Senate
28 August 1902

1st Parliament · 1st Session



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

page 15495

QUESTION

CUSTOMS DUTIES : DISPUTES

Senator DOBSON:
TASMANIA

asked the VicePresident of the Executive Council, upon notice -

  1. How many cases are there in which the amount nf duty payable under the Customs Act 1901 is in dispute, which now remain unsettled, owing to the Minister for Customs having nol yet settled the dispute or decided what course shall be adopted?
  2. Have not many of such cases remained undecided for long periods, and have not some importers complained of the delay ?
  3. Has the Minister refused, and, if so, in how many casus, to settle such disputes, ashe is empowered to do by Part 15 of the Customs Act, and has he determined that such disputes must in most cases be decided by a court of law ?
  4. Has the Minister adopted any uniform practice with regard to the matters mentioned in question 3, and have importers been informed of such practice ?
  5. In cases of disputes as to the duty payable, are importers allowed to obtain their goods on depositing amount of duty claimed or giving a bond, and has the Minister adopted a uniform practioe in this respect, and have importers been informedof such practice ?
Senator O’CONNOR:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · NEW SOUTH WALES · Protectionist

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

  1. Cases of dispute as to duty are of frequent occurrence, and must be bo till the Tariff is settled, and during its earliest administration some delay is inevitable. Great efforts have been made to prevent this, and not more than about a couple of dozen cases of dispute as to rate of duty now remain for Ministerial decision, and these will be disposed of during the week.
  2. Yes. 3 and 4. The Minister is not aware of any application having made to him to hold a public inquiry under the part of the Act referred to, and he favours no withdrawing from courts of justice of matters properly coming before them in relation to contraventions of the Act.
  3. Yes. By repealed order, and by issue of the attached circulars.

Circular Wire to All States.

Minister instructs as follows : - I do not wish merchants to be in any ‘way harassed, say, by unnecessary detention of their goods. Section 167 applies to enable the owner to get his goods on deposit of duty claimed in any bond fide case of dispute as to duty. The public may be reminded as to this in any such case or generally.

Memo.

In order to avoid unnecessary detention of goods under seizure, or detained by reason of errors in declarations and entries, the Minister directs that -

Except when the possession ofseizedgoods is necessary for the purposes of the proof of any case, or fraud or smuggling is believed to have been committed, seized goods may be delivered on compliance with section 206.

Where seized goods arc necessary for purpose of any case, and a sample will suffice, the balance may be delivered in terms of paragraph (1) on taking a sample.

The security is preferred to be a cash deposit, but so long as clearly sufficient bond or guarantee will suffice, if approved by the department.

This does not limit the duty of the department to deliver on deposit of duty under section 107 where it is a simple case of dispute as to duty.

The terms of the security under section 206 to be for payment “ of their value in case of their condemnation or their forfeiture in any way,” and when there is no dispute as to value this may well be stated.

In addition to the security referred to above in all cases the amount of duty involved must be deposited iu cash.

The Collector of Customs,

All States

page 15495

QUESTION

TOBACCO MANUFACTURE

Senator PULSFORD:
NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the VicePresident of the Executive Council, upon notice -

  1. Referring to the regulation issued by the Minister for Customs by which tobacco manufacturers are permitted to use free of duty the following articles, via.: - Glucose, spirits, glycerine, liquorice, sugar, spice, starch, starch flour, cigarette paper, cork manufacture for tips, flavouring essences, essential oils, and tags- is this regulation issued under the clause in the Tariff schedules authorizing the Minister to grant the free use of “minor articles” in certain cases?
  2. What aggregate amount of revenue ia lost by these remissions over the whole Commonwealth ; or, if this cannot be given, what is the aggregate amount for New South Wales and Victoria, or for either of them ?
Senator O’CONNOR:
Protectionist

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

  1. No. It is issued under the Excise Act 1001, section 24.
  2. It is considered that nothing is lost, unless it* is desired that1 these goods snail pay double duty, for underweight is added to and included in the weight of the manufactured tobacco, cigars, cigarettes, and snuff, for the purposes of duty. This is similar to the practice which for many years has obtained in New South Wales and Victoria, and, it is believed, in all the States which have tobacco factories.

page 15496

CUSTOMS TARIFF BILL

In Committee (Consideration of House of Representatives’ message resumed from 27th August, vide page 15448) ;

Item 63. Hats and caps, vis :- Men’s, women’s, hoys’, and children’s felt hate, per doz., ad valorem, 30 per cent.

Senate’s Sequent. - That the duty bc reduced to 25 per cent. /

Howe of Representatives’ Message. - Amendment not made.

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

– I move -

That the request be not pressed.

When the Tariff was introduced, a duty of 3s. per dozen was proposed, but tho other House decided that-it should be 30 per cent. ad valorem, which the Senate desired to be reduced by 5 - per cent. On the one hand, it is urged - and on the best possible evidence it has been shown - that a duty of 30 per cent, is absolutely necessary for the preservation of the industry. In Victoria the specific duty on a number of these items was very considerably more than 30 per cent., so that there has been u very great reduction in that State. Since the Tariff was introduced, not only have the Victorian factories -continued their operations, but in New South Wales a factory has been started on an enlarged plan, and the opinion on all hands seems to be that unless the duty of 30 per cent, is maintained, it will be impossible to carry on the industry satisfactorily. There is a difference of 5 per cent, between the Houses, and as the issue now is not only whether the duty should be what is proposed, but whether there should be an agreement come to by the Senate, I ask honorable senators not to press the request.

Senator HIGGS:
Queensland

– From the silence of the Opposition I should imagine that there is some hope of getting this item disposed of quickly. I desire to refer to some quotations which have been used to influence honorable senators. One quotation is dated 1st January Jost, and reads as follows : -

This document was quoted by an honorable senator, whose name I do not desire to give, to show that tho natural protection amounted to about 50 per cent. It was not fair to include the duty in the natural protection. We understand that term to include oversea charges.

Senator Pulsford:

– Is the honorable senator using some figures which I showed to him)

Senator HIGGS:

– Yes.

Senator Pulsford:

– The honorable senator is not quoting me correctly.

Senator HIGGS:

– I shall be very glad to compare notes with the honorable senator. These goods were brought out by the Pert?shire* - a most expensive method of bringing out goods, and no criterion as to the competition with which the hat manufacturers have to contend. That competition is that of the hat manufacturers of the old country, whose products are brought out here by tramp steamers and sailing vessels, by cheap freight vessels, such as the French and German subsidized steamers, and by ships such as those of the White Star line. Having given these figures to the Senate, I invite Senator Pulsford to point out in what particular I have misrepresented him. I think that what I have quoted is almost an exact copy of his quotation. It was as exact as I could make it.

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:
South Australia

– I hope the committee will adhere to its request in this case. This duty of 25 per cent. was arrived at practically by way of compromise. It is only a reduction of 5 per cent. on the duty that came up to us. From the point of view of revenue, and of being careful not to do anything but what is reasonably fair and right to existing industries, the duty was fixed at 25 per cent. There was a very high duty in Victoria, which no doubt had the effect of benefiting the hat factories here. The products of these factories were regarded in the other States as an illustration of the injurious effects of protection, because their hats were sold at a lower price in South Australia than in Melbourne. Itwas feltthat the Victorian rate was extravagantly high and everyone, without any desire suddenly to cut away every shred of protection, felt that a comparison might fairly be instituted with the duties in the other States. In Queensland and South Australia the duty was 25 per cent. TheTasmanian duty was 20 per cent., and the Western Australian duty was 15 per cent. We accepted 25 per cent. as not only a fair but a generous measure of protection to the existing industry, which has been established for 30 year’s in Victoria, and which now, having the enlarged market of Australia open to it, should be able to compete on advantageous terms with the hat factories which have been established in other States.It would only have been a fair thing for the House of Representatives to accept our request, and I believe that on reconsideration they will do so. I mentioned yesterday, with regret, that we have not before us the reasons why the House of Representatives has declined to accept our suggestions. Certainly in regard to this item they might fairly have looked upon what we requested as a compromise. The duty on this item was carried in the House of Representatives by a majority of two, and the duty on the next item, sewn hats and caps, was carried by a majority of four. The majority in the House of Representatives which declined our request was four. I cannot help feeling that our request in this instance was treated somewhatcavalierly. I do not say that in a spirit of complaint, but certainly it is to be remarked that the majority in another place was only the same as that which carried the request in the Senate - a House with only half as many members. I feel sure that on reconsideration the members of the House of Representatives will see, if they turn to the debates, that the request was tendered in a conciliatory spirit.

Senator HIGGS (Queensland). - I ask the indulgence of the committee while I quote a few words which have a considerable relation to our proceedings, and also to the general discussions on the Tariff. The quotation appears in London Truth, of July 7th, 1902. The passage I wish to quote is this -

I once asked the first Sir William Hayter, solong the chief Liberal whip, whom in his experience he thought the best lender of the House. “Johnny Russell,” he said. “You had only to pull his coat tail, and to tell him that we were ready for a division, whenhe sat down in the middle ofa sentence.” This was perhaps going a little too far ina natural desire to make progress. I have always thought, myself, Mr. Disraeli the best leader that I have known. He never left the House. He very seldom interrupted in debate, but if matters got somewhat tangled, he set them right with a few words.

I urge the honorable and learned senators who are leading both sides to make a note of this paragraph and see whether they can not arrange to let us get through this schedule rather more quickly than we are likely to do if they make such long speeches as the last speaker has done.

Question - That the request be notpressed - put. The committee divided.

AYES: 12

NOES: 14

Majority … … 2

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved inthe negative.

Item 63. Hats and caps sewn, ad valorem, 30 per cent.

Senate’sRequest. - That the duty be reduced to 25 per cent.

House ofRepresentatives’ Message. - Amendment not made.

Thatthe request be not pressed.

The only point which I desire to mention in addition to what I have already said, is that a large portion of the material which is used in the making of these sewn hats and caps has to be imported and pays a duty of 1 5 per cent., so that in regard to all sewn hats and caps made from imported material only a margin of 5 per cent. would be left for the manufacturer, if the request were adopted.

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON. (South Australia). - I desire only to say that on this line the majority before was twice as large as what it was when our request was refused. We should really stultify ourselves if we abandoned this request, because the margin allowed to the manufacturer of hats and caps is 5 per cent. greater than that extended to the manufacturers of apparel. It only shows what a remarkably good time the manufacturers must have had inVictoria under the higher duty.

Question - That the request be not pressed - put. The committee divided.

AYES: 12

NOES: 15

Majority … … 3

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Item 68. Socks and Stockings, cotton, 10 per cent.

Senate’sRequest. - That the word “cotton” be omitted, and the words “except silk or containing silk “ be inserted.

House of Representatives’ Message. - Amend - ment not made.

That the request be not pressed.

I think that a short explanation is necessary in order that honorable senators may understand how this matter stands. Under the Tariff as it came up here, woollen and silk socks and stockings were subject to a duty of 25 per cent. under the heading of apparel. It was intended to treat cotton socks and stockings in an exceptional way by imposing upon them a duty of 10 per cent. The effect of the Senate’s request, however would be to make all socks and stockings except those made of silk or containing silk liable to a duty of 10 per cent. Thus, the local maker of woollen socks fromimported yarn would haveno protection whatever, because a duty of 10 per cent. is fixed upon imported yarns, as honorable senators will see by referring to that item. The two items must be taken together. The committee resolved that the House of Representatives should be requested to reduce the duty on yarns from 10 to 5 per cent., on the ground that there were only a very few manufacturers of yarn in Australia ; that those manufacturers made them principally for their own use ; that it was very difficult for the smaller manufacturers of woollen socks to obtain yarns from them, and that if the dutv were allowed to remain they would be placed in the hands of these manufacturers or else compelled to pay a duty which would be very hard for them to bear. I find on making some inquiries, however, that the manufacture of yarns is really a larger industry than was supposed. In a memorandum from the Collector of Customs at Sydney the following statement appears : -

On the approach of federation, and in a certain anticipation of a reasonable duty, a complete plant for the manufacture of yarns, worsted and woollen, was imported into this State, and is now in full working order, the number of hands directly employed being above 40. A 10 per cent, rate is considered the lowest at which it would be profitable to manufacture : and should the suggested reduction be adopted, any further development of the industry could not be thought of ; in fact, it is doubtful if present operations could be continued.

I invite the special attention of honorable senators from New South “Wales to this statement. They have often expressed a desire to benefit the manufactures of that State, and they have now an opportunity to do so. There can be no doubt, from this statement, that a duty of 10 per cent, is the lowest which can be imposed if we are to give any protection to the yarn-making industry. 1 hope that we do not desire to destroy such an industry as the making of yarns from our own wools, which not only gives employment, but utilizes our own raw material. I take it that we desire to give some protection to the manufacturer if we can do so, and that we also desire to give a protection to the manufacture of stockings from these yarns. The only way in which that can be done is by leaving the duty on woollen and silk stockings at 25 per cent., and the duty On yarns at 10’ per cent. That will leave a margin of 15 per cent., and the manufacturers of yarns and stockings in both these branches will be served. On the other hand, if we do adopt the expedient of cutting down the duty on these socks to 10 per cent., and reducing the duty on yarns to 5 per cent., we shall leave the very miserable protection of 5 per cent, to the maker of woollen socks, and give no protection whatever to the manufacturer .of woollen yarns. It seems to me that both these matters have to be considered, and I hope the duties will be allowed to stand.

Senator Lt Col NEILD:
New South Wales

– The honorable and learned senator will perhaps permit me to say that in the speech to which he referred, what I said was simply this : That as, in common with other free-traders, I was compelled, in connexion with this Tariff, to vote for a great deal of protection for many industries, I was not prepared to overlook the claims of industries suitable to the circumstances of my own State.

Senator O’CONNOR:

– That is practically what I have said, only the honorable senator has put it in a very much better form. I say that that is a sensible position for any honorable senator to take up, whatever his views may have been before. In the same way many protectionists here would like to see very much higher protective duties imposed, but they recognise that there must be revenue, and they are therefore willing to come down from the standard of duties to which they have hitherto been accustomed in several of the protectionist States. Under all the circumstances, I say that the. best way to adjust matters will be to leave the duties as they, were when the Tariff was first introduced into the Senate, leaving the duty at 25 per cent, in this case, and when we come to yarns agreeing to a duty of 10 per cent. I hope that the committee will not press the request.

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON (South Australia). - I do not intend to enter into the controversy which may be initiated by reference to the expressions used by Senator Neild in connexion with the tobacco industry. I point out that the difference between the two sides is, that whilst we on this side from a feeling of kindliness and a desire that no immediate- injury should be done to any existing industry, are prepared to agree to a reasonable amount of protection, we find that honorable members on the other side, whilst quite willing to impose protective duties, are never prepared to approach the views of free-traders by expressing any willingness to reduce duties. I am sure that Senator Barrett must have been delighted to hear the views expressed by the VicePresident .of the Executive Council in connexion with yarns, .and which seemed to me to support Senator Barrett’s views in favour of a reduction of the duty on yarns to 5 per cent, and to utterly cut the ground from under the apparent objection on the part of the House of Representatives to accept what, I dare say Senator Barrett thought, was a very reasonable proposal. However, we can deal with that when we come to it. With respect to this particular item, I propose to do exactly what Senator O’Connor has himself suggested - to give the margin of 10 per cent, protection, which he thinks is fair to the makers of socks and stockings. I propose to move a modification of the motion for two reasons, which I shall mention. I propose to strike out the words, “ except silk or containing silk,” and to increase the duty to 15 per cent., so as to make the rate on these items uniform. The two reasons which operate are these : First of all, there is always a difficulty where exceptions, are made ; and if the result of securing revenue without doing injustice to any industry can be achieved without complicating the work of administration, it should be done. We know that there are difficulties in the administration of the department of Customs which have caused a great deal of irritation and discontent. It is possible that a difficulty will be created if a discrimination is made by the introduction of these words, “ except silk or containing silk,” and it will be better under all the circumstances to have a uniform duty of 15 per cent. The proposal will be somewhat against the views held by my honorable friends and myself, but we are prepared to make a liberal concession in order to secure a compromise. Fifteen per cent, represents about the mean of the duties applicable to the different kinds of socks and stockings. As the VicePresident of the Executive Council has mentioned, the duty as proposed in the Tariff when introduced in the Senate was 25 per cent, on silk and woollen socks and stockings, and 10 per cent, on socks and stockings made of cotton. The Senate . carried a request for a uniform duty of 10 per cent. That is rather low if we take a fair mean of the duties all round. Fifteen per cent, is a fair mean all round, and will afford exactly the measure of protection which Senator O’Connor has said is sufficient for the local makers of socks and stockings. If Senator Barrett’s proposal that the duty on yarn should be 5 per cent, is agreed to, and the committee agree to the modification I suggest - that the duty in this case should be 1 5 per cent, all round - there will be a 10 per cent, margin of protection provided, and we shall have the advantage of a uniform duty. If, on the other hand, the duty on yarn is increased to 10 per cent, and the duty upon socks and stockings is left at 20 per cent., the same margin of protection will be afforded. I think the House of Representatives will agree that it will be a great advantage to put the whole thing on a uniform basis. I do not myself see why poor people should be compelled to wear only cotton goods, and if discrimination is made between cotton and woollen goods, we shall have difficulty introduced, as we have had in the case of flannelettes. I am informed by experts that it is impossible sometimes to tell whether goods are woollen or cotton goods. I therefore move -

That all the words after the word “be” be omitted, with a view to insert in lieu thereof the words “modified by omitting the words ‘ except silk or containing silk ‘ and by requesting the House of Representatives to make the duty 15 per cent.”

