourselves to grant a duty. That is a mistake. This proposal has been introduced in a way which does not give us an opportunity to deal with it satisfactorily, because we have not the Tariff and the Bonus Bill before us. That also is a mistake. Many men would agree to a duty of 10 per cent, if they saw an industry established either by a State, or by a company, orunder individual responsibility. Taking all the circumstances into consideration, I hope that honorable senators will see that the best course to adopt will be to put these proposals aside until we know what kind of a Bonus Bill the Government intend to introduce. I find that the New South Wales Chamber of Mines recently passed the following resolution : -

That the action of the Federal House of Representatives in so altering the Bonus Bill, that no bonus shall be paid for the making of iron, unless the material was made in works operated by a State Government, is prejudical to the best interests of the Commonwealth.

That while a bonus may be necessary to induce private enterprise to embark in such an undertaking, there should be no need, and would be no justification for applying the revenues of the Commonwealth to subsidize the works of a State Government.

That while the alteration of the Bill will not insure the establishment of iron-making works by any State Government, it will effectually prevent the investment of private capital in such works, because capitalists well know that if, by then skill and enterprise, they brought such works to a successful issue, they might at any time be placed in the position of having to compete with works conducted at the expense of the State, and subsidized by the Commonwealth.

SenatorO’Connor. - That touches only the Bonus Bill.

Senator Major GOULD:

– But the Bonus Bill is interwoven with the Tariff because the Government contemplate such a system. We know that according to the records of another place a Bonus Bill was introduced there, and that a certain amendment was carried, providing that the bonuses should be given to industries established by the States Governments alone. Therefore we are justified in considering this point. Of course, those who do not believe in protective duties will oppose the proposal, but no matter what our fiscal beliefs may be, the present is an inopportune time to deal with this question, and the method of legislation is a bad one. It is far better that we should postpone the matter until we know what shape the Bonus Bill will assume ; then, if possible, we should deal with the two proposals together. For these reasons I intend to vote for the motion.

Senator PEARCE:
Western Australia

– I have asked myself the question which has been put to the committee by Senator Gould, and I may say at once that I do not agree with protective duties. I do not agree with protectionist principles, because the imposition of protective duties allows a certain section of the community to divert money into their own pockets, at the cost of the general community. If I viewed this division solely as it stands in the Tariff I should certainly vote for its omission, but I think we have to bear in mind that the proposal is interwoven with another measure - the Bonus Bill - - which ‘ has reached a certain stage in another place. I know that under the Bonus Bill certain items in this Division VIa. will be dutiable only if the industry is established as a State-owned industry. In that case my argument about protective duties will not apply, because they will not divert money into the pockets of a section of the people, but into the pockets of the whole of the people.

Senator Matheson:

– The honorable senator is assuming that the Bonus Bill will be carried in that form.

Senator PEARCE:

– I am assuming that it will be carried in that form, and I shall be prepared to give a vote to help to carry it in that form. Let me point out to honorable senators that if the Bonus Bill is not carried, this division will be so much waste paper, and will be perfectly harmless.

– I do not know to what the honorable and learned senator was referring, and I only wish he was present to add his powerful voice to others in this direction. If Senator Symon prefers State socialism to protection, I am certainly in good company. The course I intend to pursue is this : I shall support the Government in their proposals, excepting so far as these duties do not apply to the product of State-owned ironworks. I would remind honorable senators that there is a still further power left to the Senate. They will see that a joint address of both Houses of Parliament must be passed before these duties can come into force. That is surely a sufficient safeguard. We have power under this provision to refuse to pass the address, which will be necessary if we consider that the industry is not established upon satisfactory lines. For these reasons I shall take the course I have indicated, and I hope the Government will press the Bonus Bill through in its present form, and give the Senate an opportunity of debating it.

Question - That the House of Representatives ‘be requested to amend Division VIa. by omitting, on and after 1st August, 1902, the introductory note - put. The committee divided -

Ayes … … 11

Noes … … 12

Majority … … 1

Question so resolved in the negative.

