Senate
11 August 1921

8^th Parliament · 1^st Session

PAPERS
INDEMNITY BILL
QUESTION
- PUBLIC SERVANTS’FURLOUGH
QUESTION
- EXCHANGE AND CUSTOMS COLLECTION
QUESTION
- BRIGADIER-GENERAL ELLIOTT
QUESTION
- EASTERN TRADE COMMISSIONER
CUSTOMS TARIFF BILL
SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT
ADJOURNMENT
- Pair

The President (Senator the Hon. T. Givens) took the chair at 3 p.m., and read prayers.

page 10867

PAPERS

The following papers were presented : -

Defence - Report of the Inspector-General of the Australian Military Forces (31st May, 1981).

Defence Act. - Regulations amended. - Statutory Rules 1921, Nos. 120, 131, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 143, 144, 145, 146,. 147, and 148.

WarService Homes Act. - Land acquired in New South Wales at- Carlingtord; Cessnock; Waratah (two notifications); Waterloo; Willoughby.

page 10867

INDEMNITY BILL

Senator DUNCAN:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– Towards the end of last year, a Bill was introduced to indemnify the individual members of the various wool and other committees against legal proceedings for action taken by them. When is it proposed to go on with that Bill?

Senator E D MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

– Certainly not before more progress has been made with the Tariff.

Senator Duncan:

– It has not been dropped?

Senator E D MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

– If the honorable member will repeat the question to-morrow, I shall then be in a position to speak more definitely on the subject.

page 10867

QUESTION

PUBLIC SERVANTS’FURLOUGH

Senator THOMAS:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– Yesterday, replying to a question that I had asked about public servants’ furlough, the Minister representing the Prime Minister said that the Government were considering the matter. Can the honorable gentleman tell me how long the Government propose to consider it, and when we may expect a definite reply?

Senator E D MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

– The Government will consider the matter until they arrive at a final judgment. How long that will take I cannot say, but the period may be affected bythe detention of Ministers in this chamber.

page 10868

QUESTION

EXCHANGE AND CUSTOMS COLLECTION

Senator RUSSELL:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · VICTORIA · NAT

– On 28th July, Senator Fairbairn asked the Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Customs the following questions : -

Upon what date was the bank rate of exchange substituted for the mint par rate in computing value for duty on goods imported from the United States of America and Japan?
Since that date, what amount is estimated as having been collected from Importers, up to 30th June, 1921, in excess of what would have been received had the mint par rate been continuedas the methodof computation?

Iam now able to furnish the honorable senator with the following replies: -

8th December,1920.
Approximately, £679,543.

page 10868

QUESTION

BRIGADIER-GENERAL ELLIOTT

Senator ELLIOTT:
VICTORIA

– During my absence last week, the Minister for Defence, in reply to a request, promised to lay certain papers relating to me on the table ofthe Library, and I ask him if hewill have the file completed by adding to itcorrespondence of some months earlier date, the substance of which was an inquiry by the Commandant of the 3rd Military District whether I would be acandidate for theposition of divisional commander, and my reply thereto? It is those letters which, I understand, Senator Duncan wishes to see.

Senator PEARCE:
Minister for Defence · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · NAT

– I saw that the honorable senator had stated in the press that there was such correspondence, and I askedto be supplied with the papers, whereupon a search was made, and I was informed that they are not in existence, and that no such offer was made. I then gave the instruction that a telegram should be sent to Brigadier-General Brand, who was’ Commandant for the district at the time the offer is said to. have been made, and he replied that, neither privately, personally, nor officially had he made to Brigadier-General

Elliott any such offer as has been mentioned. In view of the honorable sen a tor’s further statement to-day, I shall again inquire whether there are such papers in existence, or any record of any such offer as he has spoken of having been made.

Senator Gardiner:

– If, on further search, it is found that the Minister has been misled by his officers, will there be any vacancies in the Defence Department!

Senator PEARCE:

– If I find that any officer has deliberately misled me in the matter, there will certainly be a vacancy.

page 10868

QUESTION

EASTERN TRADE COMMISSIONER

Senator RUSSELL:
NAT

– The Minister in charge of the Department concerned being absent from town, he has not been able to approve of the reply -prepared in answer to Senator Pratten’s questions; butI understand that he is coming back to-day, and I hope that before we adjourn I shall be able to give the information asked for.

page 10868

CUSTOMS TARIFF BILL

In Committee (Consideration resumed from 10th August, vide page 10867) :

Schedule - division v. - textiles, felts, andfurs, andmanufacturesthereof,and attire.

Item 105 -

Piece goods, viz.:-

(1) Cotton, linen, and other piecegoods n.e.i., oil baize not containing wool, ad val., British, free; intermediate, 5 per cent.; general, 15 per cent.

Calico, for bag making, as prescribed by departmental bylaws, free. (aa) Cotton piece goods, knitted, in tubular’ form -

On and after 21st May, 1921 -

For the manufacture of goods other than apparel, as prescribed by departmental by-laws, ad val., British, free; intermediate,5 percent.; general, 15 percent.

Other, ad val., British, 20 per cent, ; intermediate, 30 per cent. ; general,. 35 per cent. .

Cotton and linen piece goods . ad val., British, 6 per cent.; intermediate, 10 per cent.; general, 20 per cent.

Piece goods, n.e.i., … ad val.,

British, free; intermediate, 5 per cent.; general, 15 per cent.

Silk … ad val., British and in termediate, 15 per cent.;, general, 20 per cent.

Woollen, or containing wool, n.e.i., ad val., British,, 30 per cent.; intermediate, 40 per cent.; general, 45 per cent.

Senator PAYNE:
Tasmania

.- I move -

That the House of Representatives be requested to amend sub-item (a) by inserting after the word “ Baize.” the words “ and Leather Cloth.”

– I have something which I can quote to give honorable senators an idea of what a duty of 5 per cent, means -

Every 5 per cent, levied by the Customs Tariff becomes, when the article reaches the consumer, 9.9 per cent.