Senator O’CONNOR:

– I do not thinkthat honorable senators quite realize the effect of the amendment proposed by Senator Symon. Our proposal under the Tariff is that cotton socks shall be dutiable at lOper cent. My honorable and learned friend desires to raise the duty upon cotton socks to 15 per cent. Our proposal is that silk stockings and socks shall be dutiable- at 25 per cent., as they should be, and my honorable and learned friend desires to bring them down to 15 per cent.

Senator Clemons:

– The honorable and learned senator proposes to reduce the duty upon woollen socks, too.

Senator O’CONNOR:

– This proposal will reduce the duty on woollen socks by 10 per cent. If Senator Clemons thinks that that should be done he will, no doubt, vote for the amendment. I say that the effect of the amendment will be altogether contrary to the principles upon which we have been acting all through. Surely silk stockings and socks should pay a duty of 25 per cent, as a matter of revenue ? On the other hand, we consider that all these cotton socks should be put on a special footing, the same as cotton piece goods are, because, although they are all imported, they are principally used by those who have not a great deal to spend on dress. The position I have put ought alone to be enough to prevent the amendment being carried. “My honorable and learned friend is quite mistaken in supposing - he must have misunderstood what I said - that I indicated that I thought 10 per cent, would be sufficient protection for the makers of yarns. What I said was that I thought the difference between the 10 per cent, duty which ought to be paid on yarns, and the 25 per cent, duty which was imposed on woollen socks was a sufficient margin. Of course, if you take the suggestion of the Senate as being accepted, and leave the duty on cotton yarns at 10 per cent., the margin will be only 10 per cent., but I did not advocate that. We ought to return to the position from which we started. Several attempts have been made to change the burden of this tax from the back that ought to bear it to the back which ought not to ben it, and in the case of woollen socks it will have the effect of injuring two industries. I hope the committee will leave the duty as it stood in the Tariff.

Senator Lt.-Col. NEILD (New South Wales). - Although Senator O’Connor was courteous enough to afford me an opportunity to explain the attitude I took up in reference to a matter which he mentioned, I think I am justified in reading a few lines from the report of my speech on that occasion. 1 said -

The moral of my observations is that the ‘freetraders from New South Wales have to accept a policy which is so highly protective that we have been deliberately proposing duties of 20 and even 25 per cent, ad valorem, and 300 per cent, specific. When free-traders will advocate and vote for duties as high as 300 per cent. , what paltry nonsense it is to profess that we are now to be seized with a spasm of free-trade virtue,, and hack to pieces the few industries that are left to a State which has suffered more than any other by the reversal of its fiscal conditions and the destruction of its traditional policy . . . I have had taken from me the policy in which I believed, and now it is a question of degree, and not a question of principle. I shall not vote in favour of protection for the industries of Victoria and the other States, and deliberately set to work to take away every shred of fiscal advantage from, industries which flourish in New South Wales.

I have never been a theoretical free-trader. I have never pored over books on freetrade. I do not think that I ever read such a book through, as I found them too dry. My views have been based on that which I thought was best for the country. I do not take any particular interest in the question of socks from the manufacturers’ point of view, because I do not think that any are made in New South Wales. My only anxiety is not to place upon the consumer Id. more of taxation than is needful.

Senator O’Connor:

– Does not the honorable senator hope that these articles will be made in New South Wales “

Senator Lt Col NEILD:

– I shall have no objection so long as the industry comes into existence under rational conditions. Surely the duty, which this side of the Chamber is supporting, is high enough to satisfy, the most greedy of protectionists ! Surely the duty, which is unwillingly agreed to by this side, ought to be high enough to enable any factory to flourish in New South Wales, if factories ever do flourish under fiscal Conditions, which I seriously doubt. I think that the duty is eminently a high one. I cannot vote in the division, because I have paired, but my voice is given in favour of the lower rate of duty, believing it to be sufficiently high for revenue purposes, and if the manufacturing aspect is to be considered, abundantly high for manufacturing purposes. .

Senator BARRETT:
Victoria

– Unlike Senator Neild, I take a large interest in this proposal. The result of the vote on this item will to a very large extent determine the attitude I shall take in regard to the duty on yarns, which at my instance it was decided to ask the other House to reduce from 10 per cent, to 5 per cent. The position is largely affected by the action which the committee took on a previous occasion. Originally this line was included under the item of apparel, dutiable at 25 per cent, but of course the effect of Senator Symon’s proposal to strike out the word “ cotton “ was to subject socks and stockings to a duty of 10 per cent. I intend on this occasion to support the Government, in the hope of obtaining the higher duty of 25 per cent. I think that Senator Symon has made a mistake in this instance. If, instead of making a separate line of these articles dutiable at 15 per cent., he had proposed their inclusion under the head of attire, they would have been subject to a duty of 20 per cent. I desire to emphasize the position I took up previously in regard to yarns. No hosiery yarns are made in Australia. It is quite true that the Ballarat “Worsted Company manufacture yarns, but their yarns are made for the sole purpose of manufacturing cloth. So far as that company is concerned, the manufacture of yarns does not affect the item of hosiery which is involved in the present proposal. It has been stated by Senator O’Connor that, since the duty was imposed, a yarn factory h*s been started by a company in New South Wales. The statement I have made in regard to the Ballarat Worsted Company applies equally to Messrs. Vickers and Company, of New South Wales, who only make yarns for the manufacture of cloth. I am informed on the best authority that their plant is not up-to-date. On. a previous occasion I desired, yarns to be made duty free, and, if the Government proposal is not carried, I intend, as far as possible, to adhere to the position I then took up. I desire, if possible, to give some relief to the hosiery manufacturers, who will have to pay, under the present proposal, the high duty of 10 per cent. That duty will not encourage the manufacture of yarns, because it is .too low. Extensive machinery is requisite - not one plant alone, but a dozen sets of plants - for the manufacture of the many classes of yarns which are necessary, not only for the hosiery makers, but for the cloth manufacturers. For the purposes of protection a 10 per cent, duty is utterly useless. Consequently, the proposal of the Government will not help the hosiery makers. If Senator Symon had proposed a duty of 20 per cent, instead of 15 per cent., it would have brought the articles under the head of attire, and it would have been in conformity with his original proposal, because, under the circumstances in which we are placed, even supposing that he had proposed the higher duty of 20 per cent, on hosiery and a duty of 10 per cent, on yarns were carried in the Senate, it would have given an effective protection of only 10 per cent.

Senator Clemons:

– We shall carry the 10 per cent, duty on yarns all right.’

Senator BARRETT:

– If that statement is correct, the result will be, if the proposal is for a 20 per cent, duty, an effective protection of 1 5 per cent.

Senator Sir Josiah Symon:

– The honorable senator was content with a 5 per cent, duty when the duty on woollen socks was reduced to 10 per cent.

Senator BARRETT:

– No.

Senator Sir Josiah Symon:

– The honorable senator moved for a 5 per cent. duty.

Senator BARRETT:

– Owing to the peculiar position in which we found ourselves. I wish to get the higher duty, and I believe that the result of the division will show that the committee is in favour of the higher duty, because in the previous division three of our supporters could not vote, and, if I remember aright, the proposal was carried by a majority of only one or two. But in the present case the position, I admit, is rather involved, and I intend to vote for the higher duty of 25 per cent. If that be carried I shall withdraw my opposition with regard to yarns. If, on the other hand, Senator Symon carries his proposal, I intend to attempt, as I did on a previous occasion, to keep the duty on yarns at 5 per cent.

Senator Sir FREDERICK SARGOOD:
Victoria

– We must all have listened with considerable interest to the statement made by the last speaker, who has placed the facts of the case before us fairly and accurately. There is, however, one point which I should have liked him to emphasize rather more, and that is that this duty on yarns is absolutely in the interest of only one firm of manufacturers in Victoria, and one small manufacturer in New South Wales. Those are manufacturers of yarns. If the duty proposed by the Government is passed it will mean that the manufacturers of woollens at Ballarat will have a handicap against all their competitors in the woollen trade. All the other manufacturers of woollen piece goods will have to pay 10 per cent. on their yarns, because they are not made here. May I also add that the Ballarat machinery, costing £9,000, was practically paid for by the Victorian Government in the shape;f a bonus. It is well that these facts should be known. The Vice-President of the Executive Council made a great point about silk stockings, and asked how it was that they were to be taxed at the same rate as cottons.

Senator Styles:

– How long is it since the bonus referred to was paid?

Senator Sir FREDERICK SARGOOD:

-Comparatively recently. It is probably not known to many honorable senators that, taking silk stockings and cotton stockings together, the cottons are as expensive as, and often more expensive than the silks : while the cotton goods are often much more expensive than the mixtures of silk and cotton. I also want to dwell upon the strong argument that was used both in another place and here, with regard to the difficulty of administering the Customs Act in regard to these mixed goods. When the duties on apparel were originally introduced by the Government, the duty on goods made partly of wool and partly of silk was 25 per cent., and the duty on goods made partly of Other material was 20 per cent. In this form the. Tariff was passed in the first instance by another place. As soon as this came to the notice of the merchants, and the difficulty in regard to passing entries at the Custom-house began, it was found practically impossible to distinguish between woollen goods and goods partly of wool and partly of silk. Consequently the House of Representatives made the duty 25 per cent., in the same way as we have now agreed to make the duty on both items 20 per cent. The leader of the House very properly pointed out that it was almost impossible fairly to administer the Tariff in this respect at the Custom-house if there was a different duty in regard to yarns. It is exactly the same with regard to woollen socks and stockings and cotton socks and stockings, except that here the difficulty is felt to a greater extent. Even experts in the trade have been deceived as to whether or not there has been a certain amount of silk in some so-called cotton or woollen stockings, and it is because of the absolute impossibility of administering the provision with justice that it has been proposed from this side of the Chamber that the duty should be 15 percent. In passing, I may say that Senator Barrett suggested that 20 per cent. might be better. We objected to 20 per cent. for the reason that if we placed that rate of duty both on cotton and silk stockings we should be raising a larger amount of revenue than was required. A duty of 15 per cent. will give absolutely the same revenue as duties of 25 and 10 per cent, will give. Since this Tariff came into operation it was found that difficulties constantly arose, and as a matter of fact the whole trade in every one of the States petitioned that all socks and stockings should be taxed at the same rate, whatever it might be, in the same way as all gloves are taxed at the same rate. We do not make any distinction in this Tariff between cotton and silkgloves. Not only in Melbourne, but also in Adelaide, Sydney, Perth, and Hobart, the trade has urged, as a matter merely of convenience in administration, and in order to prevent evasion, that all socks and stockings shall be dutiable at the same rate. A deputation waited upon Mr. Kingston in reference to the matter. I saw him and placed all the facts and figures before him. I showed him that the revenue would not suffer in the slightest degree. We were sanguine that we had convinced him, but that was not so. Then we were thrown. back on one of two courses - either to agree to the perpetuation of the 25 and 10 percent, duties, with the consequent difficulties at the Custom-house, and the danger that traders would be forced to appear at the police-court charged with trying to evade the payment of duty when they were absolutely innocent ; or to propose a lower uniform duty. It was because of that that we proposed that the duty be 15 per cent. We were quite willing to increase the rate on the cotton goods and decrease the rate on the woollens. That, I can assure honorable senators, is the only way in which that branch of the softgoods trade can be administered with justice to the honest trader and with something like comfort in the Custom-house. We ought to give a fair amount of protection to the manufacturers of woollen hosiery. l t is not a large trade, but it is an increasing trade, and we hope that it will further increase. It concerns itself entirely with the lower category of goods. The finer class of goods is not concerned. I have had interviews with the manufacturers, and I can say this absolutely, that so long as they get their yarns at 5 per cent., whilst the manufactured article is taxed at 15 per cent., leaving a margin of 10 per cent., they will be satisfied. Of course they would prefer to get their yarns, which are their raw material, free, but they are quite content with what I have stated. I have seen them and explained to them exactly what this side of the Chamber intended to propose. It must be borne in mind in connexion with this margin of. 10 per cent. that the natural protection has also to be added. That natural protection will range from 8 to 15 per cent., so that the actual protection of the local manufacturer will run up to at least 25 per cent. I think that will be sufficient. In the interests of the trade, and also in the interests of the Custom-house and of the revenue, I strongly urge the committee to agree to Senator Symon’s proposal.

Question - That the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the motion - put. The committee divided.

AYES: 12

NOES: 14

Majority … … 2

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Amendment agreed to.

Motion, as amended, agreed to.

Item 71, Yarns, ad valorem, . 10 per cent.

Senate’s Request. - That the duty be reduced to 5 per cent.

House ofRepresentatives’ Message. - Amendment not made.

That the request be not pressed.

I have already explained this matter in dealing with the last item. There are very strong reasons why the duty on these yarns should be 10 percent, instead of 5 percent., for at the latter rate no protection would be afforded. If any protection isto be given, surely it should be something which will have a beneficial effect and will help an industry, instead of being merely a delusion and a snare.

Senator BARRETT (Victoria).- I should like to point out to the committee that if this duty is allowed to remain there will be an effective protection of only 5 per cent.

Question - That the request be not pressed - put. The committee divided -

Ayes … … … 9

Noes … … … 17

Majority … …8

Question so resolved in the negative.

Item 78, Manufactures of Metal, viz. : - Agricultural, horticultural, and viticultural machinery and implements,n.e.i….. ad valorem-, 15 per cent.

Senate’sRequest. - That the duty be reduced to 10 per cent.

House, ofRepresentatives’Message. - Amendment not made.

Senator O’CONNOR:
Protectionist

– I move-

That the request be not pressed.

I take it that all the items relating to machinery and manufactures of metal stand upon the same footing, and it, therefore, becomes very important when considering the first of them that the matter should be fully placed before the committee. I do not intend to repeat the arguments, and the facts which have been fully stated upon other occasions. There is no necessity to do so,’ because I am certain that every honorable senator is fully aware of everything that could be said upon the merits. What we have to consider now is whether the views which have been held before by honorable senators should be modified, as I think they ought to be, by the position in which we now find ourselves - a position in which it is necessary to come to an agreement. I urge that the request should not be pressed upon the ground that the experience of Australia and other countries where these industries have been successful, has invariably been that they cannot flourish without a substantial amount of protection. In these circumstances, I say that the duty proposed by the Government is the lowest at which anything like real protection can be given. The Customs officers in New SouthWales have made a report setting forth that, so far as that State is concerned, no reduction in this duty can be made without injury to these industries.

SenatorPulsford. - In a matter like this, is it right to introduce quotations from reports of Customs officers?

Senator O’CONNOR:

– Why not ?

Senator Sir Josiah Symon:

– I do not think it is right for a Customs officer to express an opinion upon a question of policy.

Senator O’CONNOR:

– It is right for him to make inquiries as to whether the conditions of an industry are such that it can be successful with or without a certain duty. It may be a question of policy whether a duty should be increased or reduced, but it is a question of fact whether an industry can succeed under a duty. “That is a question of fact upon which a Minister can cause inquiries to be made by his officers.

Senator Sir Josiah Symon:

– It is not for the Customs officers to determine.

Senator O’CONNOR:

– The Customs officers have not determined it. They have reported upon the facts just as any other fact might be reported upon by a Government officer.

Senator Pulsford:

– It is an opinion, not a fact.

Senator O’CONNOR:

– -Is it not the case that a Government has frequently to obtain the opinions of its officers ? If a question of policy were involved, the Government would not be justified in doing so.

Senator DAWSON:
QUEENSLAND · ALP

– Supposing the officers in this case had expressed an opinion in favour of free- trade ?

Senator O’CONNOR:

– That opinion certainly would have been given. We shall very much restrict the operations of the Government if we say that no Government officer ought to make a report which involves an expression of opinion.

Senator Major Gould:

– On a matter of policy.