Senator PULSFORD:
New South Wales

– I wish to draw attention to the fact that this item deals with duties about which we have already passed resolutions. In Division VI. wire is specially exempted from duty. I submit that as we have already dealt with wire, we cannot deal with it again in connexion with Division VIa. Reapers and binders are also on the free list in another part of the Tariff, and I contend that they ought not to be mentioned again in this division. Wire netting is likewise on the free list. We had a division in regard to it last night. I submit that it is not in order that we should be asked to vote in regard to it again. I also draw attention to the duty upon scrap iron and steel. Upon page 17 of the schedule, scrap iron and steel are specially exempted from duty, but there is a note to the effect that the duty is not to take effect until the coming into operation of Division VIa. The same remark applies to galvanized iron, to which there is also a note. It is, therefore, competent for the committee to deal with galvanized iron and scrap iron and steel, but I submit that reapers and binders and wire netting, being made exempt already, the committee ought not to discuss them again in connexion with Division VIa.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The matter raised by Senator Pulsford is clearly not a point of order. There is nothing in the standing orders with which Division VIa. conflicts. We have to take the Tariff as it is sent to us. What we have done has been to request amendments; not to amend the schedule. We have no power to amend. If we had made amendments the position would have been different. It will be competent for the honorable senator to move arequest for the omission of wire from the dutiable list. But it is not competent for me to rule that the lines to which he has taken exception cannot be put. The committee can make any request it likesin connexion with any of these duties, but I cannot rule that it is out of order to permit the committee to vote upon any part of the item.

Senator PULSFORD:

– I accept your ruling, and intend at once to propose that the House of Representatives be requested to remove the word “ wire “ from the item.

Senator Lt Col NEILD:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT

-Col. Neild. - If Senator Pulsford moves to omit some portion of the item and the vote goes against his proposal, the words will have to stand as printed, and it will not be competent for any other honorable senator to move to excise the words.

Senator Clemons:

– I wish to move that all the articles mentioned in this item, and which are dutiable at 10 per cent., shall be placed upon the free list. If the Chairman rules that in the case of Senator Pulsford not carrying the motion he suggests, I shall be debarred from moving a subsequent motion, I shall have to request Senator Pulsford to give way to me.

The CHAIRMAN:

– It is quite competent for any honorable senator to move a request that the form of the item be altered or that any part of it be omitted. After the form of the, item has been dealt with it will be for the committee to determine what the duty shall be. Consequently if the part of the item relating to wire is permitted to stand as printed there will be nothing to prevent Senator demons afterwards moving a request to make the articles mentioned in the first part of the item free.

Senator PULSFORD (New South Wales). - I beg to move -

That the House of Representatives be requested to amend item 81 by omitting, on and after 1st August, 1902, the word “wire,” line 6.

I submit this proposal on the ground that the committee has already accepted the Tariff as it stands in regard to wire. When we agreed that wire should be specially exempted it was not intended that the subject should be brought up again in connexion with this division.

Senator O’CONNOR:
Protectionist

-The honorable senator has given no reason whatever in favour of the request whichhe has moved, and his argument rests upon a misunderstanding of the meaning of the item. It is true that wire, n.e.i., is upon the free list. Then comes the paragraph which the committee has already agreed to, providing that the duties in Division VIa. are to come into force under certain circumstances. The duties now being dealt with are to come into force after a proclamation has been issued, and not until then, and itis expressly provided that until that time wire, amongst other things, shall be exempt from duty. The intention is that the duty shall not operate until the manufacture of the article in question has been established in the Commonwealth. No reason has been given why the course suggested by Senator Pulsford should be followed. We have already carried the paragraph which abundantly explains the position in which wire stands.

Senator PULSFORD (New South Wales). - If Senator O’Connor’s argument be correct, we have before us the whole range of items dealing with metals and machinery, and I can immediately proceed to propose that all those items which happen to be in excess of 10 per cent, shall be included in this division, so that on the proclamation being issued the duty upon them shall be 10 per cent, and no more. Are we to understand that the whole matter is re-opened for discussion, and that any honorable senator can propose any request ? I have already drawn attention to the fact that there are two articles dealt with under this item that have already been discussed. I am clearly of opinion that if we can be asked to reconsider items which we have already dealt with we can re-open the whole subject of the duties under Division VI., and propose new duties which will only come into effect when the proclamation has been issued.

Senator EWING:
Western Australia

– I do not like Senator Pulsford’s proposal ; I do not like any of these small proposals. I want to take the item at a mouthful, and make all these things free.

Motion negatived.

Senator CLEMONS:
Tasmania

– I move -

That the House of Representatives be requested to amend item 81 by adding to the duty, “ Iron and steel . . . ad valorem, 10 per cent.,” the words, “and on and after 1st August, 1902, free.”