Senator LYNCH (Western Australia) f3.39]. - Will the Minister (Senator Russell) be good enough to inform the Committee of the extent to which cotton’ piece goods are manufactured in Australia, and the number of persons employed in the industry? While the request is that, in accordance with what has been the practice for the last eleven years, the sub-item shall be free so far as British imports are concerned, we are asked to agree to an increase of 10 per cent, in the duty on imports from other countries. A duty of 15 per cent, is neither for protection, purposes nor for revenue purposes. If it is for the latter I want to know the justification for it. If it is for the former, I want to know what it will adequately protect. The great bulk of the cotton piece goods used in Australia come from Great Britain, and it is proposed to admit them free from that country, but America and Japan are also sturdy competitors with the Old Country in regard to supplying this household requirement to the vast majority of our. working people. But what reason can be advanced for imposing this duty on goods coming from those countries unless a corresponding gain is to be derived, according to the theory of the Government, by the establishment of a local industry?’ We may be straining this tendency to give a preference to Great Britain to an undue degree. Hitherto in going through this schedule we have been affording preference to the United Kingdom in respect of a lot of products that do not come from that country, but we are now on the threshold of a portion of the Tariff covering items which have been coming to Australia from Great Britain for years past. The British Parliament has not given any. protection to British people who are engaged in the manufacture of cotton piece goods, yet we propose, in effect, to tell the Mother of Parliaments that it does not know its own business in this respect and seek to penalize ourselves by doing something which the Old Country has shown an unwillingness to do. The immediate effect of our action will be to increase the price of cotton- piece goods. I want to know what people are engaged in the manufacture of cotton- piece goods in Australia, how many persons they are employing, and what their output is. I want this information so that I may. understand what I am doing in agreeing to impose a duty of 15 per cent, on a necessity of the people, which .comes to us from countries other than Great Britain.

Senator RUSSELL:
VicePresident of the Executive Council · Victoria · NAT

– The protection suggested is not for the purpose of affording an opportunity for the establishment of the manufacture of cotton piece goods in Australia, but is to give the British manufacturers of cotton piece goods an advantage over the manufacturers of these goods who are established in other countries. In 1918-19 we imported £10,485,200 worth of cotton piece goods from the United Kingdom, as against £5,560,183 worth in the previous year, but the value of our importations of these goods from Japan has increased from £49,508 in 1913 to £1,542,400 in 1918-19. Surely these figures show that Ave ought to afford some advantage to Great Britain in respect of these goods, particularly when we do not manufacture them in Australia. The rates, as proposed in the schedule, will give the United Kingdom a preference of 15 per cent, against the products qf any country to which the intermediate Tariff is npt extended, and 5’ per cent, preference against any country .to which the intermediate Tariff may bc extended. While the value of imports of United . Kingdom . origin advanced by 167 per cent, from 1913 to 1918-19 that pf Japanese cotton piece goods imported into Australia increased by 3,015 per cent, and that of United States of America origin by 755 per cent. The increased value of cottons imported from the United Kingdom does not indicate an increase in the quantity of such goods, as is evident from the fact that the price of American raw cotton, which chiefly controls the price of the cotton piece goods, advanced from 13.31 cents per lb. in July, 1914, to 30 cents per lb. in July, 1919, this being an increase of 135 per cent. The comparatively higher increase in the cost of labour and coal in the United Kingdom added to the higher price of the raw material would certainly show a greater percentage increase than is observable in the value of the imports from that country in 1918-19, as compared with 1913. The advance in the value of imports from the United States of America and Japan- represents, on the other hand, an enormous increase in the actual quantity of the goods supplied.

The competition of these countries, especially of Japan, is assuming a very serious aspect in other countries as well as in Australia; for instance, in India, and, in respect of the United States of America, in European markets. His Majesty’s Commercial Secretary at Yokohama, in a report published in the Board of Trade Journal of the 11th September, 1919, states -

The superior position obtained by Japanese cotton yarn and fabrics on the Chinese market, whence they have driven Indian goods, and their recent rapid advance in India and Australia, has been obtained without doubt by the absence of strict restrictions of working hours and the low. level of wages.

In the same report the hours of labour in textile factories are thus described -

The hours for both day and night work are from 0 to (Jj rest periods being as follows: - Fifteen minutes between 9 and 0.15; thirty minutes from 12 to 12.30, fifteen minutes from 3.15 to 3.30. Day and night shifts are changed once every week or ten days, when twenty-four hours’ complete rest is given:

There is no Saturday afternoon holiday in Japan. ‘ These facts’ show the necessity for extending greater preference to Great Britain than has hitherto been given. I am sure no one in. this Chamber wishes our Australian girls to work in clothing factories under conditions similar to those operating in Japan, and’ I think we are ali ready to extend a preference to Great Britain in this regard, because the working conditions in the Old Country are entirely different from those in the countries with which it has to compete in the manufacture of cotton goods.

Senator PAYNE:
Tasmania

.- The remarks of the Minister (Senator Russell) quite justify a preference of 15 per cent, to Great Britain, and I agree Avith every word he has said; but I desire to be consistent. I find that this leather cloth has hitherto been free in the case of Great Britain, with a 15 per cent. Tariff against other countries; but now the preference to Great Britain is being reduced.

Senator Russell:

– There is still a 10 per cent, preference to Great Britain.

Senator PAYNE:
TASMANIA · NAT; UAP from 1931

– I submit the request, because I desire to do all I can for those people in Australia who have to use a cheaper material than leather, and who have hitherto been able to obtain it free of duty; and, at the same time, I wish Great Britain to be given some encouragementand help by Australia in building up her industries which were so interfered with by the war.

Senator Russell:

– Leather cloth is not cheaper for furniture, because it does not stand the strain.

Senator PAYNE:

– But people who have not the necessary money cannot buy leather.

Question - That the request (Senator Payne’s) be agreed to - put. TheCommittee divided.

Ayes . . . . 6

Noes . . . . . . 17

Majority . . . . 11

Question so resolved in the negative.

Request negatived.

Senator SENIOR:
South Australia

– I move-

That the House of Representatives bo requested to amend sub-item (a), paragraph 2, by leaving out the words “ by departmental bylaws.”