Senator O’CONNOR:

– But that is not involved, and the honorable and learned senator’s interjection shows the confusion of mind into which he and some other honorable senators have fallen. It is, first of all, a question of fact whether a certain duty is sufficient to enable a manufacturer to prosper. That fact is made up of a number of other facts, and the ascertainment of those facts is a mere matter of inquiry, which any officer should be able to carry out. The comparison is a mere matter of arithmetic. It is extremely hypercritical of an honorable senator to attempt to discount the value of this report by asserting that it involves a matter of policy. I shall have to hear a great deal more than I have heard by way of interjections on the part of my honorable friends before I shall be convinced that there has been anything more in the obtaining of this report than there is in obtaining a report upon any other matter for the information of the Government. I do not intend to go into the merits of this1 matter. If we are to have a settlement at all upon these matters, there must be some concession on the part of the Senate, and the Senate can only take that course by carrying the motion I have moved.

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:
South Australia

– It is only right at the outset to say that I entirely dissent from the view expressed with so much animation by Senator

I O’Connor in respect of the propriety of inviting Customs officers to report as to what measure of protection will be necessary to continue an existing industry, or establish a new one. In my view that is utterly outside the scope of the duties of a Customs officer, and I think moreover that any Minister who invites a Customs officer to enter upon any such investigation is doing a grave injustice to the officer, and is placing him in a position of embarrassment which he ought not to occupy. A Customs officer’s functions are to administer the law. He is an administrative officer, and is not an advisory officer as to the extent to which a duty of 10 or 15 per cent, will encourage or maintain a, particular manufacture. The difficulty we have had throughout in this Parliament has been to settle that knotty problem. Honorable members on the op- posite side differ from honorable members on this side, and the whole controversy throughout the prolonged discussions of this Tariff has been, from the point of view of protection, as to whether 10, 15, 20, or 25 per cent, affords a fair and reasonable measure of protection. Yet we are asked to bring into the arena Customs officers who are in the pay of the Government of the day, in a sense, and who, by their report, may place themselves in a position of antagonism to one set of manufacturers, and in a position of favoritism to others. I do not desire to enter upon a discussion of this kind unduly, but I say I do regret that in a debate in this, or in any other Chamber, a report of a Customs officer has been mentioned in any way with a view to influence the debate as to the extent of protection necessary to maintain an industry. On this particular line I feel there is nothing of which the Senate may be more proud than in having reduced this duty to 10 per cent. So far as I am concerned, I intend to stand by this 103’ally, and I say that personally I shall never be found consenting to any further burden being imposed” upon’ the agriculturists in respect of the machinery- they have to us?. . If there is one item in the Tariff in connexion with which the producers, the men upon the soil of this country, may fairly look to have some degree of generous remission extended to them, it is this item of agricultural machinery. I say that if the Senate never did another thing in connexion with this Tariff than the lowering of this duty to 10 per cent., the rate suggested by our request, we shall have done the greatest possible service to the producing interests of this country. I do trust that the duty will be maintained exactly as the committee of the Senate, after a most prolonged and exhaustive debate, have agreed to fix it. The history of the matter shows that the greatestpossible care was taken to do justice and to bo moderate, to be fair to the agriculturist, and to be at the same time fair to those who are embarked in the machine-making industry. It was first proposed that the duty should be Ik per cent., and that was only lost by an equal vote. But for the constitutional rule, 7^ per cent, would probably have been the rate fixed. I am not prepared to say that wiser counsels in that particular did not prevail. At any rate, the spirit of moderation prevailed, and practically another compromise was adopted when the 10 per cent, duty was imposed, and was carried, by a majority of four votes. I mention that for this reason : Even in the House of Representatives there is a spirit abroad in relation to this matter that bodes well for the treatment that the agriculturist will receive. There may be a difference of opinion as to whether the duties upon produce which have been referred to are merely illusory ; whether they are, I will not say gulls to the farmer, but a means adopted for deluding the farmer ; but here there is. a substantial concession, about which there can be no particle of doubt. In the House of Representatives a feeling of fair play in this respect is abroad, and I welcome it and rejoice in it. I find that this request of the Senate, which was agreed to here by a majority of four votes, was declined by the House of Representatives by a majority of only three. I say that the House of Representatives, having displayed this spirit of moderation as indicated by that insignificant majority, will probably feel that it would have been better to have accepted the request we made. The attitude of honorable members of that House, and their language used in regard to our requests, have shown a regard for the constitutional position which the Senate occupies. I believe myself there is spirit of conciliation there. The reasons for the requests of the Senate were either not discussed at all, or were discussed in a most perfunctory way, and it is possible that honorable members in another place overlooked the considerations which were most exhaustively dealt with in the committee of the Senate. I feel certain that, if they have an opportunity to consider them by the light of a comparison, if honorable senators please, between the majorities in the respective Houses, they will be found to agree with our views, and to admit that the rate of duty at which we arrived after an exhaustive debate, and in a spirit of wise moderation, is a fair one, and should be accepted. That is all I desire to say. Read by the light of what was done here, and by the light of the voting as shown in the records of the two Houses, the motion of Senator O’Connor that we should not press our request in this matter is, from my point of view, indefensible.

Senator DRAKE:
PostmasterGeneral · Queensland · Protectionist

. I do not think the honorable and learned senator is quite correct in saying that this request of the Senate was discussed in a perfunctory manner by the other Chamber. I have no fault to find with his statement as to the numbers in the division, but if the honorable and learned senator will turn to Hansard, he will find that our request was very fairly discussed in the other House. It is perfectly true that honorable members’ of the other Chamber did not repeat all the arguments previously used. Why should they ? What earthly good could result from a repetition of arguments which have been urged over and over again ? They did not do that, it is true, but they discussed the matter very fairly, indeed, in the light of the request made, and they deliberately came to the conclusion that the duty should not be less than 15 per cent. We can see clearly, from the debate, that the reason which animated them was that they considered it highly important and beneficial to the country that the agricultural implements required to be used, should be manufactured in Australia in preference to being obtained’ from Germany and America. The debate in another place, if read fairly, brings one to the conclusion that that was a consideration which weighed with honorable members in another place. Apart from that, the quality of the implement should enter into the consideration of the subject, and we know that the quality of implements made in Australia is equal, if not superior, to that of the imported article. It must be a very great advantage to a young community like this to have industries of this kind established in its midst in preference to obtaining these implements from outside. I think that that consideration which weighed so greatly -with members of the House of Representatives should have equal weight with honorable senators. This is a matter in connexion with which we certainly ought to meet the House of Representatives by declining to press our request.

Senator BARRETT:
Victoria

– I do not intend to take up the time of the committee at any very great length. When this question was before us on a previous occasion, I dealt with it as well as I could, and I desire now, before we again come to a decision, to place before the committee certain information which I have obtained in the hope of inducing honorable senators who are prepared to listen to it- to alter the decision previously arrived at. Some honorable senators smile at the statement, but if they are not prepared to weigh evidence, and if they have blindly made up their minds in such a way as to destroy a certain industry, I do not desire that they should listen to me. Honorable senators who appreciate the gravity of the responsibility which rests upon them, should be prepared to listen to any information which may be presented to them, and to weigh it carefully before coming to a decision. It is because I feel very earnestly upon this mattei-, and because I know that this proposal of honorable senators opposite’ will utterly wipe out the agricultural machinery industry of Australia, that I trouble the committee with further facts which have come under my notice. ‘ Those who know anything of the subject know that there never was a more serious position facing the workers in this industry than that facing them at the present moment. The factories are almost idle, and workmen for months past have been walking the streets, because of the uncertainty that exists in regard to this Tariff. Agricultural implements are being imported wholesale, and if we are not prepared to give a substantial amount of protection to the men engaged in this industry, the result must be that they will be compelled to walk the streets. Again I ask honorable senators, who treat this matter very lightly, what are these men to do 1

Senator Clemons:

– They will leave Victoria like the rest.

Senator BARRETT:

– Let me tell the honorable and learned senator that they will not only leave Victoria, but they will leave the Commonwealth.

Senator Clemons:

– They will go to Western Australia where other Victorians have gone.

Senator BARRETT:

– It has been stated here before that this’ is a Victorian industry, but I intend to submit the united statement to all the agricultural implement makers in Victoria, New South Wales, South Australia, and Queensland, These gentlemen, who know something about their business, say that the industry is in peril, that if the 10 per cent, duty is carried they will have to become importers, and their men will be thrown out of employment.

Senator Pulsford:

– That is 10 per cent, more than they ever had in New South Wales.

Senator BARRETT:

– Has the honorable senator made any inquiry as to the condition of the industry in New South Wales ? Although he is a representative of that State he does not know what is going on there.

Senator Pulsford:

– I know that there is a terrific drought there.

Senator BARRETT:

– The honorable senator does not know what the local manufacturers in this case desire. On several occasions he has asked - “ What are they doing in Sydney? What is the Clyde Engineering Company doing1! What are we doing in regard to agricultural implements 1 We have brought our manufactures to a state of perfection without a duty, and we do not need a duty.” Let us hear the views of the Clyde Engineering Company, which, I may say, is the largest company of the kind in New South Wales, and possibly all the people engaged in this industry have not the great interests at stake which it has. In the first telegram I received from its manager, Mr. Walter M. North, he says -

Require 20 per cent.; unable as manufacturers of harvesters to compete with importations.

In a later telegram he says -

We have not absolutely withdrawn from manufacturing harvesters, but 20 per cent, is wanted to enable us to compete with importations. Would go to Melbourne on Monday or later if I would be of service.

Senator Major Gould:

– So that the 15 per cent. duty proposed by the Government will be useless?

Senator BARRETT:

– Fifteen per cent, is not useless. There is a great difference between 20 and 10 per cent. ; the mean between 10 and 20 per cent. is 15 per cent. ; and if possible, we wish to give a protection of 15 per cent., and by that means save their industry, and wait for future events to give them the protection which they need. If honorable senators hadonlystudied the question in the light of what was done in Canada, they would see at once the possibilities which lie before us in the case of this industry. But what do they say ? They turn round and tell us that, if a high duty is imposed, the result will be that the farmers will have to pay more for their implements, that protection enhances the cost, and, consequently, that low duties mean low prices. In order to convince them that they are wrong in making that statement, I propose to quote from the price-lists of Massey-Harris and Co., of Melbourne and Sydney. My point is that protection does not increase the prices.

Senator Pulsford:

– What is the good of it, then?

Senator BARRETT:

– I know that I am touching the honorable senator in a sore place, but if he is not impervious this afternoon, I shall prove conclusively to him that the importers have robbed the New South Wales farmers in the past, when they had a free port ; and speaking in the light of experience, I believe they will rob the farmers in the future if Parliament gives them the opportunity to do so. I make that strong statement in cool blood, and I shall proceed to prove its correctness. It is very difficult to get the price-lists of firms operating in Sydney and Melbourne. The price-lists of Massey-Harris and Co., which I am about to quote, are for the year 1899. It was not possible for me to get their pricelists of a later date, but that does not affect the point I am making, which is, that notwithstanding that Sydney was a free port and the terminus of the steamers - which of course cheapens the freight - that firm charged exactly the same price to the New South Wales farmers as to the Victorian farmers. According to the price-lists, in some cases the firm charged more for the same article in New South Wales than in Victoria, while in many instances exactly the same price was charged in the two States. For instance, in certain cases their charges were as follow”: -

These are only a few instances which I have picked out for my own convenience. If my free-trade friends in New South Wales are open to conviction, they can take the two price-lists and see numerous examples of the kind, showing conclusively that in the past the farmers of their State have been robbed by the importers. Whether you impose a duty of 15 per cent. or 20 per cent., or have a free port, they are prepared to ask the same price for the articles they manufacture. I have also another document which I am going to read.

Senator DAWSON:
QUEENSLAND · ALP

– Has the honorable senator never heard of rings and combines among manufacturers ?

Senator BARRETT:

– That sort of argument will not do here. These facts are too clear and patent, and if my honorable friends can explain the position, they are at perfect liberty to do so. I have given the facts and drawn my deductions from them, and if I am wrong I shall be very glad if honorable senators opposite can prove that to be the case. But I believe that the position is of such a character that it cannot be shaken. I now wish to bring forward another document in support of the position which I advanced on a previous occasion. 1 am going to let the manufacturers of Australia speak for themselves. I hold in my hand a circular letter that has been drawn up by the following firms : -

May Brothers, Gawler, South Australia ; Mar- tin and Co., Gawler, South Australia ; Bagshaw and Son, Adelaide ; Shearer Brothers, Adelaide ; Clyde Engineering Company, Sydney ; Meadowbank Manufacturing Company, Sydney ; Henderson and Son, Corowa ; T. Robinson and Company, Melbourne ; Nicholson and Morrow, Melbourne : H. V. McKay, Ballarat ; Hugh Lennon Company, Melbourne; Mitchell and Co., Melbourne ; Cliff and Bunting, Melbourne ; Beard and Sisson, Melbourne ; Braybrook Implement Company, Melbourne ; S. Gibson, Melbourne.

Senator Pearce:

– The honorable senator spoke of a Western Australian firm.

Senator BARRETT:

– These firms which I have quoted are practically all the firms of implement makers existing in Australia who carry on business to any large extent. I may explain that originally this document came to me in the form of a petition, but as it was not jointly signed by all those interested in it, it could not be presented as a petition. It was simply signed by three or four people on behalf of the firms. As it was not in order in the form of a petition, I will give it to the committee as information for their use. These firms put the case better than any one else could have put it in their behalf. They say -

Sir,. - With reference to the Tariff Bill now before the Senate for further consideration, and more particularly that portion dealing with the duty on agricultural, horticultural, and viticultural machinery, we, the undersigned, being a committee of the trade representing the following manufacturers of agricultural machinery in the Commonwealth - then follow the names of the firms which I have already quoted. desire to point out that the proposed rate of duty on agricultural machinery, namely, 15 per cent, is a reasonable one and should receive the support of honorable senators. During the debate on this item which took place in the Senate, many statements were made which we think require explanation, and’ we will now briefly refer to them.

  1. It was stated that in the colony of New

Zealand the manufacturers of agricultural machinery were enabled to carry ou business there without a protective duty. This statement is hardly correct, as it is a well-known fact in the trade here, and, indeed, the statement has been made by one of the leading manufacturers in New Zealand, that when the duty was taken off agricultural implements there some years ago, the local manufacturers had to relinquish manufacturing as they could not compete with the foreign made articles, and they were forced into becoming importers of these goods instead of making them in the colony as they did formerly. I should like also to inform the committee that this is exactly the position that is taking place now in Victoria. I know a very large firm in Elizabeth-street, Melbourne, who are being forced into the position, because of the condition of the trade, of becoming importers and agents for American firms, and as sure as the duty is reduced to 10 per cent, that will be the result which will follow in regard to all the other firms in the Commonwealth. We cannot compete with the Canadian firms., because they have been long established and are able to send their goods all over the world at a very cheap rate.

In Australia the vast majority of crops of grain are garnered by the complete harvester or Stripper and winnower, which machines have been invented and perfected by Australian manufacturers to suit the requirements of the Australian farmer. New Zealand is a country where the reaper and binder is exclusively used in the process of harvesting, and the complete harvester and stripper and winnower are practically unknown machines, because of their unsuitability to the climatic conditions of the country. The reaper and binder has always been admitted free of duty into all the States of the Commonwealth prior to federation. The relative cost of garnering rain by the reaper and binder is 9s. per acre, and y the complete harvester ls. 6d. per acre, and it will be conceded that the Australian farmer has a great deal to be thankful for to the Australian manufacturers, because but for this machine he could not have made wheat-growing ‘a profitable industry owing to the low prices which prevail. It will be seen, therefore, that the New Zealand manufacturers have nob been called upon to use their inventive faculties for the purpose of producing a machine for the economic garnering of grain for the reason already given ; consequently their ease is hardly on all fours with ours. The same remark applies to ploughs and other important farming implements, as the farmer knows the locally-made article is the best

Mid most endurable, but it is in the underselling that the foreign manufacturer gets the advantage, as we will now proceed to show’.

  1. The statement has been made that implements admitted free of duty cheapen their cost to the farmer, and that a protective duty relatively enhances their cost, but we submit that whatever may be the theory it is not worked out by fact.

Unfortunately that is the case when we apply many of the theories of honorable senators opposite to our actual experience. These theories are often very nice in themselves, but when they are reduced to practice we find that they prove impracticable, and very often totally useless.

Take the case of the reaper and binder to which we have previously referred. This implement has always been admitted duty free, and yet it is an absolute fact that a fe w years ago it was sold to farmers at £65, whereas now the same machine can be purchased at from .-£25 to £35. What is the cause of this great difference in the price? Certainly not the cheaper means of manufacturing in America, as the ruling wholesale price there has always been about £19 to £21 per machine, but the reason of the reduction is the extraordinarily keen competition existing between the various American firmsand combines which have come amongst us during the past few years, each with a seeming determination to monopolize the trade in Australia.