– If Senator Clemons does not believe that the rejection of Division VIa. would have been regarded as an indication that the Senate was opposed to the Bonus Bill, I disagree with him. If the acceptance of that division depends upon one vote only, there is plenty of time during which that vote can be reversed. In conclusion, I desire to say that I am not in favour of unduly taxing the tools of trade and implements of the primary producers, and therefore I am not at all sure that I can vote to impose duties upon agricultural machinery. We shall have to consider that matter very carefully when the proper time comes. No man can say what will be the price of agricultural implements five years hence, or what the state of trade will be, and therefore I hope that at least some of these duties will be struck out.

Question - That the House of Representatives be requsted to amend item 81 by adding to the duty, “Iron and steel . . . ad valorem, 10 per cent.,” the words, “and on and after 1st August, 1902, free” - put. The committee divided -

Ayes … … … 10

Noes … … … 12

Majority … … 2

Question so resolved in the negative.

Motion (by Senator Clemons) proposed -

That the House of Representatives he requested to amend item 81 by adding to the duty, “ Galvanized and tinned plate and sheet, ad valorem, 10 per cent.,” the words, “ and on and after 1st August, 1902, free.”

Senator O’CONNOR:
Protectionist

– I do not intend to argue this matter, but merely desire to state that I shall oppose the motion.

Question put. The committee divided -

Ayes … … … 11

Noes … … … 10

Majority … … 1

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

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

That the House of Representatives be requested to amend item 81 by adding to the duty, “ Reapers and binders, ad valorem, 15 per cent.,” the words, “ and on and after 1st August,1902, free.”

Senator O’CONNOR:
Protectionist

– The proposition of the honorable senator is rather an extraordinary one,in view of the items which have previously been carried. We have already agreed to the paragraph which provides that these duties shall come into operation only after it has been declared that the manufactures to which they refer aresufficientlyestablished within the Commonwealth. Now, however, it is proposed that reapers and binders shall not come within that category. The honorable senator proposes that after the bonus system, has come into existence these articles shall be free. Therefore, we have the extraordinary position, as proposed by my honorable friend, that whilst reapers and binders are now liable to a duty, all protection is suddenly to be withdrawn after a bonus has been given for a certain period for their manufacture. If honorable senators think that that is theintention of the first paragraph, or is expressed in other parts of the Tariff, it is most remarkable reasoning. The policy of the Government is that £4,000 shall be given by way of bonus for the manufacture of the first 500 reapers and binders in the Commonwealth. That bonus, at the rate of £8 each, is to be given to enable them to be manufactured here. We all know that although reapersand binders have hitherto been free in all the States, their price in Australia was at one time nearly double the cost of their manufacture, and that the only thing which has led to a reduction has been the threat that duties will be placed upon them. It is quite clear from the prices in America and the prices here that there is a margin of something like 40 per cent, to go and come upon. If this proposal is carried, immediately the protection has been taken away, and the bonuses have ceased, the market will be open to machines from America and Canada at any price at which it may be thought fit to take possession of the market. This proposal also depends upon the Bonus Bill, and unless that measure is carried, it will not take effect. The real fight over this matter was on the first paragraph, and as that has been carried against the Opposition, I would advise them if they wish to leave anything like consistency in this suggestion, as it will go down to another place, to allow the duty to remain as it is.

Senator MATHESON:
Western Australia

– If any mistake has arisen the item itself is responsible for it, because if Senator O’Connor will look at the first line of the first paragraph in the division, he will see that all these articles are announced as being exempt from duty. I cannot understand, therefore, why he should say that they are subject to a duty, and seriously contend that if this motion is. carried articles will be made free, after a bonus has been given, which otherwise would be dutiable. They are not dutiable at the present moment, and the object of Senator Neild’s motion is that they shall continue to be free after the bonus has been given. That is not an unreasonable suggestion.