This simply leaves the words “as prescribed.” The words “ as prescribed by departmental by-laws “ occur so frequently in the Tariff that it seems to me necessary for Parliament to retain the power of imposing duties, or, at least, be in a position to know what duties are imposed, removed, or modified. If we leave the words in as they appear, too much power is given to the Customs Department without any supervision from Parliament, which should be the real author of all duties. In the case of the Defence Department regulations are from time to time laid upon the table, and we have an opportunity to approve or disapprove of them; but in the case of the Tariff we are asked to place all the power in the hands of the Comptroller of Customs. The words “ as prescribed by departmental by-laws” occur four or five times on this one page of the Tariff.

Senator GUTHRIE:
VICTORIA · NAT; UAP from 1931

– I understand that there are already 14,000 Customs rulings.

Senator SENIOR:

– That simply shows the farce - if I may use the word - of Parliament imposing duties, if it is possible to have 14,000 rulings by which those duties may be removed or modified, according to the will of the Customs officials. It may be said that Parliament has not time to attend to such matters, but we are paid to do so, and ought to do our duty.

Senator RUSSELL:
VicePresident of the Executive Council · Victoria · NAT

– When this matter arose earlier in the week I undertook to make inquiries concerning whether it would be advisable or feasible for the Government to accept an amendment of the phrase. Regulations ordinarily laid upon the table of Parliament deal with legislative matters. In the present instance, however, the Minister for Trade and Customs has been given certain powers. To cite an example, calico used for making bags in which to export flour may be imported free. Every care has to be taken, however, to insure that this special permission is not abused. Guarantees are required from millers that the calico which they desire to import free of duty shall be wholly exported as flour bags.

Senator Senior:

– My requested amendment does not propose to interfere with necessary safeguards taken by the Department. The words, “as prescribed “ are not sought to be deleted. The sole intention is to have the by-laws laid before Parliament in the form of regulations.

Senator RUSSELL:

– But there are probably thousands of decisions of this character throughout the year. If every by-law had to be laid upon the table of the Legislature in the form of a regulation, the work would be endless. Parliament would be flooded with documents. The Governor-General would never be free from the task of affixing his signature to them. If the words “as prescribed “ remain alone, the effect will probably be to give the Minister much wider powers that those to which he is limited to-day. Every time an individual in the commercial (community sought to evade the Customs laws, to meet which evasion the Department framed a new by-law, there would be required an Order in Executive Council. Altogether, the situation would be chaotic. The same phrase to which some honorable senators are now objecting appears in practically every Tariff in the world ; and, so far as is known, neither abroad nor in Australia have there been complaints on the part of the commercial community.

Senator PRATTEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– There have been very many.

Senator RUSSELL:

– Then, before speaking further, I should like to hear the honorable senator’s facts.

Senator PRATTEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– The Minister (Senator Russell’ has reminded the Committee of his promise to look into the matter of amending the phrase “ as prescribed by departmental by-laws.” He undertook to announce whether the Government could meet the views of honorable senators in the direction of so amending the phrase as to take out of the hands of the Minister for Customs and his Department, and to place within the control of Parliament, the right of imposing or remitting taxation. No honorable senator will deny that the imposition of taxation is solely the function of Parliament. I desire to state the position as viewed by the commercial community, and also from the stand-point of the law.

Senator Gardiner:

– I direct attention to the state of the Committee. There should be a full attendance of honorable senators to participate in this allimportant debate.

The CHAIRMAN (Senator Bakhap).

T-Order ! There is exactly a quorum present. Will Senator Pratten please proceed?

Senator PRATTEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– The enormous powers of the Minister for Trade and Customs are not generally realized. He lias authority to prohibit the importation of any article. He possesses the power to determine whether an article shall enter free or be dutiable^- at any rate, in very many cases. First, there is the power of prohibition, as provided in section 52 of the Customs Act, which sets forth what are prohibited imports. Then there is power under which goods may be prohibited from importation by proclamation. When the Minister takes upon himself the power of prohibition he entrenches on the rights of Parliament, and assumes the prerogatives of the National Legislature. Any layman, reading the sections of the Customs Act which hear upon the power of prohibition, would come to the conclusion that they must be read in conjunction with certain other sections, and that the goods prohibited by proclamation from importation must- be shown to be goods that might be harmful to” the community. The High Court has recently decided that the Minister for Customs undoubtedly has the powers which he claims under the Customs Act, and that he possesses a discretion, in the exercise of those powers, with respect to almost every commodity that can be imported or exported.

Senator Vardon:

– Surely Parliament never had any such intention as that?

Senator PRATTEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– I agree that it had not.

Senator Keating:

– If the Minister exercises the power the Court will not consider the class of goods in connexion with which it is exercised.

Senator PRATTEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– Then the honorable senator agrees with my arguments.

Senator Pearce:

– What has this alteration to do with it? “ Senator PRATTEN.- I am coming to the general powers given by Parliament to the Minister for Trade and Customs in connexion with imports and exports, and I desire to make the actual position quite clear. Senator Senior referred to the power of the Minister in determining which articles shall be free and which shall be dutiable, and the additional power, which is very far-reaching, of deciding whether articles placed on the free list by previous Ministers shall be removed to the “dutiable list. Recently there have been a number of cases in which this power, which Senator Senior desires to restrict, has been exercised. A previous debate showed what : occurred in connexion with certain brands of infants’ and invalids’ foods. Shovels were formerly free of duty if imported from the United Kingdom, and liable to a duty of 10 per cent, if imported from other countries.

Senator Pearce:

– -Shovels were not free of duty.

Senator PRATTEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– I can prove that what I am saying is correct.

Senator Pearce:

– Shovels imported from the United Kingdom were not free of duty.

The CHAIRMAN (Senator Bakhap:
TASMANIA

– The honorable senator must necessarily be restricted in his allusion to shovels on this item. Whilst I desire to give honorable senators every latitude I possibly can under our Standing Orders, I do not see how shovels can he extensively referred to in discussing an item relating to calico.

Senator PRATTEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– Surely I am in order in referring to items under which the power which, we desire to restrict is exorcised*

The CHAIRMAN:

– The honorable senator will be quite in order in briefly referring to such items by way of illustration, but he must. not do so extensively. The discussion of the schedule in such a manner would lead to great confusion.