That is where the cheapness will come in. But protect our local agricultural implement manufacturers, and the competition between them will reduce their prices to the lowest degree.

Some years ago the manufacturers of New Zealand used to make reapers and binders under a protective duty, and notwithstanding the fact that at that time the same machines were admitted duty free in Australia, they were sold at a much lower price in New Zealand. This continued to be the case until the duty was removed, when the local manufacturers were obliged to cease manufacturing, and, us a result, almost immediately afterwards, the price of the machines was raised by the importers to that obtained in the Australian markets.

That is a very old game. Crush out the local article, and then the price of the machine goes up, as it will do if honorable senators opposite are successful on this occasion in imposing only a revenue duty upon these machines. The local manufacture will be strangled, and at once the price of all these articles will go up. The farmer will not be benefited, but on the contrary will suffer severely.

It will thus be seen that the competition keeps the prices right for the farmer, and the rate of duty we ask is to enable us to compete in some measure with the foreign manufacturer, whose object is to monopolize trade, and create combines which when established haveno consideration whatever as regards prices for the consumer. The American manufacturers have of late years exploited our markets, they have sent to their works samples of our locally made implements of all descriptions, and have copied them, and they are now competing with these imitations of our goods. This, we submit, is unfair competition, and as our factories have been established in the Commonwealth at a very great expense, we are entitled to some consideration. The decision of the Senate will materially affect the interests of some thousands of work-people in the Commonwealth, and we trust they willagree to allow the duty of 15 per cent, on agricultural implements to remain.

This letter is signed by the firms which I mentioned at an earlier stage in my speech, and they comprise the whole of the agricultural implement manufacturers in Australia of any note. I regret that there has not been a larger attendance of honorable senators to hear what I have to urge at this critical stage of our proceedings. Many honorable senators appear to have made up their minds, and they are not prepared to listen to reasonable arguments which may be advanced to induce them to retrace their steps.

Senator Pearce:

– There are four protectionists and seven free-traders listening at the present time to the honorable senator.

Senator BARRETT:

– That accounts felonly eleven out of 36 honorable senators. My remarks apply equally to free-traders and protectionists alike, and the result of the division on this item, together with any other which may take place in these circumstances, will guide me in determining what attitude I shall adopt when the critical moment comes to consider the Tariff as a whole. This is the first occasion during the present week upon which I have spoken, so that I have not inflicted myself upon the committee. I am here to-day to discharge a public duty - to plead for the working men of Australia, and those who have embarked their capital in this industry - and I do hope that, even at this late hour, honorable senators opposite will agree not to press this request. I suppose, however, that the matter has already been determined in caucus. Where is the leader of the Opposition, and where are his supporters 1 If they have already made up their minds upon this question, it is hardly worth while bringing forward evidence to show why the committee should not press this request. I have, however, discharged my duty. I feel just as keenly upon this question as if I were personally affected by it, because I am in sympathy with those who earn their living in this industry. Most of us have been workmen. Most of us have worked in shops and factories, and we know what has been the effect of a change of Tariff upon our industry.

Senator DAWSON:
QUEENSLAND · ALP

– We know what has been the result of our failure to make a change on finding out that we have made a mistake.

Senator BARRETT:

– We shall make a mistake if we press our request to reduce this duty. I trust that the committee may be led to see the wisdom of retaining the duty of 15 per cent., and “giving some protection to Australian workmen and those who have embarked their capital in this industry.

Senator DAWSON:
QUEENSLAND · ALP

– I regret very much that there was not a larger attendance of honorable senators to hear the speecli just delivered by Senator Barrett, for. he really succeeded in showing very clearly that our request should be affirmed. The honorable senator produced his authorities, and drew from them the deduction that under a free-trade Tariff in New South Wales the importers have robbed their customers. Even if we admit that the New South Wales importers are brigands and thieves of the first water, and that they will continue to be thieves - that it is in their nature, and that they cannot help it - the honorable senator has not shown that by retaining the duty of 15 per cent. upon this machinery, we shall make honest men of them, and lead them to deal fairly with their customers. The experience of the civilized world is that more honest dealing is secured under free And open competition than it is possible to -obtain in countries where trade is restricted - that if there is any set of fiscal circum- stances which lends itself to rings and combines, it is that associated with a high protective policy. So far as this argument is -concerned, I think that Senator Barrett completely answered himself, and a proper -consideration of his statements should lead .hiin to change his opinion.

Senator O’Connor:

– Where there is a

Monopoly of a market either by manufacturers or importers the same thing occurs-.

Senator DAWSON:
QUEENSLAND · ALP

– Surely Senator O’Connor will realize that it is easier for monopolists to operate in a highly protective State - because of the comparative smallness of their numbers - than it is for them to do so with an open port.

Senator O’Connor:

– It works both ways.

Senator DAWSON:
QUEENSLAND · ALP

– But not with the same facility. The honorable and learned senator must see that it would be much easier to form a combine within the Commonwealth, to work disastrously against the interests of those who deal with it, than to form a combine extending throughout the rest of the civilized world to operate within J;he Commonwealth.

Senator O’Connor:

– We know what has actually taken place.

Senator DAWSON:
QUEENSLAND · ALP

– We do not know that there is a ring existing in the rest of the civilized world to fleece the consumers in the Commonwealth. We have seen a manifestation of the operation of a ring on a small scale in a highly protective State in Australia.

Senator Styles:

– “Will the honorable senator give one instance of a combine in “Victoria ?

Senator DAWSON:
QUEENSLAND · ALP

– I think that the honorable senator mentioned one when the Tariff wa.s previously before us.

Senator Styles:

– That was a ring of coal importers in New South Wales.

Senator DAWSON:
QUEENSLAND · ALP

– I notice that those who favour a high Tariff have on every possible occasion put forward the idea - whether it has been apropos or not - that it is utterly impossible for anything Australian to compete with manufactures from abroad. They seem to consider that the people of Australia are like helpless babes. It appears to me that we are often afraid to try to compete with importations from abroad ; and that we anticipate failure almost before we make a start. I fail to see why we should not be able to succeed in any direction. We have been considering what duty, if any, should govern the importation of foodstuffs produced by the very class which will benefit by the reduction of this duty. It has been urged by Senator O’Connor, and those who support him, that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of our farmers to impose high protective duties upon agricultural products, because it is impossible for them to produce, in open competition with the producers of other parts of the world, a sufficient quantity of foodstuffs and of the right quality to feed our own people. If that statement be true, and if it be true, as asserted by Senator Stewart, that it is our bounden ‘ duty to do all that we can to enable our farmers to stand, upon an equal footing with those of other countries, I would remind those honorable senators that they have now a suitable opportunity to give the farmers of the Commonwealth the advantage of the best brains, not only of Australia, but of the whole of the civilized world. Whatever machinery is necessary to till the soil and to reap the produce should be in the hands of our farmers as speedily and as cheaply as possible. Instead of urging that we cannot compete with foreign competitors, we should strive for a maximum of production at a minimum of cost. We have the rich soil, and we have the area. We have an industrious and an intelligent people, who compare favourably with the people of any other country, and with our natural protection, I think we can stand against any one who. may seek to compete with us.

Senator Sir Josiah Symon:

– It would be a shame to say anything else.

Senator DAWSON:
QUEENSLAND · ALP

– I think too much of my fellow Australian citizens to say anything to the contrary.

Senator De Largie:

– Then why is the honorable senator afraid to allow the Chinese to enter into competition with the people of Australia?

Senator DAWSON:
QUEENSLAND · ALP

– Surely there is a difference between the standard of civilization of the Chinese and the white man ? Senator Barrett dilated this afternoon upon the harvester, or some agricultural implement of great benefit to the agriculturist. He told us that it reduced the cost of production, and that it was a purely Australian invention, but a smart Yankee appears to have got hold of it, and is manufacturing it largely in America, and selling it with great advantage to himself here in Australia. I should like to know what thathas to do with the question of whether the duty in this instance should be 10 per cent. or 15 per cent. It appears to me that the man who had brains enough to invent this particular implement did not possess enough everyday horse sense to secure himself against the Yankee. Senator Barrett seems to think that this has been due to the laxity of the patent laws of America, but surely we have our own patent laws, and this instrument could not be palmed off as an American patent if it had been properly patented in Victoria.

Senator Pearce:

– The American patent laws are the best in the world.

Senator DAWSON:
QUEENSLAND · ALP

– They have always been supposed to be, but I understood Senator Barrett to claim that it was because of their laxity that this mischief had been done. Another matter to which I think immediate attention should be directed is the present condition of this industry in Australia, and particularly in Victoria. Senator Barrett informs us that the position of affairs is so bad that a large number of the factories and foundries are closed, and that many men who ought to be working full time and earning ample wages are in consequence unable to do so. While the honorable senator and those who think with him, or at least vote with him, do not explicitly say so, they leave it to be understood, and I believe they understand it to be so themselves, that the reason why these factories are closed, or are not working full time, is because a particular percentage of duty is proposed under this Tariff, 10 per cent. instead of 15 per cent. as collected now. I say emphatically that that has nothing whatever to do with it. I should like to have a plain and unmistakable statement from these honorable senators that it is because the House of Representatives cannot secure a duty of 15 per cent. rather than of 10 per cent. upon this item that these factories are closed inVictoria. Surely no one has the temerity at this hour of the day to doubt the truth of what appears in our daily newspapers ? Yet when we read them we find that it is not the difference between 10 and 15 per cent. duty upon agricultural machinery which is causing these factories to be closed. I am sure that Senator Barrett has not only read it, but has also heard from respectable citizens of Victoria, that it is the fact that it is the Factories Act which is in full operation in this State that is responsible foreverything, including the drought. I am given to understand that the great depression existing in Queensland, and the closing of factories there, has been brought about because the Commonwealth Parliament has passed an Anti-Kanaka Act, and in New South Wales people are satisfied that all existing evils are due generally to federation. We have had all these reasons given to account for depression, and now Senator Barrett wishes us to believe that the depression in this industry is due to a possible difference between 10 per cent.and 15 per cent., and to the fact that the Senate appears to be determined that the duty on agricultural implements shall be 10 per cent.

Senator Drake:

– That was not his argument. He says that a duty which will keep importations out will stimulate the trade.

Senator DAWSON:
QUEENSLAND · ALP

– The reduced duty is not yet in operation, and yet we are told that the factories are closed. What warrant is there for believing that an extra 5 per cent. of duty will cause an additional hand to be employed in Victoria or any other State?

Senator Barrett:

– It will stop importations from America. At present the manufacturers are afraid to manufacture implements because they fear that they will be swamped by American importations.

Senator DAWSON:
QUEENSLAND · ALP

– How is it the market is not swamped now? The 15 per cent. is still collected. My opinion is that if the Australian farmer is to supply the local market, and to meet the demands of those engaged in other occupations at a reasonable rate and at a profit to himself, and if at the same time he is to stand healthy competition from outside the Commonwealth, the first thing we must do for him is to afford ‘him every opportunity of getting the most he can possibly get out of his land at the lowest possible cost. One of the best methods of doing that is to put into his hands the most modern, up-to-date, and cheapest implements it is possible to give him. If we say that he is not to use implements made outside of Australia, Our duty is not to carp and haggle over a difference of 5 per cent. If that is the idea, honorable senators should not contend for a duty of 15 per cent. They should make no mistake -whatever about it, but should bring about total prohibition by imposing a duty of 500 per cent. If the farmer is to have a plough

Ave should make it as easy as possible for Mm to get it, and if we can do so, while at the same time having a kindly consideration for the revenue, by pressing the request of the Senate, and by fixing the duty at 10 per cent, we shall strike the happy medium.

Senator O’KEEFE:
Tasmania

– I had nothing to say on the items of machinery when they were previously before the committee ; but as this is one of the most important of the items remaining in dispute between the two Houses, I desire to say a word or two upon it. In voting for a duty of 15 per cent, when the matter was previously before us, I was guided by several reasons. One was that I believed that before a uniform Tariff for Australia could be passed in the Commonwealth Parliament, there must be a great deal of give and take. Under this head the duty as first proposed in the House of Representatives was 25 per cent. After a long fight it was reduced to 20 per cent., and after a second long fight it wa-s further reduced to 15 per cent., and under the circumstances, I think the dutv as adopted by the other House might be considered a very fair compromise as between free-traders and protectionists. I do not suppose that there is a member in either House of the Federal Parliament who has had more to do with extensive mining undertakings than the honorable member for Kooyong, Mr. Knox. No member of either House has been more deeply interested during the last 25 or 30 years in the biggest Australian mining concerns, and yet he was prepared to accept the motion finally reducing the duty upon mining machinery to 15 per cent.

Senator Clemons:

– Is there a member’ of either House, who knows less about politics?

Senator Sir Josiah Symon:

– We do not accept Mr. Knox’s guidance, »

Senator O’KEEFE:

– Honorable senators seem to be perturbed by the- mention of Mr. Knox’s name. That gentleman was satisfied that bed rock had been reached at 15 per cent. As a man personally interested in the imposition of the lowest possible duty for mining machinery, Mr. Knox was satisfied to accept a duty of 15 per cent.

Senator DAWSON:
QUEENSLAND · ALP

– He spoke of mining machinery only, and he had no warrant from any public body for what he said.

Senator O’KEEFE:

– He had the warrant of his own pocket and his own interests, and that is a pretty good warrant for any man.

Senator Sir Josiah Symon:

– Does the honorable senator mean to say that Mr. Knox was actuated by a consideration for his own interests ?

Senator O’KEEFE:

– Men are often actuated, to a certain extent, by a consideration for their own interests. I should not, of course, like to say that any honorable senators in this committee would be so actuated, but reductions of duties have been supported here in the case of articles in which some honorable senators have been interested. If we are ever to get finality, and to pass a uniform Tariff for the different States, there must be some give and take; and I believe that 15 per cent, is as low a duty as we can reasonably expect the makers of machinery in Australia to accept. Speaking for myself, almost since I was as high as the table, I have been interested in mining and mining fields ; and, in a small way, a reduction of the duty from 15 to 10 per cent, might favourably affect me.

Senator Sir J Josiah Symon:

– We are dealing now with agricultural machinery.

Senator O’KEEFE:

– That is so, but I take it that the whole of .this discussion relates to machinery, and whatever is said upon the first item will apply to those which follow, seeing that the Senate has already made a uniform request in connexion with the duty upon all machinery.

Senator Clemons:

– There is a little place called Tasmania where this machinery was admitted free.

Senator O’KEEFE:

– Agricultural machinery was admitted free there, but there was a duty of 10 per cent, upon mining machinery. Why the difference? I believe that agricultural machinery should not be placed on a better footing than mining machinery.

Senator Pearce:

– We do not propose that.

Senator O’KEEFE:

– The Opposition propose to adhere to the request for a 10 per cent, duty all round. I would deal with the machinery duties as a whole. I submit that the other House had arrived at a very fair compromise when it reduced the duty from 25 to 20, and eventually to 15 percent. Although I am interested in the mining industry, and have no interest in the manufacturing industry, I consider that Parliament will be doing a very bad thing for the workers of Australia if it reduces the duty to a point which will injure the latter. The machinery manufacturers can.not suffer, and their men be thrown out of work without indirectly injuring the workers in the mining industry. If men are thrown out of the machinery factories, to what places will the)’ gol They will go to the mines as unskilled labourers and bringdown the rate of wages, as has been done over and

Over again. I know that it has been done in Tasmania. I do not think that any representative of Western Australia will deny that when men are thrown out of work and cannot get employment at their own trade, the tendency is for them to go to the mining fields. I am satisfied that, from the Australian point of view, it will be better tofix this duty at»15 per cent. It has been dearly shown that nothing less than that rate will allow very many of these factories to be carried on. It will be very difficult, indeed, for any honorable senators to controvert the figures and the facts which were submitted by Senator Barrett. If we are going to hold out the olive branch let it be done in connexion with some item on which the other House has compromised to a very large extent. Surely no one will deny that in this case a very big compromise has been made between two .sets of opinions. If there is no chance of the other House accepting our request - and I do not believe there is - what position will honorable senators be in then 1 They will be in exactly the same position then as they are in now. If they wish to get a uniform Tariff they might as well give way now as yield then.

Senator Sir Josiah Symon:

– Why ? The request was carried by a majority of four, and in the other House it was dissented from by a majority of only three.

Senator O’KEEFE:

– The honorable and learned senator ought not to ask that question, because, as leader of the free-trade party here, he knows perfectly well that an enormous compromise was made between the free-traders and the protectionists in the other House.

Senator Sir Josiah Symon:

– No ; the statement is absolutely without foundation.

Senator O’KEEFE:

– That statement is only in accordance with many others which the honorable and learned senator has made. If honorable senators on the other side are prepared to agree to a duty of 1 2^ per cent., why does not one of them stand up and propose that the request be modified in that direction 1

Senator STYLES:
Victoria

– I should not have risen, only that I think Senator Dawson was rather severe upon Senator Barrett. Senator Dawson cannot understand why 5 per cent, should make any difference in a protective duty. He thinks that it would make very little difference whether the duty was 10 or 15 per cent.