Senator STYLES:
Victoria

– So far as I am aware, it is impossible to ascertain the number of reapers and binders that are imported into the Commonwealth. The statistical registers simply show the number of packages imported, and the importation value set down against reapers and binders introduced into Victoria during 1899 is £73,000. If that amount is divided by £25 it will be found, roughly speaking, that it represents 3,000 machines. I think I am well within the mark in saying that 3,000 reapers and binders were imported into the other States during the same year, making a total of 6,000 for the Commonwealth, so that the item is a much larger one than it would appear to be at first sight. At one time, although these machines were duty free, they cost the Australian farmer £70 each ; subsequently the price was reduced to £65 and £60, and last year it was further reduced to £55. As soon as the Commonwealth Parliament was sworn in, however, prices began to come down, and it is possible now to obtain a reaper and binder for £35, or half the price formerly charged by the importer. Prices have been reduced, not because the ring has burst, but in order to prevent if possible the imposition of a duty which would encourage the manufacture of these machines in the Commonwealth. I have the authority of the manager for Messrs. T. Robinson and Co., makers of harvesters, and one of the largest agricultural implement manufacturers in Australia, to state that if they are protected in such a way that they will be likely to receive a large order for reapers and binders they will supply machines, as good as any imported, at £25 each. Surely that is some reason why the committee should offer an inducement to our large agricultural implement makers to manufacture these machines and so benefit the farmers.

Senator McGREGOR:
South Australia

– I should like to point out to the committee that we have done something in the direction of providing for the imposition of a duty upon iron when it is manufactured by any of the States, and that as reapers and binders and other machinery of that description are made for the most part of iron and steel, it would be very foolish to allow them to come in duty free, when one of our States has a monopoly of the manufacture of material largely used in their construction. How can we prophesy at this time that, in conjunction with the State iron works which may be created in the near future, there may not spring into existence other national works for the manufacture of machinery? There may be some slight risk of the manufacture of these machines getting into the hands of private enterprise, because it is more convenient for our agricultural producers to have implement factories in close proximity to the scene of their operations ; but these factories will be the principal customers of our State-owned iron , works, and . I think we should give them some little encouragement. I could say a great deal about agricultural, machinery, and particularly about reapers and binders, because I have in my possession one of the circulars issued by the reaper and binder combination, giving the rules under which their agents and operators have to work, but I do not wish to occupy the time of the committee. I hope that there will be no possibility of such a combination being created in Australia again, either among importers or manufacturers.

Question - That the House of Representatives be requested to amend item 81 by adding to the duty, “ Reaper and binders,” advalorem, 15 per cent.,” the words, “ and on and after 1st August, 1902, free.” The committee divided -

Ayes … ….. … 11

Noes … … … … 9

Majority … … 2

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

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

That the House of Representatives be requested to amend item 81 by adding to the duty, “Other machinery, machines or parts, referred to in proclamation, ad valorem., 15 per cent,” the words, “and on and after 1st August, 1902, free.”

The committee divided -

Ayes … … … 11

Noes … … … 9

Majority … … 2

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Motion (by Senator C lemons) proposed -

That the House of Representatives be requested to amend item 81 by adding to the duty,”Wire netting, ad valorem, 10 per cent.,” the words, “ and on and after 1st August, 1902, free. “

Senator HIGGS:
Queensland

– I do not believe in allowing everything to go without protest.. We get, in this proposal, some idea of the value of Senator Clemons’ deliverances in regard to this item as a whole. The honorable and learned senator tried to induce the committee to believe that he was very anxious to support this particular industry in Tasmania and in Western Australia by a system of bonuses, only he saw that the State socialists were at work, and would succeed in preventing private enterprise taking any part in it. His present proposal shows that his appeal to the committee was merely an appeal to the more conservative amongst us, who might be frightened by the use of the term “ State socialism” into forsaking the protectionist cause and voting ] with the free-traders. We have to deal only with what is before us, and what is before us now is not the Bonus Bill, but a proposal to encourage the iron industry, whether it is undertaken by a State or by private enterprise. I hope that the protectionists in the committee, and especially those who have been returned as protectionists by the State of ‘Victoria, will remember that there is a struggling wire-netting industry in this State, which is struggling only because it has to meet German competition. If the Germans desire to compete with the local manufacturers of wire netting, let them come here and do so in the Commonwealth, and not avail themselves of a bounty system which cuts against us in many ways. We cannot blame the German Government for having a system of bounties upon exports, but we can blame the Commonwealth Government, and politicians who occupy seats in the Federal Legislature, if they throw away their opportunities and expose the local wire-netting manufacturers to German competition outside the borders of the Commonwealth. I hope we shall be able to get a majority upon this motion. I do not take very much notice of the previous divisions, because I believe a majority of two in a committee of the Senate will not have very much weight with the House which deems it to be its special privilege to deal with Money Bills. I cannot understand the attitude of certain honorable senators who have been willing to support Division VIa. upon general grounds, who have passed the introductory paragraph, but who are now assisting to reduce the duties proposed, or to place the articles upon the free list. Messrs.