Senator PRATTEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– Formerly shovels were imported from the United Kingdom free of duty, and were liable to a duty of 10 per cent, if imported from foreign .countries. They are now declared to be subject to a duty of 30 per cent. when imported from the United Kingdom and 35 per cent, when from foreign countries. Plough and teamsters’ .chains were once admitted free or dutiable at 5 per cent., according to the country of origin, but since the 1st December last they are dutiable at 30 per cent, and 35 per cent., according to the country of manufacture. Those are two specific instances where the Tariff has been amended and duties imposed under departmental by-laws.

Senator Keating:

– The honorable senator does not suggest that those duties were unauthorized by this Tariff schedule.

Senator PRATTEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– Let us consider how item 219 has been dealt with.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The Tariff is specifically divided into items, and I cannot allow the honorable senator to pass numerous pages of the schedule and proceed to discuss, item 219.

Senator PRATTEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– If you will permit me, Mr. Chairman, I shall, merely refer to this item in support of the request moved by Senator Senior. Item 219 reads -

Tools of trade, for the use of artisans and mechanics, and tools in general use, as prescribed by departmental by-laws, ad val., free, 5 per cent., and 10 per cent.

Senator PRATTEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– Th,at is so; but the publicity that would be given to a proposal to vary a Tariff item if i.t came ^ before Parliament would prove a solution of the problem. At present honorable senators are unable to follow Tariff alterations made under departmental bylaws, and often their first information of such changes is received from importers who, because of them, have been called upon to pay additional duties. If some means could be devised whereby the Parliament would be apprised of what is going on in regard to Tariff alterations under departmental by-laws, and could disagree to anything that it considered objectionable, that, I think, would meet the requirements.

Senator SENIOR:
South . Australia

– In view of what the Minister (Senator Russell) has said, I propose, with the consent of the Committee, to withdraw my request. If similar cases crop up later on the Minister will have had an opportunity to confer with the Minister for Trade and Customs (Mr.

Greene) in regard to the matter, and I shall then be able to renew my request.

Request, by leave, withdrawn.

Senator LYNCH:
“Western Australia

. - Under section 2 of sub-item a calico for bag making, as prescribed by departmental by-laws, is free, although it has hitherto been dutiable under the general Tariff. This means that the flour-millers and the exporters of meat, oatmeal, and other commodities will be able to obtain, duty free, the material necessary for their cotton bags and wrappers. Why should we differentiate between such firms as Robert Harper and Company and the men engaged in filling these calico bags in their factories, who have to pay duty on the dungarees used in the manufacture of their working clothes ?

Senator RUSSELL:

– Dungaree from the United Kingdom is free.

Senator LYNCH:

– I am aware of that; but there is a duty of 15 per cent, under the general Tariff, and most of this material comes from the United States of America. I am speaking, not only for the men engaged in putting flour into calico bags - not only for the miner and the ‘men in. our forests - but also for the “ poor denizens of Toorak,” who go out shooting in. their overalls. This is clearly an attempt to tax what is a very common article of wearing apparel so far as the vast majority of our working men are concerned. I therefore move -

That the House of Representatives he requested .to insert in sub-item (a) the following new paragraph: -

Dungaree, for making into garments, as prescribed by departmental by-laws, British, free; intermediate, free; general, free.

Senator RUSSELL:

– About one-half.

Question - That the request (Senator

Lynch’s) be agreed to - put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 7

NOES: 17

Majority . . . . 10

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Request negatived.

Senator LYNCH:
Western Australia

– I move -

That the House of Representatives he requested to make the duties, sub-item (a), paragraph 2, ad val., intermediate, 5 per cent.; general, 15 per cent.

In order to preserve symmetry, as far as that is possible - though it is, perhaps, expecting too much of this thing known as a Tariff schedule, framed on scientific lines according to all the rules of Euclid and mathematics, but with the rules of economy ignored - there should be no distinction made between the man who wears dungarees and Robert Harper & Co. and other flour exporter’s who use calico for encasing their wares.

Senator RUSSELL:
VicePresident of the Executive Council · Victoria · NAT

– While I am sympathetic with the request, so far as Great Britain is concerned, we have to remember that Englanddoes not supply anything like the requirements of calico for Australia. We have, therefore, to be very careful what we do in this regard. The Senate would not, I think, deliberately place a duty of 15 per cent. on the calico which is so essential in this country, and which we do not produce ourselves. I have known cases in which a commodity wrapped in tissue paper could be bought for less than the same commodity wrapped in a calico bag, owing to the cost of calico during the war time. That was so in the flour trade, at any rate, and possibly other trades were similarly situated. Consumers of flour in the East demand their flour in small bags; and if the request be agreed to it will mean a heavy impost on those who have to use calico bags in their export trade. The flour industry is one that we desire to build up, because the more flour that is sold to the East, the better it is for the wheat-growers and the millers. In order to keep the fruit export trade going, an opportunity was offered for importing sugar practically free of duty; so, in the present case, it is desired to enable the millers to supply as much flour as possible to consumers in the East. “

Senator GUTHRIE:
VICTORIA · NAT; UAP from 1931

– Is this calico used for meat wrappers?

Senator RUSSELL:

– No; meat wrappers are free when used for meat purposes.

Senator PAYNE:
Tasmania

.- I should like to know from which country the calico is imported that is used in the manufacture of flour bags. I have always been under the impression that no part of the world can give better value in ordinary plain manchester goods than England. My experience in trade was that I could always rely on bedrock values in these plain goods from the Old Country. If England can supply our requirements, why should we not give her a preference?

Senator RUSSELL:
VicePresident of the Executive Council · Victoria · NAT

– Unfortunately, I am not able to supply Senator Payne with figures; but I have information here to the effect that in sub-item a, paragraph 2, provision is made for the free admission of calico for bag making in the interests of the flour export trade, and that, as it is impracticable to arrange for the drawback of duty, owing to the difficulty of distinguishing between United Kingdom calico and calico of other origin, the flour export’ trade is at a disadvantage in competition abroad, on account of the duty on ‘the material used in the bags. That is to say, it is difficult to tell where the calico comes from ; but I believe the bulk has been coming from America.