Senator DAWSON:
QUEENSLAND · ALP

– I said that if your reasons were correct, I could not see why 5 per cent, should make a difference.

Senator STYLES:

– It makes a great difference. A 10 per cent, duty would not enable the manufacturers to carry on, but a 15 per cent, duty would enable them to compete with importers. I apprehend that one of the objects we should have in view is to set the importer against the manufacturer and the manufacturer against the importer to some extent, in order to protect the users of the articles. The honorable senator spoke of rings and combines in Australia. I asked him to name a ring or combine which has been the outcome of protection in Victoria or in Australia, and he could not cite one case. He said that he thought he had heard me refer to one. He alluded to the coal importers’ ring, from which I suffered many years ago. It can be easily understood why a ring or a combine can be formed much more readily by importers than by manufacturers. In most cases manufacturers start in a very small way. As there is a great number of them - I believe that in Victoria alone they number 400 or 500 - it is a difficult thing for a ring to be formed. It is not so difficult for half-a-dozen wealthy importers to combine. If we are to suffer from combines, I would rather have a combine in Australia than outside. We should have no control over a combine formed outside the Commonwealth, but a combine formed inside the Commonwealth might be subjected to control. I was rather surprised at the gibe of Senator Clemons against his fellow free-trader, Mr. Knox, who has had the honour of an interview with the President of the United States, because I am quite sure that it has added lustre to the free-trade party in this Parliament. Senator Dawson talked of prohibition in connexion with this item. Supposing that there was prohibition, there would be sufficient manufacturers to compete with one another, as they do in the case of hats. Senator Symon told us only yesterday that in his State Victorian hats compete with imported hats, showing that it is a good thing to have manufacturers in Australia. Without such competition there could, and no doubt would, be combines. The bigger the trade is the more likely are those combines to be outside the control of the Commonwealth. I have the greatest respect for a consistent free-trader, but not for a free-trader like Senator Dawson, whom I find one day voting for protective duties, and next day ridiculing a protective duty of only 15 per cent. One day he votes for a protective duty on articles produced in Queensland. He also supports a duty of £6 a ton on sugar produced in Queensland, and in order to favour the white men there, he said - “We shall impose on sugar an .excise duty of £1 a ton when grown by white labour, and £3 a ton when grown by black labour.” The people of Victoria and the other States where sugar is not grown pay that duty ungrudgingly. The working men who pay the bulk of the duty do not complain, though, of course, the Argus will always complain as the mouth-piece of the persons who are well off. What I wish to point out is the inconsistency of a free-trader, and a labour representative too, who will consent to impose this enormous duty on sugar for which I voted, but who, in the case of agricultural implements, thinks that a 15 per cent, duty may be prohibitive. These implements are not made to any great extent in Queensland, but they are made to a great extent in Victoria. That is some more of the geographical free-trade of which we have heard so much. Harvesters, he says, are made in America. The pattern was taken from Victoria, and the machines are turned out by the thousand in America. Senator Dawson approves of the importation of the machines, otherwise he would not vote for a 10 per cent duty. His argument is - “Let the money go away to employ the artisans of America, and not the artisans of Australia, where the machines were first invented and made, and where they can be made in any number, though at the present time not so cheaply as in America.” The demand here is not large enough to induce the manufacturers to turn out the machinesby the thousand every year. But with a bigger population settled on the lands, the time will come when they will be made as cheaply in Australia as in America, lt is the same with reapers and binders. In America, some of the establishments turn out tens of thousands of these machines in one year, or more than are required in Australia altogether. Senator Dawson says - “ Let us get the machines from the cheapest place. We shall send our money to America instead of employing our own people to make the machines here.”

Senator DAWSON:
QUEENSLAND · ALP

– Did the honorable senator hear me say that 1

Senator STYLES:

– I understood that that was the drift of the honorable senator’s argument.

Senator DAWSON:
QUEENSLAND · ALP

– I am not responsible for Senator Styles’ understanding.

Senator STYLES:

– I am delighted to hear that. Certainly the drift of the honorable senator’s argument was that he did not want these machines to be made here. What other inference can be drawn when the honorable senator says that a duty of 10 per cent, is enough ?

Senator DAWSON:
QUEENSLAND · ALP

– I believe that it is too much.

Senator Clemons:

Senator Styles knows that the local maker will live up to the duty whatever it is.

Senator STYLES:

– The competition amongst the manufacturers keeps down prices.

Senator Barrett:

– What about the price lists which I read 1

Senator STYLES:

– I have no doubt they were correct.

Senator Pearce:

– Perhaps they were like the- statements of Messrs. Lewis and Whitty.

Senator STYLES:

– We have heard enough about the starch question. I am surprised at the young free-trade authority from Western Australia bringing up starch again. What has it got to do with agricultural implements? I like to see a man consistent. Senator Dawson voted for protection only yesterday, when it was a question of protecting commodities produced in Queensland.

Senator PEARCE:

– Even the gods nod.

Senator STYLES:

– I can understand a consistent free-trader. I have the greatest respect for my honorable friend Senator Pulsford. But yesterday one of the freetrade gods nodded when he voted for high duties.

Senator DAWSON:
QUEENSLAND · ALP

– The honorable senator was a low-tariffist last night

Senator STYLES:

– Another god nodded then. The object of these remarks is to show that Senator Dawson is rather inconsistent in not assisting the agricultural implement makers, and in being a protectionist on one occasion and a free-trader on another.

Senator PEARCE (Western Australia). - Senator O’Keefe opened up a phase of this discussion that we ought to follow. We ought not at this stage to go into the merits of the duty so ‘much as the reasons why we press for our request being agreed to by the House of Representatives. Senator O’Keefe says that what is proposed is in the nature of a compromise with the duty sent to us by the House of Representatives. The compromise we should endeavour to effect is one with the people outside Parliament. We ought to ascertain what the will of the people is in Regard to these duties on agricultural machinery. They expressed their opinion by means of the duties in the State Tariffs. Through four of the State Tariffs the people said - “ We will not tax mining and agricultural machinery.” In two of the State Tariffs the people imposed a duty on these goods. We should, therefore, endeavour to ascertain what would be a fair compromise as between the four States which had no duties on agricultural machinery, and the two States which imposed duties.

Senator Drake:

– The honorable senator has not been in the habit of agreeing to compromises of that kind.

Senator PEARCE:

– But if we are going to look at this matter from the point of view of compromise, what I have indicated is what we ought to take into consideration. As two States had a duty of only 15 per cent., we cannot say that 15 per cent, is a compromise duty. Surely 10 per cent, is more in the nature of a compromise than 15 per cent. Senator Styles has asked Senator Dawson to mention some articies in regard to which a combine has been formed as the result of duties. Our experience in Western Australia has been sufficient to supply an answer to that demand.

Senator Styles:

– I said in a protectionist State.

Senator PEARCE:

– In Western Australia we had a Tariff imposed for protectionist purposes. There were duties on stock, on meat, and on flour. We very soon had a ring, formed by the dealers in meat and by the flour millers. We should look at the question of the manufacture of agricultural implements in a reasonable light. Does any one find the American manufacturer Competing successfully with the Australian manufacturer in regard to any machinery the patent rights of which are held here ? Does the .American compete successfully with the Australian in the manufacture of stump-jumping ploughs? Of course not, because in that case there is an Australian patent and practically an Australian monopoly in manufacture. But when we come to machinery that is used in America as well as in Australia - such as the cultivator - it stands to reason that the American manufacturer can beat the Australian, because he has a wider market. One factory can turn out enough machines to supply the demands of all Australia, and when there are half-a-dozen factories in Australia, how can they expect to compete with one big American factory, capable of turning out an enormous number of machines 1 A duty of 1 5 per cent, would not be sufficient for that purpose. But, in my opinion, we should look not so much to the interests of the manufacturers as of the consumers, because it is the people who use these goods - it is the farmer and the miner - upon whom the prosperity of Australia must rest. If the miners, and the farmers, and the pastoral community are prosperous, manufactures will follow in the wake of their prosperity. The experience of Western Australia has proved the truth of that statement. Senator Styles always seems to think that if there are no protective duties there can be no manufactures. But we have had manufactures established in “Western Australia without protective duties for their benefit. Our experience as a young community proves that when ‘the primary industries are prospering, the manufacturers who supply their wants will also prosper without any artificial stimulus. The great fallacy of the protective policy is in attempting to give an artificial stimulus to industries. That causes the establishment of a greater number of manufactures than are needed, and we quickly have a condition of overproduction. Then follows the unemployed trouble. Notwithstanding the high Tariff in Victoria, I defy any one to prove that protective duties were a cure for the unemployed trouble.

Senator Higgs:

– Free-trade is no cure.

Senator PEARCE:

– I know that it is not; but Senator Barrett claims that by imposing high protective duties, we. shall be giving employment to artisans, when he knows as well as any member of this Senate that all the high protective duties of Victoria have failed to find work for the unemployed.

Senator Barrett:

– Let the honorable senator ask tho Agricultural Implement Makers’ Society what they think, and he will get a warm response.

Senator PEARCE:

– Because they are under the same delusion as Senator Barrett. I suppose he means that they would try to impress their views upon me by force. These very same men only a few days ago passed a resolution to the effect that the State should not make its own railway trucks, but should leave their manufacture to private employers. Is that any reason why I should say that the State ought not to make its own railway trucks? I have quite as much sympathy for the unemployed as has the honorable senator.

Senator Barrett:

– The honorable senator’s votes do not show it.

Senator PEARCE:

– My votes are not cast in the same direction as those of Senator Barrett upon this Tariff, because I recognise that the cure he offers for the unemployed trouble is simply a delusion and a snare, and that is proved by the history of the State he represents. Protection has not cured, but has accentuated the unemployed problem in Victoria, and I am not going to cast a vote to perpetuate that policy. “Will any one say that if we imposed a duty of 15 per cent, on agricultural implements, work would be found for the unemployed ? Of course, it would not be. I again urge’ that if honorable senators desire to compromise they should recollect that there was no duty On agricultural implements in four of the States before federation. Notwithstanding this fact, however, there were 8,650 employes engaged in this industry in those States, whereas in the States which had protection there were only 8,410 employes. On these grounds I urge that 10 per cent, is a fair compromise and should be accepted by the Senate-

Senator EWING (Western AustralianThere is a great deal in what Senator Pearce has said, that if we are going to compromise we should consider the needs of all the States. We are here as representatives of all the States, and it should be our endeavour to compromise with a view to their interests. As to the unemployed trouble, the real cure for it is the development of our mines, of our farming, and of every natural industry we possess as far as possible. If the miners and the farmers are prosperous there will be a large demand for mining and agricultural machinery. Senator Baker admitted that the duties, which were imposed ostensibly for the benefit of the farmers, would confer no real good, and no one ever pretended that the miners would derive any advantage from the imposts levied under the Tariff. The duties are framed with a view to benefit the workers and manufacturers of the large cities.

Senator Styles:

– Those are the men who mainly keep the mines going.

Senator EWING:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– Has the honorable senator taken leave of his senses ? Nothing could be more ridiculous than to say that the manufacturers of Victoria keep going the mines of Western Australia and Queensland. The only benefit we can confer upon the farmers is that which may be derived by them from the facilities offered for obtaining the most modern machinery at reasonable prices.

Senator HIGGS:
Queensland

– I cannot allow this important item to pass without saying a few words. Senator Symon remarked that we should not take any notice of opinions expressed by Customs officers. He further stated that it was most embarrassing to Customs officials to be called upon to express opinions regarding matters of policy, and Senator Fraser concurred in that view. Both these honorable senators, however, accepted the opinion of Dr. Maxwell, a gentleman who was employed by the Queensland Government, upon another matter which was recently under discussion in this Chamber.

Senator Fraser:

– He was an expert specially brought here to give us the benefit of his opinion.

Senator HIGGS:

– He was just as much a public servant as is a Customs- officer, and the only difference between them is one of salary. They are both experts in their own departments. Senator Symon stated that the Customs officer from whom the opinion was obtained, was a creature of the Government, but the same term might with as much justice be applied to Dr. Maxwell. I have some information showing how the reduction of the duty upon machinery is affecting the manufacturers within the Commonwealth. Messrs. Nicholson and Morrow, of Melbourne, have practically closed their works; Mr. H. B. McKay, of Ballarat, discharged 70 men fourteen days ago; M!essrs. Mitchell and Co., of Melbourne, have reduced their staff, and are working their employes for half-time. Messrs. T. Robinson and Co. have been working their men for half-time throughout the year. Mr. Hugh Lennon has reduced his staff, and those who remain in the works are employed only half-time, and the Clyde Engineering Works of New South Wales have not turned out any harvesting machines this year owing to the unsettled state of the Tariff and the reduction of the duty. The same remarks apply to the Meadow Bank Works near Sydney. Messrs. Cliff and Bunting have been working their hands half-time only for the last three months. These firms directly employ painters, tinsmiths, blacksmiths, carpenters, fitters and turners, bolt and nut makers, and ironrollers ; and indirectly they afford employment to coal-miners, timber-getters, railway employes, leather-belt makers, foundrymen and printers. These facts should weigh with honorable members. The manufacturers have found their operations hampered owing to the attacks made upon the duties by the free-traders, who are engaged in a conspiracy to ruin their business. I do not consider the attitude of the free-trade party at all fair, in view .of the fact that we are protecting the farmer to a very considerable extent. I have here a publication containing a series of articles which appeared in the Melbourne Age some time ago. The contributors to that paper have carefully studied the question of free-trade and protection, and show a more intimate acquaintance with the subject than do the writers for any other of the Australian newspapers, except, perhaps, the Sydney Bulletin. One of the paragraphs reads as follows : -

It is not difficult to track the trail of this pretence, and show just where it leads to. The farmer is told that when he pays 15 per cent, duty, or 15s. to 40s. on his plough, he is weighted with an unjust burden That 15s. is to be reduced to 5s. and 10 per cent, added to the tea and coffee duties. We can easily see how this will work out. A plough will last fifteen years at least. That is a colonial-made plough. Not an imported one - which will not last half as long. The present duty on the plough, spread over fifteen years, means from 8d. to 2s. per year, according to the cost of the article. But if the free-trader is permitted to take the 10s. oft’ the farmer’s plough, and put 10 per cent, extra on his tea and coffee, instead of costing him 8d. per year, it would increase the cost of his living by at least ls. per month. This would save the farmer 8d. a year, and tax him 12s. a year. A free-trade method of relieving him.

The members of the free-trade party, with few exceptions, endeavoured to impose duties upon kerosene and tea. Senator Pearce and one or two other enlightened members of that party were, however, in favour of the admission of those articles free of duty. We afford protection to the farmer by imposing duties upon grain of all kinds, cattle, pigs, sheep, butter, cheese, eggs, fresh and preserved meats, provisions, green and preserved fruits, potatoes, Hour, jams, chicory, broom-corn, cider, pulse, malt, hops, tobacco, sugar, wine, ale and beer made with malt and hops, biscuits made of prepared grain, leather, preserved milk, grass and clover seeds, olive and other oils, pickles and sauces, and canary seed. All these “articles are protected by the imposition of duties higher than 15 per cent. In order to further assist the farmer, we admit free of duty kerosene, tea, manures of every kind, cream separators and testers, sewingmachines, sheep-shears, sickles, horses, adzes, cattle, sheep, pigs, and poultry, for the improvement of breeds ; axes, bones, bran bags, garden shears, grindstones, minor articles for making whips, &c, hay-knives, rabbit-traps, scouring machinery, scythes, and spades. Surely, under the circumstances, we may fairly ask chose engaged in agricultural and similar pursuits to pay 15 per cent, duty on any imported machinery they may wish to use. It has been explained that the price of the machinery required by the farmer is not likely to be raised on account of the duty, because the importer will, without doubt, reduce his prices. There has been no demand on the part of the farmers for a reduction of the duty upon machinery. Not one public meeting has been called to advocate such a a change, but, on the other hand, farmers who have spoken on public occasions have expressed themselves in favour of protective duties. That should weigh with those honorable senators who appear to have some motive, other than a question relating to the Tariff, in pressing these requests.

Senator PULSFORD:

– What is the hidden object ?