Lysaght and Company, who are engaged in the wire-netting industry, employ some 400 hands. If necessary, honorable senators can see an auditor’s certificate to show that this firm, who have establishments in New South Wales and in Victoria, are working the wire - netting industry at a loss, and are continuing in the industry only in the hope that the Commonwealth will come to their aid, and to the aid of their 400 employes, who probably have wives and families dependent upon them, and who will be cast adrift if honorable senators do not give them some protection. It is all very well to attempt to raise a bogy by the use of ‘the term “ State socialism “ in connexion with * this item, but I thought that that particular scarecrow had been long since blown to the winds. It appears that it is only in this Senate that it has any effect. The people of the Commonwealth know too much now to be led astray by any such bogy. They know that in the Postal department, the Education department, and the Railway department, we have State socialistic institutions. And who will argue for a moment that those particular State socialistic institutions are not better for the Commonwealth than the great beer-importing industry which Senator Pulsford seems to have taken specially under his charge? The committee seem to have been running riot in consenting to these reductions. The term “ abolitionists “ would be a better one to describe the free-trade and revenue party than the name by which they are known.” They wish to abolish all the industries of the Commonwealth except the pastoral and mining industries - and of course the great beer-importing industry, with its free corkscrews !

Senator O’CONNOR:
Protectionist

– I do not know whether the honorable and learned senator who has moved the motion before the committee realizes the position in which this item now stands. We have carried the first part of the division, to which all the rest is a schedule - that is, that when a bonus is given, and after a proclamation has been issued, certain duties are to be imposed. We have decided, amongst other things, that bar, rod, angle, tee, and sheetiron is to have a protection of 10 per cent. The next thing that was done was to provide that when a higher state of manufacture was attained - that is to say when the iron was galvanized or tinned - it was to have no further protection whatever.We have dealt with reapers and binders, and then we come to wire netting, which, of course, is another product of iron. Although it is part of the policy of the Government to. include wire netting in the bonuses, Senator Clemons proposes that the manufacture of it shall have no benefit in the way of protection, although other manufactures of iron are to have a protection of 10 per cent. Is there any consistency in that position ? How can the committee expect any body of reasonable men to whom this Bill is sent back to carry out the suggestions made by the Senate when they are contradictory? I would ask Senator Clemons whether he really wants to put the committee in the position of sending back the Bill, so far as concerns Division VIa., in such ah absurd and confused condition that there will be no possibility of our suggestions being accepted?

Question - That the House of Representatives be requested to amend item 81 by adding to the duty “ Wire netting, ad valorem, 10 per cent.” the words “and on and after 1st August, 1902, free”- put. The committee divided -

Ayes … … … 11

Noes … … … 9

Majority … … 2

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

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

That the House of Representatives be requested to amend item 81 by adding to the duty “Iron and steel tubes not dutiable under Division VI., ad valorem, 10 percent.,” the words “and on and after 1st August, 1902, free.”

Senator O’CONNOR:
Protectionist

– The committee will remember that the particular kind of pipes referred to in this motion are placed upon the free list, because they cannot at present be made within the Commonwealth ; but it is anticipated that when we have iron manufactures established under the bonus policy of the Government, the pipes will be made here. In order to protect them, the duty of 10 per cent, will be imposed when the bonuses come to an end. I hope that those honorable senators who voted for the establishment and maintenance of iron manufactures will vote against the motion.

Senator BARRETT:
Victoria

– If the committee agree to Senator Neild ‘s proposal, it will be in my opinion the crowning act of folly in regard to this item. I have been seriously asking myself - what are we going to manufacture iron for? It is folly after passing the introductory paragraph of the division to knock out every duty pertaining to articles that will be manufactured from iron. I do not know whether it is of any use to argue further in respect to the matter, because the Opposition seem to have a majority of one, and will carry their proposal. We might as well let them have their division, and fight the matter out at a later stage. But I am bitterly disappointed with the work that the committee has done to-night.