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
Western Australia

– It is probable that cotton goods were imported from America during the war. English factories and English workmen were then being used for far different purposes than that of producing piece goods. But in Manchester to-day there are thousands of factory hands out of work because the manufacturers cannot get sufficient orders to keep their mills going. To say that Manchester cannot supply the Australian demand is absurd. Here is an opportunity to help Great Britain. If cotton goods can now be secured more cheaply from Manchester than from American makers, Australian exporters of flour in bags will bo able to provide all the discrimination necessary. The Customs Department need not keep constant watch to ascertain whether the calico comes from America or Great Britain. If the Australian millers can buy English calico for less than American they will use the English production.

The CHAIRMAN (Senator Bakhap:

– I shall put Senator Lynch’s comprehensive request in separate form.

Question - That the House of Representatives be requested to make the general duty 15 per cent. - put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 15

NOES: 9

Majority . . . . 6

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Bequest agreed to.

Question - That the House of Representatives be requested to make the intermediate duty 5 per cent. - put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 15

NOES: 9

Majority . . . . 6

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Request agreed to.

Senator GARDINER:
New South Wales

– Section 1 of sub-item aa contains the objectionable phrase, “as prescribed by departmental by-laws.” I again take exception to it, but perceive that it would be useless for me to request its deletion. Following the splendid display of interest shown by some honorable senators who were anxious to help British trade by injuring American trade, I now expect them to undertake to assist British trade by injuring nobody. Therefore, I move -

That the House of Representatives be requested to make sub-item (aa), paragraph 2, British, free.

– And why not?

Senator Keating:

– But Victorians will not assist industries in Other States; they say that they are too small.

Senator GARDINER:

– The most insignificant industries of Victoria are well looked after, and that notwithstanding that it is the duty of the Commonwealth Government to hold the balance even as between the States. The whole Commonwealth has to pay enormous duties for the protection of Victorian industries.

Senator de Largie:

– “When we get to Canberra that gibe will be flung at the honorable senator in regard- to New South Wales.

Senator GARDINER:

– This Parliament will meet at Canberra before very long. If the present Government will not allow it to meet there, it will meet there directly a Labour Government gets into office, and will never return to Melbourne. The industries of Victoria have received consideration at the hands of this Government altogether out of proportion to that given to the industries of the other States.

Sitting suspended from 6.S0 to 8 p.m.

Senator PRATTEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– I propose to support the amendment, for the reason that I have seen statements in the press to the effect that the increased duties in this Tariff over the former Tariff on cotton goods alone amounts to over £300,000, and I think that whenever we can give consumers a little relief without inflicting an injustice upon local industries, we should do so. The articles referred to in this sub-item constitute the raw material for those dealt with in item 120, and this is purely a revenue duty, so that it will hurt nobody if we take it off. If the amendment to give preference to Great Britain is -agreed to, we shall then be extending muchneeded support to Lancashire and Yorkshire industries. Even as a revenue duty, the requested amendment would mean a considerable advance on the old general Tariff of 5 per cent, on American and German goods, which came here in large quantities. . Senator Lynch now proposes to impose a duty of 15 per cent, on goods from those countries and to allow British goods to come in free. This, I think, is a matter in which sentiment should have some play. We should give some advantage to our kinsmen across the water, and see to it that if, in future, goods do come from Germany, they shall, at least, pay a reasonable duty, not 5 per cent., as in the old Tariff, but 15 per cent., as suggested by Senator Lynch.

Question - That the request be agreed to - put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 10

NOES: 15

Majority . . 5

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Request negatived.

Senator LYNCH:
“Western Australia

– I move -

That the House of Representatives be requested to make sub-item b, British, free.

I submit this request because I wish to take honorable senators at their word and give them an opportunity to vote for preference to Great Britain, and in order that we may provide raw material free for our seamstresses.

Question put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 10

NOES: 15

Majority . . . . 5

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Request negatived.

Senator GUTHRIE:
VICTORIA · NAT; UAP from 1931

. -I am led to believe that sub-itemc, piece goods, n.e.i., relates to flannelette. I cannot understand the basis upon which this Tariff has been drawn up. On flannel, which is a much safer, cleaner, and healthier article, made of Australian wool, duties of 30 per cent., 40 per cent., and 45 per cent, are imposed; whereas flannelette, which is inflammable, dangerous, unhealthy, and a rubbishy imitation of flannel, is free under the British preferential Tariff, and is subject to duties of only 5 per cent. and 15 per cent. respectively under the intermediate and general Tariffs.Flannelette, which is made of American cotton in England, America, and Japan, and enters into competition with Australian flannel, made of Australian wool, is free under the British Tariff; whereas in section 2 of sub-item aa, duties of 20 per cent., 30 per cent., and 35 per cent., are imposed on other cotton piece goods. Evidently,- this Tariff is designed to encourage the people of Australia to wear flannelette made of American cotton rather than flannel made of Australian wool. I therefore intend to move a request that the duties under sub-item c be 20, 30, and 35 per cent., which will bring them into line with the duties we have just passed in respect of another branch of cotton goods.

I have always had an objection to flannelette, which is highly inflammable and dangerous. During the last six years an average of eighteen women and children per annum have died from burns caused by their flannelette clothing catching fire. Our importations of flannelette have run from £320,000 worth in 1917-18 to £432,000 worth in 1919-20. Seventy-five per cent. of it comes from Great Britain, but a large quantity is also imported from Japan and America. Thisrubbish is made of American cotton, which to-day is nearly double the price of the Australian wool which enters into the composition of Australian flannel. My desire is that the people shall be encouraged to wear the healthier article. Let me here point to another inconsistency on the part of the Government. This afternoon, when we were dealing with leather cloth, which is used in the kitchens of the poor, the Minister in charge of the Bill (Senator Russell) said that it was necessary .to impose a duty on that material because it entered into competition with Australian leather. In order to be consistent, surely the Government will agree to impose the duties I have mentioned on flannelette, which enters into competition with Australian flannel. I am pointing out as politely as possible the glaring inconsistencies in the Tariff. It is full of anomalies.