Senator HIGGS:

– To endeavour to glorify the free-trade party at the expense of the Commonwealth ; to snatch a victory because there have been some accidental appearances in the Federal Parliament so far as the fiscal question is concerned. In some contests that question was not mentioned, but if the elections were fought again, possibly the free-traders might not have the majority of one or two, which they find so invaluable at the present time. Honorable senators have heard of the very lengthy discussion which took place in the House of Representatives upon this item. The Government originally proposed a duty of 25 per cent., but that rate was ultimately reduced to 15 per cent. Honorable senators of the Opposition, appear to be willing to compromise only when they have counted heads - when they know that Senator Dobson or Senator Baker or some other honorable senator is not going to vote with them. I have here a letter written by the secretary of . the Victorian Protectionists’ Association, Mr. Mauger, M.P., which contains an important statement made by a leading machinery firm. The statement is as follows : -

We cannot compete against the foreigner successfully, for the following reasons : - The price of labour with him is much cheaper than with us. They have a longer working day, immense supply of all kinds of raw material close at hand, at much lower rates. He has the world’s markets close to his own ports, and the fact that he can turn out his machines in thousands to our hundreds, enables him to erect expensive and up to date machinery, and thereby lessen the cost of production. The goods are invoiced to the branch houses of Australia at manufacturers’ cost price, as they are only dealing among themselves, and the duty paid here is not a fair calculation. The distance of Australia from the other parts of the globe is not very much protection as far as freights ave concerned.

Senator Pulsford:

– It is a very great protection.

Senator HIGGS:

– The letter continues -

These are cut so low by subsidized companies that machines cun be landed in Australia from America for the same amount as it would cost to send them from, say, Melbourne to any port in other States of the Commonwealth. At the present time, there is not one firm in the country that is making any money in the business, and it is merely a question of who will last the longest. With the immense wealth behind the foreigners, there can be little doubt as to the result, and when once they have the local manufacturers out of the way, they can fix their own prices. Once local industries have been destroyed, it will be a hard matter to rebuild them, as it is much easier to destroy than to establish.–

That is a truism which the free-trade iconoclasts of the Opposition should paste up in their bedrooms.

Throughout the year we employ between 80 and 100 hands all told, and pay annually over £6,000 in wages without taking into consideration the cost and malleable iron foundries and numerous other industries which are partially dependent upon this trade for their existence. It is only’ during the post few years that the Americans have copied the local articles, and to show the harm they have done us, we give our turnover for the last four years as follows: - 1898, £21,167 ; 1899, £19,100;” 1900, £19,052; 1901, £17,834.

Senator Glassey:

– What firm is that?

Senator HIGGS:

– An important Australian machinery firm whose name is not disclosed. The statement continues -

To show which way the wind blows, we may say that we have now secured the agency for one line of American machinery, and are arranging about others, as we find that it will pay us better to import than to manufacture under existing circumstances.

Who can blame this large manufacturing firm if, finding that they cannot compete with the American firms, they become importers’ agents ? In other protected industries, such as the clothing trade, we find that great importing free-trade firms are becoming manufacturers. The firm of Messrs. McArthur and Co., of Sydney, of which Sir William McMillan is one of the chief members, has extended its operations in this direction. It has actually sent to this be- nighted State to secure, as a manager for its factory, Mr. Fotheringham, who threw up his seat in the State Legislature in order to go to Sydney.

Senator PULSFORD:

– They are prepared to work without duties.

Senator Keating:

– Why have they not done so before 1

Senator Pulsford:

– They’ have.

Senator HIGGS:

– The honorable senator knows that these extensions to Messrs. McArthur and Co.’s business have been made only since the introduction of the uniform Tariff. We should at least give these machinery manufacturers the protection that we have given to that Arm. Senator Pulsford suggests that the freight charges are a very great deterrent to importing, but we are all aware of the changes which have been made in this direction during the last 25 years. At one time the voyage from England to Australia occupied five or six months. Nowadays a steamship travels between England and Australia in a few weeks, while sailing vessels occupy only a very few months. We have also to remember that the subsidized steamships land commodities here at very low rates. Once the importers secure possession of the market, we know what they will do. We have only to look for example to Senator Sargood’s especial friends, Messrs. Colman and Co., starch manufacturers, who retail starch in London at about £10 per ton above the price at which they are selling in this country.

Senator Sir Frederick Sargood:

– That is not a fact. I explained the position last night.

Senator HIGGS:

– I have a statement to the effect that -

Mr. Harper has shown that Colman’s starch is quoted wholesale in bond in Melbourne at 2Jd. per lb., and his own 3 l-7d., or exactly Jd. per lb. extra. The British Grocers’ Association has resolved that the London retail price of Colman’s starch is to bedel, per lb. Now, if the suggested starch duty of id. were added to Colman’s 2gd., it would still leave the selling price slightly above Harper’s.-

The ACTING CHAIRMAN. - Does the honorable senator think that is relevant to the question before the Chair 1

Senator HIGGS:

– I was only endeavouring to show what will take place when the importer succeeds in stamping out the local manufacturers of machinery. It is very easy for an honorable senator to deny that Colman’s starch is sold cheaper here than in London, but documentary evidence can be produced to the contrary. I do not happen to have any such evidence at hand just now, for I did not’ think that honorable senators of the Opposition would be so unwise as to press this request.

Senator DAWSON (Queensland).- In replying to some previous remarks of mine Senator Styles, a short time ago, evidentlyfound a special delight in taxing me with inconsistency by declaring that last night I voted for protection, whereas to-night I am advocating free-trade. So far as the present proposal is concerned, I wish to say at once that I fully recognise that we are now discussing these items for the second time. Consequently they are in an altogether different category from that in which they were when the Tariff made its first appearance in this Chamber. In this connexion, I say unhesitatingly that it ought to be the endeavour of honorable senators to meet those who are opposed to them upon each particular item in the -House of Representatives if they can do so without doing great violence to their own opinions. The Tariff to become law must be a matter of mutual agreement between both Houses. If upon the second appearance of the Tariff in this Chamber, I vote contrary to the direction in which I voted when the measure was previously under consideration, I do so for the reason I have . stated. In advocating what I did formerly, I am sorry that I angered Senator Styles, and I trust that before to-morrow he will have recovered. In the meantime, I recommend that when he undertakes the task of chastising and correcting another senator he should endeavour to be accurate, or at least as accurate as he can be, for even a protectionist can be accurate if he only takes sufficiently long to think about it. I have in my hand an advance, copy of the journals of the Senate, which records exactly what took place at a previous sitting. It is a very great pity that these journals are not circulated amongst members daily, so that should any such question arise, as was raised by Senator Styles this afternoon, a member may by reference to these official documents learn exactly what occurred. In looking over the journals in question, I find that my votes are recorded against the Government in every instance save one which had reference to the duty upon rice. Upon that particular item I consulted some of my protectionist friends - I am not sure that I did not even consult Senator Styles himself. My difficulty on that occasion was in deciding which of the two proposals submitted was likely to yield the most revenue. I received an assurance pretty well all round that the Government proposal would probably produce more revenue than would that of Senator Symon. Believing that protectionists could occasionally tell a doubting fair-trader the truth, I voted with them in that particular instance. Upon the divisions which took place regarding the duties to be levied upon foodstuffs, I voted with the majority, because I thought it was better for all concerned that articles which enter into universal consumption should be placed within reach of the poorer classes at as cheap a rate as possible. I believe in reaching the largest number of people and the most deserving. Concerning the item under consideration, I am in favour of Senator Symon’s proposal for exactly the same reason. I believe that by its adoption we shall benefit the farmer, the revenue, and the consumer. As I voted for cheap foodstuffs for the consumer, so I shall vote in favour of cheap machinery for the farmer in order that he may produce as cheaply as possible with profit to himself. The farmer wants a market. Give it to him. I am satisfied that if we unduly tax him we shall be doing everything that we can to ruin his industry. In this connexion I would remind honorable senators who talk about the ironfounders that the user of machinery is the individual who should receive their first consideration. What is the use of a foundry making all sorts of agricultural machinery if there is not a sufficiently large and welltodo public to purchase it? The circumstances surrounding each case must be considered. This afternoon Senator Higgs quoted a number of extracts, and assured us, in a solemn tone which is peculiarly his own, that the authority from which he quoted could not be gainsayed. It was the one authority, he said, that could not be questioned by any reasonable person. I refer to the Age, and I ask Senators Higgs and Styles to read to-day’s issue of that journal, which contains a well-thought-out article dealing with a particular duty winch will shortly claim our attention. The Age strongly urges that fuel oil should be admitted free. Why? Because by doing so we shall enable the manufacturer to secure a fuel that is cheap and within easy reach with which to carry on his manufactures.

Senator Styles:

– But it cannot be produced in Australia.

Senator Sir FREDERICK SARGOOD:
VICTORIA · FT

– Oh, yes ; it can.

Senator DAWSON:
QUEENSLAND · ALP

– But its competitor, coal, can. That is exactly the position which I take up in regard to the duty upon agricultural machinery. Senator Styles has twitted me with having agreed to a duty of £6 per ton upon sugar. Surely by no stretch of imagination can it be said that the two cases are analogous. The rebate upon sugar is practically a bonus which is paid to cultivators of cane who employ white labour only in the production of their sugar. Honorable senators have been referred to the Age for instruction, and in this connexion I wish to quote what that indisputable authority has to say. He says -

Protection cannot be given in external markets, and the farmers not only supply the homo market completely, but export a large surplus. The greatest consideration which can be given to the farmers is to protect them in whatever department their produce has yet to compete with imports in the local markets. About the’ only item in which this competition takes place is stock, and it is only natural that, in respect of this, the farmers should demand and receive effective protection.

Mr. A. McLean, a prominent protectionist in this State, also made a similar pronouncement. In counselling the committee to adhere to the 10 per cent, duty, I do so, not as was suggested by Senator Styles because I wish to deny to Australians the opportunity of obtaining employment in the manufactory of machinery which is used locally, but because I think we are affording them the best opportunity to do well by giving them the benefit of the ‘widest possible market in which to obtain that machinery. Moreover, all the calamities which protectionists have predicted will accrue under the operation of a 10 per cent, duty will not be warded off by the imposition of a 15 per cent. rate. Those factories in our midst which have ‘ closed their doors, or reduced the number of their employes will not be active if we agree to a 15 per cent, duty, as is evidenced by the fact that that’ rate is now in operation. If our farmers are to use machinery, let them obtain it under the best terms possible, so that they in turn may supply their customers with produce as cheaply as possible. I think that a 10 per cent, duty will fairly meet the whole case.

Question - That the request be not pressed - put. The committee divided.

AYES: 11

NOES: 15

Majority …. … 4

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Item 78. Manufactures of metals, viz.: - Horseshoe nails,5s. per cwt,

Senate’s Request. - Add to special exemptions.

House of Representatives’ Message.. - Amend ment not made.

That the request be not pressed.

I should like, in the first place, to call attention to the anomalous position in -which this matter has been left by the request of the Senate. The Senate requested that horseshoe nails should be put upon the free list, but wire nails have been left dutiable at 5s. per cwt.Wire nails are dealt with cold, and are put through machinery, and as one man can watch a couple of machines, the labour employed in their manufacture is very small compared with the labour employed in the manufacture of horseshoe nails. These require to be heated to a welding heat, and have to pass through two or three processes. Their manufacture gives employment to two or three times the number of hands required in the manufacture of wire nails. If there is to be any justice or any equality in the incidence of these protective duties, surely some consideration should be given to this industry for the manufacture of horseshoe nails. I ask the committee to recognise that a mistake has been made here, and to leave horseshoe nails dutiable as proposed in the Tariff as it came up to the Senate.

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON (South Australia). - I quite recognise the anomaly to which my honorable and learned friend has directed attention, and I think it is only fair that it should be set right. At the time that the committee carried the request that horseshoe nails should bemade free, wire and other nails were left dutiable at 3s. per cwt. ; and an anomaly was certainly created in that way. I propose to yield to what the Vice-President of the Executive Council has said, and modify the request by proposing that the duty upon horseshoe nails should also be 3s. per cwt. That will place all nails upon the same footing. I move -

That all words after the word “be” be omitted, with a view to insert in lieu thereof the words “modified by requesting the House of Representatives to make the duty 3s. per cwt.”

Senator BARRETT (Victoria).- If Senator Symon persists in the course he has taken, I shall be compelled to take up some time in discussing this matter. A duty of 3s. per cwt. will be no protection whatever for the manufacture of horseshoe nails. There is a great deal of difference between horseshoe nails and wire nails, which are made principally by machinery. I hope the committee will agree to the original proposal for a duty of 5s. per cwt.

I ask. leave to withdraw the amendment I have moved. I am quite willing that all those who use horseshoe nails shall pay an extra 5s. per cwt. for them.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Motion agreed to.

Item78. Manufactures of metal, viz., Engines, gas and oil, and high-speed engines and turbines, water and steam, ad valorem, 15 per cent.

Senate’sRequest. - That the duty be reduced to . 10 per cent.

House of Representatives’ Message. - Amendment not made.

That the request be not pressed.

In this case the Senate carried the request to reduce the duty from 15 per cent. to 10 per cent. I think it is generally regarded, and properly so, that all the items of machinery stand upon the same footing. As there has been a very full discussion on the first of these items, and as the committee has voted upon it, I think it is not only not necessary, but that we should not be justifiedin taking up public time in debating the matter any further. I therefore propose to adopt the course of allowing the question to be put in each of these cases. I shall give my vote with the “ Ayes,” but I do not propose to ask for a division, being satisfied that the division in the last case will apply to all these items of a similar kind.

Motion negatived.

Item 78. Manufactures of metals, viz., Engines, ad, valorem, . 15 per cent.

Senate’s Request. -That the duty be reduced to 10 per cent.

HouseofRepresentation latin essage. - Am endment not made.

Motion (by Senator O’Connor) nega tived -

That the request be not pressed.

Item 78.Boilers, pumps, machines, and machinery, n.e.i., ad valorem, 15 per cent.

Senate’s Request. - That theduty be reduced to 1 0 per cent.

House of Representatives’ Message. - Amendment not made.

Motion (by -Senator O’Connor) nega tived -

That the request be not pressed.

Item 78. Mining machinery, n.e.i., ad valorem, 15 per cent.

Senate’s Request. - That the duty be reduced to 1 0per cent.

House of Representatives’ Message. - Amendment not made.

Motion (by Senator O’Connor) negatived -

That the request be not pressed.

Item78. Electrical machinery, ad valorem, 15 per cent.

Senate’s Request. - That thedutytobereduced 10 per cent.

House of Representatives’ Message. - Amendment not made.

Motion (by Senator O’Connor) negatived -

That the request be not pressed.

Item 78. Electrical appliances, n.e.i., ad valorem, 15 per cent.

Senate’s Request. - That the duty be reduced to 10 per cent.

House of Representatives’ Message. - Amend ment not made.

Motion (by Senator O’Connor) negatived -

That the requestbe not pressed.

Item 78. Specialexemptions.

Senate’s Request. - That linotype, monotype, monoline, and other type composing machines be omitted.

House of Representatives’ Message. - Amendment not made.

That the request be not pressed.

This matter is not in the same category as the others, butI do not propose taking up time in repeating arguments which have been used before. I hope that so far as the merits of the question are concerned, each side is perfectly satisfied with its own view. With regard to the new view, which must be taken, that we must come to an agreement, I am quite certain that honorable senators feel the responsibility that they have in giving a decision. I am afraid that nothing I can say will alter that. I hope that in this instance the committee will see the advisability of not adhering to the request.

Senator HIGGS (Queensland).- We do not like to put our colleagues in an unfortunate position ; and I understand that the House of Representatives being, I suppose, afraid of the press, has declined to tax linotypes. Members of the other place probably expect to be “wiped out” if they vote for a duty on linotypes, and, therefore, I suppose we ought not to press the request of the Senate. It is a great pity, however, when an opportunity is offered to make all classes in the community bear a fair share of taxation, that a call is not to be made on the big newspaper proprietors. It may be true that for the large newspapers, linotypes have already been imported, but the machines may have to be renewed or increased in number. I know of certain proprietors of big newspapers who have not yet got these machines, but who intend to get them ; and the advantage to them of being able to throw a large number of compositors out of work is so great that some revenue might well be raised in this connexion. And there is a special reason why newspaper proprietors ought to pay a duty on linotypes, seeing that their paper is imported free, and that they do not appear to pay duty on any of the materials which they use.

Senator CLEMONS:
Tasmania

– I intend to vote for adhering to our previous request.

SenatorGlassey. - Does the honorable senator intend to call for a division?

Senator CLEMONS:

– I do. This is a question on which we can vote irrespective of party and sides ; it is not a matter of protective incidence. Linotypes are not made in the Commonwealth, and I suppose every honorable senator regards it as his* duty to do something in order to provide revenue. An opportunity is here offered to raise a certain amount of revenue at a rate which is not exhorbitant, and which owners and would-be owners of linotypes can well afford to pay. The revenue involved may be small, and the incidence of the tax limited, but there is no reason why such limitation should mean exemption.

Senator PULSFORD (New South Wales). - When this matter was previously before the Chamber, I supported Senator O’Connor for the reason that he was objecting to new taxation, and when he is in that humour it is “ good enough “ to help him. I shall help Senator O’Connor again to-night by supporting the motion.