Senitor HIGGS (Queensland). - The pipes referred to in the motion involve work of the simplest character for any iron foundry that may be established. Who is there who believes in State socialism - in the State running the Post-office and the Railways - who would wilfully subject the State to unfair competition ? That is what honorable senators will do. If they establish State iron works they will subject them to the unfair competition of manufacturers in other parts of the world. I am satisfied that Senator Pearce and other free-traders who voted for this division did not intend that. We protect the Post-office against competition, and surely those who are anxious that the States should establish iron works must see that it would be unfair to compel them to compete with the manufactories of Germany and other countries.

Senator PEARCE (Western Australia).I have already explained my position. The duty how under discussion will, if the Bonus Bill be passed into law in its present state, go to support a State-owned industry, and for that reason I shall vote for the Government proposal.

Senator GLASSEY:
Queensland

– Notwithstanding the impatience of honorable senators, I feel that I must say a few words in regard to this attempt by the destroyers of our industries who sit on the other side of the chamber to moke yet another branch of the iron industry suffer. Senator Neild, in particular, seems to have made a dead set against all branches of the iron and steel industry, though, surely, if any industry should receive encouragement it is this. My first consideration is the interests of the people of my own country, while that of honorable senators opposite is the interests of the people of other countries. There are numerous iron working industries in the Commonwealth which maintain and support a large number of people, while those in the State which I represent give employment to nearly 4,000 men. Honor- i able senators opposite, however, seem to 1 think that there is no room for the further expansion of these industries, and are unwilling to give them any consideration. Although the members of that party are often referred to as “ calico jimmies,” they unfortunately do not confine their attentions to calico and similar articles. In Victoria “iron and steel industries have grown to considerable dimensions, and there is room for their further development. I have often had to praise the enterprise, industry, perseverance, and foresight of the people of Victoria. They naturally hoped that under federation they would receive still further encouragement, but in that they have been disappointed. To-day I obtained from the Chief Inspector of .Factories in Victoria the following letter in regard to the number of persons employed in iron working industries in this State : -

With reference to your visit to this office today, I have the honour to inform you that there are 279 registered factories in Victoria in which general engineering, machinery, or foundry work is carried on, and that 5,790 persons are employed therein.

The following list will give yon an approximate idea as to where the larger of these factories are situated : -

Does Senator Neild not see the wisdom of increasing these industries by giving them the necessary aid and encouragement t I extremely regret some of the votes which have been given this evening, and, while I am very anxious that the rights and privileges of the Senate shall be upheld, I am afraid that we are provoking a conflict with the other Chamber in which it will be impossible for us to maintain our position. I deplore the action of the committee in giving advantages to people in other parts of the world without considering the interests of the people of Australia.

Senator PULSFORD:
New South Wales

– I deprecate these continual references to what the other Chamber may do. It is desirable that members of both Chambers should remember that the ultimate appeal is to the people, who are watching the votes which we give here. I do not care how soon we are able to go to the country, so that the public may express an opinion upon our work.

Senator Lt Col NEILD:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT

-Col. NEILD (New South Wales). - Senator Glassey appears to be oblivious of the fact that the proposal before us is that the articles upon which this duty is to be levied are not to be dutiable until a bonus has been granted for their production. But if those who manufacture them can do so at the present time without the assistance of either a duty or u bonus, why should they want both in the future ? It seems to me that, if they are to be free of duty for the present, they should not be subject to duty at all.

Senator GLASSEY (Queensland). - I was not oblivious of the fact to which Senator Neild refers. Senator Pulsford would no doubt spell “ the people “ with a great big “ P.” I, too, am very anxious to preserve their best interests, and I wish to consider the people of my own country before those of other parts of the globe. He deprecates any mention of the likelihood of a conflict with the other Chamber, but some members of the committee seem to be anxious to force such aconflict, and if a conflict does take place we shall not be able to maintain our position.

Question - That the House of Representatives be requested to amend item 81 by adding to the duty, “Iron and steel tubes and pipes . . . ad valorem, 10 per cent.,” the words, “and on and after 1st August, 1902, free” - put. The committee divided -

Ayes … … … 9

Noes … … … 12

Majority … … 3

Question so resolved in the negative.

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

That the House of Representatives be requested to amend item 81 by adding to the duty, “ Spelter,advalorem, 10 per cent.,” the words, “and on and after 1st August, 1902, free.”

Senator O’KEEFE:
Tasmania

– I hope that honorable senators will vote in favour of retaining this duty, because it is of the utmost importance that the production of zinc should be encouraged as far as possible. We have tens of thousands of tons of zinc in Tasmania, and equally large quantities in New South Wales. No doubt some honorable senators from Tasmania may regard party considerations as of greater importance than the interests of their own State, but I hope their fiscal fanaticism will not carry them so far as to lead them to vote against this duty.