The Minister said this afternoon that oil cloth - that horrible stuff which enters into competition with Australian leather - was largely the product of the cheap labour of Japan. He was quite right in referring to the cheap labour of that country. Those employed in Japan’s textile trade work seventy-two hours aweek for a weekly wage of 20s. That is another reason why I want substantial duties on foreign-made flannelette - the product of the cheap labour of Japan - which competes with our splendid Australian flannels. By encouraging the use of flannelette we are fattening up the cotton-grower of America, and the Americans, in return, have put a prohibitive Tariff on Australian wool. I repeat that we are encouraging our people to wear flannelette made of American cotton, yet when we want to “sell our wool to the United States of America we find the door definitely closed against us. As every one knows, flannel is a healthy material. It is a non-conductor of heat and cold, and is almost uniflammable whereas flannelette is not only a conductor of heat and cold, and therefore the cause of much sickness on the part of those who wear it, but dangerous also because of its inflammability. Having regard to the price pf wool to-day, it should be possible for us to make flannel at a price equal to that at which flannelette can be obtained. The average price of cotton is just on 8d. per lb., whereas the average price of the wools used in the manufacture of flannel - such as second and third lambs, locks, and second cross-bred pieces - is about 3d. to 4d. per lb. Thousands of bales of such wools are obtainable in Australia to-day at about that price, and it should be our object to encourage the use of the more healthy Australian article by the Australian people.

The Government, again, are going to reduce the duty on luxuries such as vel vets, yet they have carried duties of 20, 30, and 35 per cent, on cotton piece goods. Flannelette, on the other hand, for some extraordinary reason, is free when it comes from Great Britain. If I had my way, I would prohibit its importation, since it is dangerous to the community. As illustrating how cheaply pure woollen flannel can be made in Australia, I would mention that the owner of a certain mill in Geelong made a huge fortune out of a Government contract for 4,000,000 odd yards, at ls. 3 1/2 d. per yard. That gentleman boasted that he had put over £100,000 into the war loans. I had the unpleasant task of exposing his firm in this House, pointing out the immoral way in which portion of the huge profit had been made by the adulteration of the flannel. This fortune was made during the war period, and even at that time the firm in question could have made flannel at lid. per yard. The average price of greasy wool was then 154d. per lb., and the wools which go into the manufacture of flannel were at least double their present-day price. If the gentleman to whom I have referred could make a fortune out of a Government contract for the manufacture of flannel from wool purchased on the basis of 15 1/2 d. per lb., there is no reason why, with an abundance of much cheaper wool in Australia to-day, flannel should not be available at a greatly reduced price.

Senator Crawford:

– How does flannel compare .with flannelette in the matter of durability ?

Senator GUTHRIE:
VICTORIA · NAT; UAP from 1931

– It will last four times as long as flannelette. No one will deny that flannel made of pure wool is more durable, and in every other respect better, than flannelette, which is only teased cotton. With a view to discouraging the use of this dangerous imitation of flannel, and of encouraging the greater use of Australian wool, as well as with the object of trying to secure some measure of Tariff uniformity, I move -

That the House of Representatives be requested to make the duty, sub-item (c), general, ad. val., 35 per cent.

If that request be carried, I shall move further requests that the duty under the British preferential Tariff be 20 per cent, and under the intermediate Tariff, 30 per cent. I am not in favour of exceptionally high duties in any ‘ case, and the rates which I am now proposing are considerably less than those proposed by the Government in respect of all-wool flannel.

Senator PAYNE:
Tasmania

.- I have quite enjoyed listening to Senator Guthrie’s appeal on behalf of the health and welfare of the people of Australia, but some of his statements cannot be supported by statistics, and would not be indorsed by the average citizen of the Commonwealth. For instance, the honorable senator says that the health and well-being of the people of Australia have been injured by the use of flannelette, but it is strange that practically every year, as this article has come to be more and more used in Australia, the health of. the community has improved.

Senator Keating:

– Does the honorable senator mean that flannelette is healthgiving?

Senator PAYNE:

– It is much more conducive to the good health of the community than were the materials that had to be .worn before it came to be made.

Senator GUTHRIE:
VICTORIA · NAT; UAP from 1931

– That is no argument. I am arguing ‘for the use of an all-wool flannel. :Senator PAYNE. - It is ridiculous to say to the 5,000,000 people of Australia that, no matter what their financial resources may be, they must either wear a fabric which is beyond the reach of the majority of them, or go naked. .

Senator GUTHRIE:
VICTORIA · NAT; UAP from 1931

– What about that lady’s garment you were handling before the tea adjournment with so much care and knowledge, and which you declared to be made of cotton?

Senator PAYNE:

– That has nothing to do with the question. We were then discussing a tubular cotton material which Senator Russell informed us was being manufactured by Australian mills, and which was being afforded the protection of the duties set forth in the schedule. Can Senator Guthrie point to any industry in Australia in existence or likely to commence operations for the manufacture of flannelette?

Senator GUTHRIE:
VICTORIA · NAT; UAP from 1931

– We do not want the people to use flannelette. We want them to use flannel, which is a much better material.

Senator PAYNE:

Senator E D MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

– That is not shown in the difference of the treatment meted out to these commodities.

Senator DUNCAN:

– -It is shown by the Tariff, in which it is proposed to place a very high duty en flannel1-

– 4 -

That the House of Representatives be requested to make the duty, sub-item (c), general, 20 per cent.

Question put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 12

NOES: 13

Majority . . . . 1

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Request negatived.

Senator PRATTEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– Are cotton tweeds included in this sub-item?

Senator Russell:

– They are in subitem a (1).

Senator PRATTEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– I move-

That the House of Representatives be requested to insert a new sub-item, “ Cotton tweeds, British, 20 per cent.; intermediate, 25 per cent.; general, 30 per cent.”

I produce samples of rubbishy cotton tweeds now being imported in large quantities from Japan, Belgium, and Great Britain.