Senator FRASER:
Victoria

– No revenue would result from a duty on linotypes. I have had to do with the press in some cases, and with the importation of such ma- chinery, and I know that by imposing a duty we should be simply playing into the hands of the proprietors of the big newspapers, who have already supplied themselves with linotypes, and handicapping those who wish to enter the industry. We cannot have too many newspapers in a community like that of Australia. The leading newspaper’s of this country stand high when compared with those in any part of the world, and there is no doubt that they exercise an educational influence, even when they take sides seeing that in time the truth must come out.

Senator GLASSEY:
Queensland

– This is an item which is fairly open to taxation. The smaller newspaper proprietors are not likely to be handicapped, for the simple reason that they cannot afford linotypes, and the larger proprietors are mostly wealthy, and ought to be called upon to contribute to the revenue. I am not here to dispute the usefulness of newspapers, and I do not quarrel with the opinion expressed by Senator Fraser. We have a very powerful press in Australia, and those proprietors who use linotypes ought to be placed on the same footing as other people who import articles for their own use. The proprietors of such newspapers as the Melbourne Age, the Argus, or the Sydney Morning Herald are too powerful to find fault with politicians who vote for such a duty as that now under discussion. But even if the proprietors do find fault, what is the use of politicians if the latter have not the courage of their convictions, even with the press against them 1 I do not think any of the larger newspaper proprietors will have any objection to paying a reasonable tax on any machine they may be called upon to import; and, from a protective point of view, why should not these machines be made in Australia, or, at any rate, encouragement given in that direction to manufacturers of iron and steel t Are we to be everlastingly at the mercy of importers from different parts of the world ?

Senator Fraser:

– Linotypes will not be made in Australia for the next 200 years.

Senator GLASSEY:

– It will not say much for the genius and ability of the people of Australia if they are not able to make such machines long before then.

Senator Millen:

– Does Senator Glassey shut his eyes to the limited market which Australia affords t

Senator GLASSEY:

– I grant there is a limited market, but surely an article like the linotype is not beyond the genius of the people of Australia ; and why should we not give encouragement to local manufacturers by imposing reasonable taxation 1

Senator STANIFORTH SMITH:
Western Australia

– There is a great deal in the arguments used by Senator Fraser. There seems to be an opinion that by taxing linotypes we shall injure the large newspaper proprietors, or, at any rate, make them pay a certain amount of duty. I am of the contrary opinion. By allowing linotypes to come in free now we shall assist country newspaper proprietors. On most of the large newspapers in the cities and the country, linotypes are already employed. In Kalgoorlie alone, two, if not three, of the newspapers are produced by means of these machines, the use of which ought to be encouraged in country districts. Under these circumstances, the proposed duty will not affect the wealthy newspaper proprietors, who, in most of the States, have been allowed to import their linotypes free ; and the only result will be to place Country proprietors in an unfair position. It is absurd to say that linotypes can be manufactured in Australia, because the demand is not sufficient to justify the laying down of the complicated necessary machinery. Up to the present I have not voted for an increase in any duties except on narcotics, spirits, and luxuries, and I certainly shall not vote for a duty in this case.

Senator PULSFORD (New South Wales). - There is an important point to which the Senate should give attention. If these linotypes are struck off the free list, some question will be raised as to under which item they will become chargeable, and in my opinion they will fall under n.e.i. at 20 per cent. To levy a tax equal to at least £100 on a single linotype is absurd, and is a step which I do not think the Senate will favour.

Senator O’CONNOR:

– There seems to be some misunderstanding, and I think it necessary to explain how the matter stands. This is not a question of small newspapers or large newspapers ; it is simply a question of meting out to men who carry on the newspaper industry the same sort of treatment that is meted out to other persons who use machines which cannot be made in the Commonwealth, and which arc, used for manufacturing purposes of different kinds. On this ground there is a large list of exemptions, including knitting machinery, log-band saw-mills, machinery for scouring, washing, carding, spinning, weaving, and finishing the manu- facture of fibrous materials, machinery for the manufacture of paper, and for felting, printing machinery and presses, and machinery used exclusively for electroplating and stereotyping. All this machinery employs a large number of people, and cannot be manufactured in the Commonwealth. It is of a comparatively simple character compared with the linotype. The linotype is not made here, and it was put on the free list simply because we wished to treat the proprietor of a newspaper business in the same way as a person who carries on any other business. We desire to put the linotype and the monoline in the same position as the ordinary printing press. Is it because the monoline is an expensive and complicated machine that it is to be treated differently from the ordinary printing machines which cannot be made here ? That is the position, which I do not wish to elaborate. Although I quite agree that you should not treat the newspaper pro,prietor or the publisher better than a man who carries on any other business, is that any reason why he should be treated worse than any one else 1 It is because we think it is a simple act of justice to persons who carry on a printing business that Ave wish the committee not to adhere to its request. *

Question - That the request be not pressed - put. The committee divided.

AYES: 13

NOES: 11

Majority … … 2

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Item 79. Bails, fishplates, fishbolts, tie plates, switches, points, crossings, and intersections for railways and tramways, ad valorem, 15 per cent.

Senate’sRequest. - That the duty be reduced to 10 per cent.

House of Representatives’ Message. - Amendment not made.

That the request be not pressed .

These articles are not in exactly the same position as the machinery items which have been dealt with. The reasons for the imposition of a 15 per cent. duty have been stated so often that I do not think it is necessary to do more than to say that if there is any protection to be given to the manufacturers of this kind of ironwork, it must be substantial, for the reason that the freight on the articles is exceedingly small under most circumstances. They are carried very largely as ballast - it is the cheapest kind of freight there is. The advantage which Australia gains by its distance from European and American centres of manufacture is not anything like so great in regard to these articles as it is in regard to others upon which the freights are higher. That fact ought to be taken into consideration. In view of the large amount of capital which is necessary for the laying down of a plant, and the reasonable certainty of a market, which there ought to be, the least we can, do is to agree to a duty of 15 per cent. There is no industry which employs, comparatively speaking, so much labour as dotheindustries which are connected with the manufacture of iron. Prom the point of’ view of the competition the low freight, the number of employes, the necessity for a large capital, I ask my honorable friends opposite whether, for the sake of 5 per cent., it is worth while to insist on the request ?

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON (South Australia). - It is true that items 79 and80 - the remaining two items in this division on which we requested the other House to reduce the duty from 15 to 10 per cent. - are on a different footing from those which we have dealt with ; but they are not on a very much different footing. When we remember that the use of rails, fish-plates, fish-bolts, and the other articles embraced in the item, except by the Government to construct railways and tramways, is by the great mining industry - and timber getting industry, too - it will be seen that it is absolutely essential that they should be treated in exactly the same way as the engines, electrical appliances, and other lines that have been dealt with. To my mind, there is no distinction between the articles. It is. not under this item that the encouragement of the production of iron ore and the manufacture of iron is to be given. The Bonus Bill, which has been on the stocks for some time, is the source from which any encouragement is likely to be given to this manufacture. Therefore, it seems to me that, for the sake of the mining industry, thetimbergetting industry, and the railways of the Commonwealth, the committee ought to adhere to its request.

Question - That the request be not pressed - put. The committee divided.

AYES: 10

NOES: 14

Majority … … 4

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Item 80. Boiled iron or steal 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, ad valorem’, 15 per cent.

Senate’s Request. - That the duty be reduced to . 10 per cent.

House ofRepresentatives’ Message. - Amend- ment not made.

That the request be not pressed.

As this item stands very much on the same footing as the previous one, I do not think it is necessary to do more than to ask to have the sense of the committee declared on the voices.

Motion negatived.

Item 81. Iron and steel . . . Galvanized and tinned plate and sheet, ad valorem, 10 per cent.

Senate’s Request. - Add to special exemptions.

House of Representatives’ Message. - Amend- ment not made.

That the request be not pressed.

It will be remembered that the Senate requested that this and four other items under the head of “ metals and machinery “ in Division “VI a. should be placed on the free list. I desire very shortly to call the attention of honorable senators to the position in which the matter stands. Division VIa, as honorable senators will remember, is headed in this way : -

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 been sufficiently 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 States

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.

The effect and purpose of this introductory paragraph is to impose certain duties on the articles which are mentioned in the division, after the expiration of the period during which the industries affected will be assisted by a bonus. The only exception to freedom from duty during the interval is iron galvanized, plate and sheet, as to which we have already agreed to a duty of 15s. per ton. The Senate dealt with this matter in what appeared to me to be a way that would create a great deal of anomaly. When they dealt with the first line in the item, which is certainly the most important, and the one in regard to which there would be the largest expenditure of money - that is, say, the line dealing with scrap-iron and steel, and pig-iron - they passed it. Ingots, blooms, bar, rod, angle, tee, sheet, and plate iron were also passed as subject to a duty of10per cent., ad valorem, when the bonus period has expired. The Senate then went on to deal with galvanized and tinned plate and sheet iron, when for some extraordinary reason a suggestion was carried that these goods should be put on the free list. Wire netting wasalso to be put upon the free list. Then iron and steel pipes and tubes not dutiable under Division “VII. were left at 10 per cent., and spelter was put upon the free list. So that the only result seems to be that the Senate has adopted the view that there should be a duty as soon as the bonuses have ceased, but thatthat duty should apply only to the manufacture of iron and of iron and steel pipes and tubes not dutiable under Division VI. I think the comment is obvious that there is no reason whatever why the different kinds of iron, the manufacture of whichis tobeestablished bymeansof bonuses, should be treated differently. There is a reason which appears to me to be unanswerable why the Senate should not persist in its requests with regard to these articles. We are all agreed that one of the greatest benefits which we could confer upon the whole of Australia by legislation would be the bringing about of the establishment, on a firm footing of the iron industry. It would be of great benefit to the country, not only in regard to the production of iron, and not only in regard to work which it would give to the men employed in it, but also on account of the numerous ancillary trades that always attach themselves to the iron industry. It is proposed in the Government scheme, that there shall be bonuses extending over a series of years, and that when that period is complete the protection shall be continued in the form of these duties. If our bonuses are to be of any value they must be taken as part of a system which is not to endure for a few 3’ears only, but which will enable persons to embark their capital with some amount of certainty that their industry will be protected, and that the home market will be guaranteed to them for a certain number of years. We cannot interfere with the duties in accordance with the suggestions of the Senate without neutralizing to a very large extent the whole value of the principle of bonuses which the Government will seek to bring into operation. Under the circumstances it is not necessary to add anything to what I have said. I trust the committee will see its way not to press the suggestions which have been made in regard to these matters.

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON (South Australia). - I feel quite sorry after the picturesque description of this great iron industry which has been given by Senator O’Connor to think that there is very little likelihood of it being established under cover of the chaotic provisions of the Bonus Bill which has been mentioned. I do not think that we shall ever see that Bonus Bill.

Senator CLEMONS (Tasmania). - I donot propose to speak at any length on this subject, but I want to say a word in regard to the principle which is involved in the proposed Bonus Bill. While I could conceive it possible that I mightvote for a Bonus Bill for the purpose of granting subsidies to an industry, which subsidies would be definite in their amount and limited to a term of years, I shall never vote for a Bonus Bill that iscoupled with protection. I regard that form of protection as being the worst of all forms. It is a sort of double-barrelled protection, of which the bonus may be called the smooth bore, and the protective duty the choke-bore. If the Bonus Bill comes before the Senate I shall be unable to vote for it, although I could conceive it possible, if it were not encumbered with these protective duties, that I could vote for a Bonus’ Bill pure and simple. We are now going to ratify the action of the other House, but that ratification must not be taken a pledging our support to the Bonus Bill in any shape or form if it comes before us. I feel impelled to say so much, because I have said, I believe, in this Chamber that I could conceive it possible that I could vote for a Bonus Bill, but I never intended to vote for a Bonus Bill cum protection.” I can only hope that the Bonus Bill will not reach this Chamber.

Motion agreed to.

Item 81. Iron and Steel…… Machinery, machines, and parts - Reapers and binders, advalorem, 15 per cent. Other machinery, machines, or parts referred to in proclamation, ad valorem, . 15 per cent.; Wire netting, ad valorem., 10 per cent.; Spelter, ad valorem, . 10 per cent.

Senate’s Request. - To make the lines duty free.

House of Representative’ Message.* - Amendments not made.

Motion (by Senator O’Connor) agreed to-

That the requests be not pressed.

Item 84. Oils. - Solar oil, residual oil, naphtha, benzine, benzoline, gasoline, per gallon,½d.

Senate’s Request. - Add to special exemptions, “Solar oil, residual oil.”

House of Representatives’ Message. - Amendment not made.

Motion (by Senator O’Connor) put -

That the request be not pressed.

The committee divided.

AYES: 3

NOES: 21

Majority…… 19

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Motion negatived.

Item 87. Cement (Portland), plaster of Paris …… per cwt. , 9d.

Senate’s Request. - That the duty be reduced to 6d.

House of Representatives’ Message. - Amend ment not made.

That the request be not pressed.

It will be remembered that this duty was originally fixed at1s. per cwt., but that it was reduced to 9d. before the Tariff reached this Chamber. The Senate then requested that it should be further reduced to 6d. When this item was discussed on a previous occasion, it was pointed out that cement was brought out from Europe so cheaply, particularly in sailing vessels, which carried large quantities of it practically as ballast, and that it was contracted for in such a way in Germany that, in conjunction with the cheap, subsidized German freights, it could be landed here for almost next to nothing. It was further urged that a substantial duty ought to be imposed, in order to afford some real protection to our local manufacturers. I hope, therefore, that honorable senators will recognise that the amount of protection which ought to be afforded cannot be judged entirely from the percentage of the duty. The whole circumstances have to be considered, and if there was ever an occasion on which it was necessary to protect our manufacturers against the competition of the subsidised French and German industries, this is one. The extent to which the German steamers are subsidized tends to reduce the freight to almost nothing, and unless we impose a fair duty, our local manufacturers will have no protection against the introduction of cement in such large quantities as will disturb the local market. The local cement works cannot be carried on without the expenditure of a large amount of capital, and the employment of extensive plant, and success cannot be achieved unless a certain local market is assured. The cement manufacturing industry already flourishes in many parts of Australia, and there is no reason why it should not be successfully carried on in Tasmania and other places which possess every facility for the production of the article. This, therefore, is a case in which itwould be well for us to impose a duty, not only in the interests of agreement between the two Houses, but also in order to assist a legitimate and important industry.

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON (South Australia). - I should be very glad if it were possible to adopt the course proposed by my honorable friend, but he seems to have overlooked the interests of the consumers of cement. In the first place a duty of 6d. per cwt. is equivalent to 331/3 per cent. on the value of the article, which is worth in Germany about 6s. per cask of3½ to 4 cwt. Thirty-three and a third per cent. is a very high duty to impose upon an article which is so largely used in water conservation works, in railway construction and mining operations, on farms, in gardens, for making troughing, for constructing dams, and for an endless variety of other purposes.

Senator BARRETT (Victoria.) - I hope Senator Symon will re-consider his decision. The discussion we had’ on a previous occasion showed conclusively that unless the duty upon cement were retained at 9d. per cwt. the local manufacture of the article must be wiped out. The whole of the cement makers of Australia - The South Australian Portland Cement Company, Adelaide ; Messrs. Goodlet and Smith, Sydney ; The Commonwealth Portland Cement Company, Portland, New South

Wales ; James Campbell and Sons, Brisbane; The Australian Portland Cement Company, Proprietary, Limited, Geelong, and the Victorian Portland Cement Company, Melbourne - agree that a duty of 9d. is necessary in order to enable them to carry on the industry. When this question was previously discussed some doubt was expressed as to whether Goodlet and Smith, and the Commonwealth Company of New South Wales, were in favour of the retention of the duty of 9d. per cwt. Since then evidence has been presented showing that they are, and if it were necessary I could read certain documents in proof of my statement. A day or two ago I had a petition signed by all the cement makers I have named in favour of the retention of the duty, but owing to an informality I was unable to present it, and there was not sufficient time to enable me to have the informality corrected so that the petition might be presented before the consideration of this item. I would remind Senator Symon that the Australian cement makers, as compared with the German manufacturers are severely handicapped in regard to the rates of wages and hours of labour. Recenty tenders were invited by the Melbourne and Metropolitan Board of Works for the supply of a very large quantity of cement. It was open to colonial and German manufacturers to compete,and notwithstanding the higher wages paid in the industry in Australia, and the fact that the men here are employed for only 48 hours a week, as compared with 70 hours a week in Germany, the local manufacturers were only1d. per cask above the German tender. The German tender was accepted.

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON (South Australia). - As Senator Barrett has invited my attention to certain figures, I should like to mention to him that the duty of 6d. per cent, proposed by us is exactly that which prevailed under the South Australian Tariff.