Senator EWING:
Western Australia

– I believe that the common name of spelter is zinc, and as this forms the raw material of a number of important industries, it should not be subjected to a protective duty. The protectionists begin by imposing high duties upon raw materials, and then propose still higher duties for the protection of those who work up the raw materials into manufactured articles. This is why we find some honorable senators ready to support the imposition of protective duties ranging as high as 300 per cent. The duty upon spelter cannot be supported upon any reasonable grounds.

Senator O’CONNOR:
Protectionist

– To those honorable senators who have been continually claiming that we should do something for the miner, I would point out that this duty presents an opportunity for encouraging the utilization of tens of thousands of tons of what is now mere refuse upon some of our largest mines.Vast quantities of material at Broken Hill, and other places where silver is produced, could be treated for the production of spelter with great success if proper machinery and appliances’ were employed. Surely it is reasonable that we should do everything we can to encourage the production of the zinc we require from our own mines? We propose to give a bonus of £2 per ton for the first 10,000 tons of spelter produced within the Commonwealth. The bonus period will expire on the 1st July, 1905, and under these circumstances itis reasonable that we should ask for the protection of the industry after that date.

Senator CLEMONS:
Tasmania

– If there is anything I know something about it is spelter, and if there is an article regarding which the Vice-President of the Executive Council knows nothing it is also spelter. It is amusing to hear the honorable senator speak about a 10 per cent, duty upon spelter as if it would solve one of the greatest metallurgical problems of the present day. The imposition of a duty upon spelter can haveno possible connexion with the solution of the sulphide problem. The difficulty with which we are confronted in the case of spelter is not connected with the consumption of the article by our own people, but the extraction of it from the ore, and a duty of 100 per cent, would not afford the slightest assistance in this direction. As a matter of fact, there is no reason why a duty should be imposed upon spelter under any circumstances, or at any time. The only effect it can have will be to enable those who own spelter within the Commonwealth to obtain a little more for it.

Question - That the House of Representatives be requested to amend item 81 by adding to the duty “ Spelter, ad valorem, 10 per cent “ the words “and on and after 1st August, 1902, free” - put. The committee divided-

Ayes … … 10

Noes … … … 9

Majority … … 1

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Division VII.- Oils, Paints, and Varnishes.

Item 82- Blacking, including dressings, soaps, oils, inks, pastes, polishes, stains, and varnishes for leather ; Berlin and Brunswick blacks, furniture oil, paste, and polish, and bronzing and metal liquids and powders, ad valorem, 20 per cent.

Senator Lt Col NEILD:
New South Wales

– I move-

That the House of Representatives be requested to amend item 82 by adding the words, “and on and after 1st August, 1902, 15 per cent.”

The committee have already decided that 15 per cent, is a proper duty to impose upon oilmen’s stores, and as a number of the articles included in this item practically come within that category, I think that 20 per cent, is altogether an excessive rate.

Senator GLASSEY:
Queensland

– This is a matter which very much concerns the revenue of the States, and therefore ought not to be passed over lightly. Not content with endeavouring to prevent the establishment of industries within the Commonwealth, Senator Neild now proposes to deprive the States of a portion of the revenue upon which they depend for the purpose of carrying on the government of the country.

Senator PULSFORD:
New South Wales

– I find that the total revenue which the Government expect to receive from this item is £3,050, so that the amount involved is not a large one. I claim, however, that a duty of 15 per cent, will produce more revenue than will one of 20 per cent., and that 10 per cent, will produce more than either. The reduction proposed will, in my judgment, benefit the States. It goes without saying that these small articles will he made chiefly in Melbourne and Sydney. The Government hold that the imposition of high duties will prevent importation, quite oblivious of the fact that the moment importation stops we cease to obtain revenue. I hold that a 20 per cent, duty will tend to discourage importation, and thus lessen the amount of revenue derivable from this item.

Senator GLASSEY (Queensland).- I do not agree with Senator Pulsford that a lower duty will produce more revenue. I would further point out that, even if the amount involved is not large, we cannot afford to throw away any revenue. Assuming that these articles will be produced only in the large centres of population, the fact remains that if we do not derive revenue from their importation our own people will be engaged in their manufacture.