The CHAIRMAN (Senator Bakhap:

– In order to prevent the honorable senator from unnecessarily occupying the time of the Committee, I desire to inform him that sub-item a, which has already been exhaustively discussed, includes the article which he is now discussing. The honorable senator is well aware that he cannot be deprived of his rights. If the honorable senator can persuade the majority of the Senate to support the proposal, he will later have an opportunity to get the Bill recommitted, but wecannot, at this stage, retrace our steps.

Senator PRATTEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– I submit that there are two ways in which I might deal with the matter now : either by moving the insertion of a new sub-item, or by moving to amend sub-item o.

Senator E D MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

– I take the point of order that, the Chairman having given his decision, Senator Pratten, if he dissents from the ruling, must move accordingly, but cannot discuss it as he* proposes to do.

Senator PRATTEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– I wish to show that the article to which I have alluded could be brought within sub-item c.

The CHAIRMAN:

– As the article- in question comes within sub-item a, with which the Committee has dealt, it cannot be referred to further now.

Senator PRATTEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– I should like you to consider, sir, whether this article cannot be brought within sub-item o, which deals with “ piece goods not elsewhere ineluded?”

The CHAIRMAN:

– But the article in question is elsewhere included, namely, in sub-item a. The matter cannot be further discussed.

Senator PRATTEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– Do I understand that I cannot move the insertion of a new sub-item to include it?

The CHAIRMAN:

– That is my ruling.

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
Western Australia

– In another place members generally referred to silk as a luxury, as, no doubt, it may be in the colder parts of the Commonwealth - in Victoria, for instance - but in Western Australia, Queensland, the Northern Territory, and a great part of New South Wales silk clothing is as much a necessary as cotton clothing. I admit, of course, that articles like silk stockings and silk brocades are luxuries, but ordinary silk wearing apparel is necessary in a hot climate, and the greater part of the Commonwealth has such a climate. Silk is not produced in Australia, and does not come from Great Britain as an origin nal product of the country, all our importations being therefore, in origin at least, from foreign countries. There is no silk industry in Australia which it is desired to protect; and, presumably, the duties here set down are proposed as revenue duties. The policy of the country, however, seems to be that revenue duties should be levied, not upon essentials, but upon non-essentials, and I therefore move -

That the House of Representatives be requested to make the duty, sub-item (d), British, 5 per cent. ; intermediate, 10 per cent. ; general, 15 per cent

Senator REID:
Queensland

– The Minister has admitted that this is a revenue-producing item.

Senator Russell:

– Largely.

Senator REID:

– Tie-making as an industry is being carried on in nearly all of the States, and silk is its raw material. In the hotter States, particularly Queensland and Western Australia, silk wearing apparel is a necessary article. Why should the people of those States be -penalized because the climate compels them to wear silk? Senator Lynch declares silk, as an article of apparel, to be a luxury. In the southern States people are accustomed to wear dull, heavy clothing, but in the northern parts of the Commonwealth light washing material is the popular article of apparel, and what can be better than silk?

Senator Bolton:

– There is more silk worn in Victoria than in any other State.

SenatorREID. - Then I think it must be worn in the ball-rooms, for it is certainly not seen in the streets. This duty on silk is simply a tax on the people who live in the hotter climate. People who wear heavy clothes in a hot climate look warm and uncomfortable, but those who have travelled in Western and Northern Queensland know that the womenfolk there dress in light clothing, and always look cool and pleasing. Here the womenfolk wear dull, stuffy clothes.

Senator Bolton:

– The honorable senator does not see the right sort of people. What part of Melbourne does he visit?

Senator REID:

– I sometimes visit The Block. Silk is a necessity in hot climates, where it is largely used for women’s and children’s clothing, so that this duty is a special tax on certain States designed to produce revenue to help the other States out of their difficulties.

Senator PAYNE:
Tasmania

.- I feel inclined to resent SenatorReid’s reference to the ladies of the southern States, who, he tells us, do not know how to dress attractively, but wear dull and stuffy things. My observation leads me to say that no branch of the industry in the southern States of late years has grown to such an extent as has that engaged in the making of silk blouses and ties. Those industries have grown up under a Tariff which has been in force for some time, and I am glad that it is not proposed to increase it. I do not want the cost of living to be increased, and, like Senator Gardiner, I desire to sec the womenfolk of those who earn their living by the sweat of their brow given an opportunity to make themselves as attractive as possible. They have a perfect right to such an opportunity, and have enjoyed it under the Tariff which has been in operation for some years. The Government in the Tariff as introduced proposed that the duties on silk should be increased, but that proposal was defeated in another place, so that we are back again to the rates prevailing under the Tariff of 1914. We should allow them to stand. The Treasurer will have a difficult task in making ends meet, and we should hesitate to deprive him of a considerable amount of revenue, as we should do by securing a reduction of the duties on silk. There is no justification for such a reduction as is requested unless it can be shown that the duties have become a burden. I hold that they are not too heavy. They cover all classes of silk. I -believe we could impose a heavier duty on some classes of silk without affecting the welfare of the people, but itwould be difficult to differentiate.

Senator Reid:

– We could differentiate according to prices. If the people want good Japanese silk they should pay for it.

Senator PAYNE:

– But there are a hundred and one varieties of silk ranging in value from 2s. to £3 and more per yard. These are subject to ad valorem duties, and consequently the more expensive the article used the greater will be the revenue. The duties on silk are not oppressive, they have been in operation Tor some years, and I urge that they should be allowed to stand.

Question - That the request (Senator Drake-Brockman’s) be agreed to - put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 7

NOES: 14

Majority . . 7

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Bequest negatived.

Senator PAYNE:
Tasmania

– I move -

That the House of Representatives be requested to make the duty, sub-item (f), general, ad val., 35 per cent.

Senator Reid:

– Are there woollen mills in Melbourne?

Senator GUTHRIE:
VICTORIA · NAT; UAP from 1931

– Yes, but not as many as there are in the country. What are’ the Government doing under the Tariff to protect the interests of the primary producer? Imposing duties on straw and wheat! The Tariff has been framed with the object of fattening Melbourne city manufacturers, and in encouraging centralization. What consideration has been shown to consumers? Everything is unnecessarily high in price, and the cost of living has increased out of all proportion to the rise in wages. I was not elected to the Senate to represent the interests of Labour; but I claim to be able to speak for all sections of the community in this State, and I can say without hesitation that the Government cannot prove that wages have increased in the same ratio as the cost of living. These excessive duties on woollen goods will mean that higher prices will be charged, and that consumers will be robbed although large quantities of wool are practically going to waste.