Senator STYLES (Victoria).- I think that Senator Symon’s figures arc not quite accurate. The duty in Victoria was 3s. 4-^d. per cask, and six casks go to the ton. Now a duty of 6d. per cwt. is proposed, and we are told that that is equal to 2s. per cask. The honorable and learned senator will find, however, that it is equal to only ls. 8½d. per cask. There is another aspect to this question which has not yet been touched upon, and that is the price at which cement was selling before and after the establishment of the local works.

Senator BARRETT (Victoria). - I wish to produce some further evidence showing conclusively that, in order to obtain possession of the market, the German manufacturers have been losing money in connexion with the Melbourne and Metropolitan Board of Works tenders. When this item was previously discussed, Senator Pulsford gave us certain figures showing the cost of importing cement, and if those figures are correct -and I believe that they are - they show that the German and English importers, whose tenders ‘ have recently been accepted by the Melbourne and Metropolitan Board of Works, are selling at a loss. The honorable senator quoted an interesting letter from Messrs. J. Barre Johnston and Co. - which he said was a well known and reputable company in Sydney - giving the cost of importing the best brands of English or German cements, as follows : - Cement, per cask, f.o.b., 6s.; freight per sailer (present rate), 2s. 8d.; insurance,1½d. ; exchange, 90 days at 4 per cent., and stamps,4½d.; wharfage at Sydney, 5d.; receiving into and delivery ex store,2½d. or 3d.,say2¾d.; rent for storage, from 3d. to 4d. perask, 3½d.; duty 9d. per cwt., 2s. 6½d.; making a total cost without profit to the importer of 12s. 7½d. These are the figures of Senator Pulsford himself, and, as against them, I wish the committee particularly to note the price at which tenders were recently accepted for the supply of cement by the Melbourne and Metropolitan Board of Works. Upon Tuesday, 20th May last, the board accepted a contract for the supply of 5,000 casks of German cement at 10s.11d. per cask, although, according to Senator Pulsford’s own statement, it costs the importer 12s. 7½d. per cask to import it, and that without securing any profit. Again, in the Age of 16th May, and the Argus of 16th July, I find that other tenders were accepted for supplies of German cement at 12s.4½. per cask. The committee will therefore see that the contracts recently made must, so far as the German manufacturers are concerned, have resulted in a loss. Under these circumstances, howis it possible for the Australian manufacturers to compete ? I hold in my hand a document which states that it is impossible for the Portland Cement Company in South Australia to compete with foreign manufacturers unless they obtain the benefit of a duty of 9d. per cwt. With these facts before us, we ought not to agree to a reduction of the impost to 6d. per cwt.

Question - That the request be not pressed - put. The committee divided.

AYES: 12

NOES: 12

Majority … … … 0

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Item 114. Jewellery - Special exemption . . “Cameos and precious stones, unset.”

Senate’s Request. - Make dutiable as jewellery at 25 per cent.

House of Representative’s’Message. - Amendment not made.

Motion (by Senator O’Connor) proposed -

That the request be not pressed.

Senator BARRETT (Victoria). - My views upon this question are the same as when I moved to make these articles dutiable at 25 per cent. I recognise that by adopting that course difficulties will arise at the Custom-house, but I hold that those difficulties are equally applicable to almost every other article. However, the sense of the committee is evidently against the proposal to make these goods dutiable, and therefore I do not intend to persevere with it.

Motion agreed to.

Item116. Boots and shoes……

Men’s sizes above 5, ad valorem, 30 per cent.

Senate’s Request. - That the duty be reduced to 20 per cent.

House of Representatives’ Message. - Amendment not made.

That the request be not pressed.

This is one of the items in regard to which I hope the Senate will abandon the position which ithastaken up, if only for the purpose of bringing about something like symmetry in the division. It will be remembered that the duty upon men’s sizes above 5, which was the first of some halfdozen items under the heading of “ boots and shoes,” was reduced to 20 per cent., whilst the others were allowed to remain at 30 per cent. The Senate ought not to insist upon its request, because it is obvious that its effect must be to render the administration of this portion of the Tariff very difficult. It would be necessary, in such a case, for every box of boots imported to be examined in order to ascertain whether it contained men’s sizes or other sizes. There is no reason why, in regard to this line, a different rate should obtain from that which operates in the case of other classes of boots.

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON (South Australia). - Certainly this is an unfortunate illustration of the possibility of anomaliesthat may arise in the administration of the Tariff. There is no doubt whatever that the request made by the Senate was the first of a series of others which were not carried, and which dealt with the whole set of items under the heading of “ boots and shoes.” It does seem a little peculiar that this item should have been reduced to 20 per cent., whilst the balance were allowed to remain at the extravagant rate of 30 per cent., especially as this line is the one above all others, which is most likely to be manufactured locally. That being the case, it is a fair subject upon which to meet the House of Representatives, and in order to bring the duty into harmony with that imposed upon other items under this heading, I do not propose to ask the committee to press the request.

Motion agreed to.

Item 126. - Vehicles, viz., “Hansom cabs, also single or double-seated waggons, waggonettes and four-wheeled buggies, ad valorem, 25 per cent.”

Senate’s Request. - That the duty be reduced to 20 per cent.

House of Representatives’ Message. - Amendment not made:

Motion (by Senator O’Connor) proposed -

That the request be not pressed.

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON (South Australia.) - I hope that the spirit in which the Senate is prepared to meet the House of Representatives in connexion with this matter will be appreciated when the other requests for which we have pressed are being reconsidered.

Motion agreed to.

Item 126. Vehicles, viz. : - Tilburys, dog-carts, gigs, Boston chaises, sulkies, and other twowheeled vehicles on springs or thorough braces, ad valorem, 25 per cent ; all parts thereof, viz., wheels, tires, and bolted bodies, under - gears, undercarriages and tops, ad valorem,, 25 per cent.

Senate’s Request. - That the duties be reduced to 20 per cent.

House of Representatives’ Message. - Amend ments not made.

Motion (by Senator O’Connor) agreed to-

That the requests be not pressed.

Item 132. Brush ware.

Senate’s Request. - That the following new line be added, viz., “Painters and paper-hangers’ brushes, ad valorem, 20 per cent. “

House of Representatives’ Message. - Amendment not made.

That the request be not pressed.

It will be remembered that there was a long discussion, particularly on the item of painters’ and paperhangers’ brushes. It was proposed that the whole line should be dutiable at 25 per cent., and the Senate requested that a special line should be made, including painters’ and paperhangers’ brushes, and that the duty should be reduced to 20 per cent. I need not repeat the arguments which were used before, but the position really is that if we reduce the duty upon painters’ and paperhangers’ brushes from 25 to 20 per cent.-, we shall be taking away the most substantial and the most profitable part of the business, while we shall be adding to the difficulties of administration. On the ground, therefore, of simplicity of administration, and on the ground of a fair protection to every branch of the business, I ask the committee not to press the request. If there was any reason, from the point of view of the workmen or consumers, for a reduction of the duty, I could understand the proposal made. But the fact is that the workman can get his brushes actually at the same price, and there seems to be no reason for ‘the reduction of the duty.

Senator CHARLESTON:
South Australia

– When I interjected that the painters did not hold the views which the honorable and learned senator was expressing, I spoke from information given to me by painters in Adelaide. I met more than one. of them, and they complained of the high price of brushes, and of the heavy duty imposed upon them.

Motion agreed to.

Item 132. Brushware, viz., n.e.i., including brooms, mops, crumb trays and brushes, ad valorem, 25 per cent.

Senate’s Request. - That the duty be reduced to 20 per cent.

House of Representatives’ Message. - Amendment not made.

Motion (by Senator O’Connor) pro-

That the request be not pressed.

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON (South Australia). - I do not propose that we should press this request, because a difference of 5 per cent, upon a line like brushware would make very little difference to the consumer. If the reduction of duty at first requested had been considerable, I should have thought it necessary to press the matter. I personally think that a duty of 25 per cent, upon brushware is extortionate. I am informed upon good authority that there is a brush factory in Victoria employing comparatively few people, and yet it can produce sufficient brushes to supply Victoria and a good deal for export. Of course, it is always said that an opportunity is given to employ the blind in the manufacture of brushware,- and it is held that it is reasonable to impose a duty to encourage their employment. This is another item upon which we have an opportunity of making an approach in the way of concession to the other Chamber.

Motion agreed to.

Item 134. Cordage and twines, n.e.i. Special exemption, “ Cordage, viz., unserviceable.”

Senate’s Request. - That the words “ used for paper-making “ be added.

House of Representatives’ Message. - Amendment not made.

Motion (by Senator O’Connor) agreed i -

That the request be not pressed.

Item 136. Explosives, viz., Ammunition and cartridges, n.e.i., free.

Senate’s Request. - That the duty be 10 per cent.

House of Representatives’ Message. - Amendment not made.

Senator O’CONNOR:

– I move-

That the request be not pressed.

This is but a small matter. Honorable senators will, perhaps, remember that I moved the motion making the request myself. Upon fuller inquiry and information, I find it was a mistake. When I come to look at the number of items we have dealt with, I am only astonished that I have not made more mistakes.

Senator CLEMONS (Tasmania).- It is all very well for the Vice-President of the Executive Council to tell us that in moving this request he made a mistake. But from my point of view, and from the point of view, I hope, of a majority of the committee, it is his present motion which is a mistake. I do not desire to draw too much attention to the honorable and learned senator’s change of front, but several reasons may be given to show that his original to- attitude was the correct one. Honorable senators will remember that there is a heavy duty upon shot, and when we discussed that duty it was pointed out that it was a mistake to have ammunition and cartridges free. It was admitted that one of two things must be done, either that we should take the duty off shot, or should impose a duty on ammunition and cartridges. Every protectionist agreed that it was obviously absurd to have a duty upon shot and allow shot contained in cartridges to be admitted free. To rectify the error, the Vice-President of the Executive Council very properly said that a duty of 10 per cent, should be imposed upon shot contained in cartridges. The honorable and learned senator said that it was a glaring error in the Tariff, but the error will be still more glaring if, with our eyes open, we do not press our request. There is no reason why ammunition and cartridges which are used by people who can well afford to pay something to the revenue should not be made dutiable at 10 per cent. I hope, therefore, that the committee will press the request.

Question - That the request be not pressed - put. The committee divided.

AYES: 5

NOES: 20

Majority … … 15

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Item 136. Explosives, viz., sporting powder, free.

Senate’s Request. - That the line be made dutiable at 10 per cent.

House of Representatives’ Message. - Amendment not made.

That the request be not pressed.

This item stands in the same position as that with which we have just dealt. When the matter was last before the Senate, the reason given for making cartridges free, was that a large number of persons living in the country used them as a means of gaining their livelihood, or for the purpose of destroying vermin. It was thought that for such people ammunition should be made as cheap as possible, and other exemptions have been made on similar grounds. Another element is that this item includes the raw material of the local cartridge manufacturer.

Senator CLEMONS (Tasmania). - I shall call for a division on this item for precisely the same reason which actuated me in regard to the last item. Senator O’Connor says that if the Senate insists on its amendment we shall be destroying protection ; but it must be remembered that the margin we propose is precisely the same as that suggested by the Government.

Question - That the request be not pressed - put. The committee divided.

AYES: 12

NOES: 11

Majority … 1

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Special Exemptions (Miscellaneous). - “Articles imported by and for the official use of the Governor-General or State Governor.” ,

Senate’s Request. - That the special exemption be omitted.

House of Representatives’ Message. - Amendment not made.

Motion (by Senator O’Connor) proposed -

That the request be not pressed.

Senator PLAYFORD:
South Australia

-I voted in favour of striking out this special exemption, and I shall do so again. My experience is that there is no more vicious principle than allowing any Governor to import goods duty free. In my own State of South Australia most disagreeable rumours were often spread abroad when a Governor had left. It was said that Governors imported quantities of highly dutiable articles such as wines and cigars, and that, at the expiration of their term, they were distributed amongst their rich friends, who thus enjoyed them duty free. It is much better that anything of that sort should be prevented. Only the other day we heard of a quantity of champagne, which, I suppose, had not’ paid duty, being distributed amongst the poor people of Melbourne, with the result that much of it found its way into the possession of publicans, who sold it. It is a great mistake to allow any dutiable articles to come in free, whether for a State Governor or a Commonwealth Governor. It may be possible for an exceedingly careful head officer of the Customs department to prevent abuse, but there is al ways danger of laxity. The Senate should adhere to its previous decision.

Senator GLASSEY (Queensland).- We “ have no desire to reflect on the other House for the course which it has adopted, but a special exemption, under the circumstances, is absolutely wrong and unfair. The very poorest people in the community have to pay taxation on the articles which they use, and the same should be done by a “GovernorGeneral, who receives what is, at any rate, a fair salary. A great deal of revenue may not be involved, but this is a matter of principle.

Senator HIGGS (Queensland). - I very much regret that this item has come up for discussion at a late hour, when honorable senators are anxious to get away to their homes. I apprehend that the trouble is not because of any difference of opinion as to whether the Governor-General or a State Governor should pay customs duty on an article, but because the members of the other House think that the Senate has no right to request any alteration in a Bill which would impose an additional charge upon the people. I heard the debate in that House upon our request that the linotypes should be taxed, and, from an interjection which was then made, I feel certain that it was opposed because certain honorable members thought that it had no right to be made, on account of this provision in section 53 of the Constitution Act -

The Senate may not amend any proposed law so as to increase any proposed charge or burden on the people.

I take it that we have the power to request an alteration of this item under the next paragraph of the section, which says -

The Senate may at any stage return to the House1 of Representatives any proposed law which the Senate may not amend, requesting, by message, the omission or amendment of any items or provisions therein.

An “ amendment “ mav mean that a1 charge is increased or decreased. We may request that a duty be increased or decreased or abolished. Supposing that if, at any time, a free-trade majority in the other House should send up a low Tariff” would not a protectionist majority in the Senate have the power to request that an amendment be made so as to increase a proposed duty ? If the contention of honorable members in another place is sound, we should have no power to make any such request. I should like to see this question fought out, not upon the arguments which can be offered against the Governor-General importing articles duty free, but upon our right to make a request for the increase of a duty. I agree with what Senator Playford said in regard to the habits of some State Governors. He spoke of wines which had been imported duty free being sent to the unemployed, and then being sold to various persons. Iia Queensland a Governor sent a considerable quantity of various kinds of wine - from champagne downwards - to an auction room to be sold, and they brought a larger price than he was entitled to get, because he had paid no import duties.

Question - That the request be not pressed - put. The committee divided.

AYES: 8

NOES: 15

Majority … … 7

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Special Exemptions. - (Miscellaneous)- Surgical and dental instruments.

Senate’s Request - That the word “optical” be inserted after the word “ surgical.”

House of Representatives’ Message. - Amend ment not made.

That the request be not pressed.

It will be remembered that this request was made in order to make sure that the instruments used for dealing surgically with the eyes should be included in the item. On a more careful consideration it appears that the use of the word “optical” might include spectacles and other articles of that kind which it was never intended to exempt. All the instruments for operating on the eye are certainly covered by the word “surgical,” and the introduction of the word “optical” might make duty free articles which were not intended to be put on the free list.

Motion agreed to.

Item 137. Photographic dry plates, sensitized films and paper, ad valorem, 15 per cent.

Senate’s Request.- That sensitized films and paper be added to the special exemptions.

House of Representatives’ Message. - Amend ment not made.

That the request be not pressed.

As regards our two requests for the amendment of this item, the other House agreed to exempt prepared plates for engravers and photographers, but did not agree to place sensitized films and paper on the free list. I assented to the request to make the latter articles duty free, acting upon information which was before the department at the time that sensitized films were not made in Australia. But we have since ascertained beyond all question that these films are being made extensively in Victoria, New South Wales, and elsewhere, and that a considerable number of persons are employed and extensive plant has been erected in connexion with their production. They are being produced in a very satisfactory way.

Motion agreed to.

Motion (by Senator O’Connor) agreed to -

That the modification of the date from which the amendments made come into effect be agreed to.

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON (South Australia). - In reference to what my honorable and learned friend has said, perhaps he would add an intimation as to the business he proposes to take tomorrow, because then honorable senators can make their arrangements accordingly. I should also like to suggest to him that it would be convenient to a good many honorable senators if the Senate did not meet on Tuesday, but on Wednesday next week. I do not ask my honorable and learned friend to intimate finally what his intentions are as to that, if he has any hesitation about doing so, but will ask him to give an intima-. tion to-morrow, as soon as we meet.

Progress reported.

page 15539

ADJOURNMENT

Resolved (on motion by Senator O’Connor) -

That the Senate at its rising adjourn till 11.30a.m. to-morrow.

Senate adjourned at 10.32 p.m. ‘

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 28 August 1902, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1902/19020828_senate_1_12/>.