Progress reported.

Senate adjourned at 10.8 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 9 July 1902, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1902/19020709_senate_1_11/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant

Senate 9 July 1902

CUSTOMS TARIFF BILL

Senator McGREGOR:South Australia

Senator Lt Col NEILD:New South Wales

Senator McGregor:

Senator Lt Col NEILD:NEW SOUTH WALES · FT

Senator DRAKE:PostmasterGeneral · Queensland · Protectionist

Senator Major GOULD:New South Wales

Senator Drake:

Senator Major GOULD:

Senator BARRETT:Victoria

Senator Keating:

Senator BARRETT:

Senator STYLES:Victoria

Senator Lt Col NEILD:NEW SOUTH WALES · FT

Senator STYLES:

Senator Lt Col NEILD:NEW SOUTH WALES · FT

Senator STYLES:

Senator EWING:Western Australia

Senator Playford:

Senator EWING:

Senator GLASSEY:Queensland

Senator Ewing:

Senator GLASSEY:

Senator Matheson:

Senator GLASSEY:

Senator PULSFORD:New South Wales

Senator DRAKE:Protectionist

Senator PULSFORD:New South Wales

Senator O’Connor:

Senator PULSFORD:

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

Senator Macfarlane:

Senator O’CONNOR:

Senator Pearce:

Senator O’CONNOR:

Senator Fraser:

Senator O’CONNOR:

Senator O’CONNOR:

Senator Pulsford:

Senator O’CONNOR:

Senator Major Gould:

Senator O’CONNOR:

Senator Pulsford:

Senator O’CONNOR:

Senator Fraser:

Senator O’CONNOR:

Senator Sir Fredeick Sargood:

Senator O’CONNOR:

Senator De Largie:

Senator PULSFORD:

Senator STYLES:Victoria

Senator Ewing:

Senator STYLES:

Senator Ewing:

Senator STYLES:

Senator Ewing:

Senator STYLES:

Senator DE LARGIE:Western Australia

Senator O’Connor:

Senator De LARGIE:

Senator Major GOULD:New South Wales

Senator O’Connor:

Senator Fraser:

Senator Major GOULD:

Senator O’Connor:

Senator Major GOULD:

Senator Playford:

Senator Major GOULD:

Senator Playford:

Senator Major GOULD:

Senator O’Connor:

Senator Major GOULD:

Senator Styles:

Senator Major GOULD:

Senator McGregor:

Senator Major GOULD:

Senator Styles:

Senator Major GOULD:

Senator O’Connor:

Senate
9 July 1902

Senator McGREGOR:
South Australia

Senator Lt Col NEILD:
New South Wales

Senator Lt Col NEILD:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT

Senator DRAKE:
PostmasterGeneral · Queensland · Protectionist

Senator Major GOULD:
New South Wales

Senator BARRETT:
Victoria

Senator STYLES:
Victoria

Senator Lt Col NEILD:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT

Senator Lt Col NEILD:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT

Senator EWING:
Western Australia

Senator GLASSEY:
Queensland

Senator PULSFORD:
New South Wales

Senator DRAKE:
Protectionist

Senator PULSFORD:
New South Wales

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

Senator STYLES:
Victoria

Senator DE LARGIE:
Western Australia

Senator Major GOULD:
New South Wales

Senator PEARCE:
Western Australia

Senator PULSFORD:
New South Wales

Senator Lt Col NEILD:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT

Senator O’CONNOR:
Protectionist

Senator EWING:
Western Australia

Senator CLEMONS:
Tasmania

Senator DOBSON:
Tasmania

Senator O’CONNOR:
Protectionist

Senator O’CONNOR:
Protectionist

Senator MATHESON:
Western Australia

Senator STYLES:
Victoria

Senator McGREGOR:
South Australia

Senator HIGGS:
Queensland

Senator O’CONNOR:
Protectionist

Senator O’CONNOR:
Protectionist

Senator BARRETT:
Victoria

Senator GLASSEY:
Queensland

Senator PULSFORD:
New South Wales

Senator Lt Col NEILD:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT

Senator O’KEEFE:
Tasmania

Senator EWING:
Western Australia

Senator O’CONNOR:
Protectionist

Senator CLEMONS:
Tasmania

Senator Lt Col NEILD:
New South Wales

Senator GLASSEY:
Queensland

Senator PULSFORD:
New South Wales