In the Tariff the Government are slavishly following the dictates of a leading Melbourne daily, and the. opinions of a gentleman named Mr. Ambrose Pratt. I have npt the honour of Mr. Pratt’s acquaintance, but I judge him to be just somewhat of a Protectionist.

Senator E D MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

– I thought the honorable senator was a Protectionist.

Senator GUTHRIE:
VICTORIA · NAT; UAP from 1931

– Yes, I am a sane Protectionist. Mr. Ambrose Pratt has placed before honorable senators a most extraordinary publication, the contents of which are beyond my powers of comprehension. I desire to give one statement the lie direct on behalf of the primary producers. It is to be found on page 179, and reads -

These industries, dependent on the great sheep flocks of Australia, provide a good market for every part of the sheep, and their influence on the wool industry is so favorable that the revenue derived from the sale of the by-products of wool-growing that form the raw material of the frozen mutton, the tanning, and the fell mongering trades provide revenue sufficient, on the average, to pay for the cost of maintaining the sheep flocks, and the wool can be placed on the market at a cost of but a few half-pence per pound.

What is the truth about that?

Senator Reid:

– When was that statement made?

Senator GUTHRIE:
VICTORIA · NAT; UAP from 1931

– Last year. But it was apparently written to influence honorable senators when the Tariff was under discussion. The by-products that Mr. Pratt says are so profitable that we can practically give our wool away are unsaleable, as hides, skins, and fats are in many cases not sufficiently remunerative to cover railway freight and charges.

The CHAIRMAN:

– I must askthe honorable senator not to make a secondreading speech and introduce such items as hides, skins, and fat on this sub-item.

Senator GUTHRIE:
VICTORIA · NAT; UAP from 1931

– The sale of these products is very closely associated with the wool industry.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Sub-item f deals with textiles.

Senator GUTHRIE:
VICTORIA · NAT; UAP from 1931

– I have seen debit notes sent to consignors of by-products, and, in face of that, Mr. Pratt says that they are being marked at profitable rates. Some crossbred wools, which this gentleman says is selling at such a profit, is not paying the cost of shearing, classing, pressing, and packs, freight, &c. So much for Mr. Ambrose Pratt’s statement. He seems to be quite an important man in the opinion of the Government, and is endeavouring to mould the opinions of honorable senators. I am not attacking the woollen manufacturing industry, because I believe in Australian goods being used by Australian people. We should be manufacturing the whole of our requirements here, but we have to consider the effects of the duties proposed, not only on the manufacturers, but on the consumers. I believe in reasonable Protection, not in the fattening, at the expense of the people, of those who are already fat, which is what will take place if we pass the duties here proposed. The schedule actually increases the duty on woollen goods.

Senator PRATTEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– Against whom ?

Senator GUTHRIE:
VICTORIA · NAT; UAP from 1931

– Against all imports and the consumers.

Senator PRATTEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– Not on the importations from Great Britain.

Senator GUTHRIE:
VICTORIA · NAT; UAP from 1931

– The duty on importations from Great Britain is 30per cent., which is an increase on the rate in the 1914 Tariff, with which the local manufacturers told the Inter-State Commission they were well satisfied. The rates proposed on woollen goods are so stupid as to cause one to lose faith in the whole Tariff. I wish it to be clearly understood that I am in favour of protecting our industries, especially our infant industries. I would like to see the whole of the woollen goods required by our people manufactured in Australia, and that could be done.

Senator Duncan:

– And we could manufacture for other countries as well.

Senator GUTHRIE:
VICTORIA · NAT; UAP from 1931

– Yes. Without any protection, we could make a profit out of this manufacture, and a rattling good profit with a duty of 25 per cent. I have always considered it an anomaly that Australia should manufacture for its own use less than 5 per cent, of its wool, though, if we supplied all our requirements in woollen goods, we should not use more than 10 per cent, of our wool. But why increase the duties, and add to the cost of living ? To do so is unnecessary, and enrages the public, which reads the balance-sheets of the woollen companies, and knows that the Inter-State Commission reported that higher duties were not needed. I shall show that the Inter-State Commission, the Bureau of Science and Industry, the chief Protectionist journal of the land, the Age, and that high Protectionist, Mr. Ambrose Pratt, do not apparently support the proposal, of the Government. Let me begin by quoting from a report of the Inter-State Commission. It says -

One of the applicants (for specific duties), in referring to woollen piece goods, said, “ The higher the duties, the cheaper are the goods imported - the quality deteriorates. Heavy duty increases importing of shoddy, more particularly to sell over the counter . . . The duty has increased the importation of cotton tweeds.” .

It is desired, in the first instance, to encourage our woollen mills, and thus directly utilize in the home market the manufactures of locally produced raw material. The encouragement already given has resulted in a total increase in the local output from £596,000 to £925,000- equal to £329,000, or 55.2 per cent., during the years 1909-13.

Under the 1914 Tariff the manufacture was profitable. During the period referred to above, the imports increased by only 9 per cent. -

According to the statistics of production, the output of the- Australian woollen mills in. quantity during this period increased -

As to tweed and cloth, 47 per cent.

As to flannel, 10 per cent. .

As to blankets, rugs, and shawls, 49 per cent. In blankets, &c, the woollen mills have established a good reputation, and are doing a large business; but in tweed and cloth there is an extensive market that the manufacturers have not touched.

Senator Pratten will admit that no attempt has been made to manufacture specialities such as ladies’ dress goods here, and yet it is proposed to put as high a duty on them as on the tweeds, rugs, and other goods that we manufacture. The report continues -

The local manufacturers of woollen clothing desire a wider margin than at present exists between the import duties on woollen clothing and that on woollen piece goods. They prefer, in lieu of an addition to the import duty on apparel, that woollen piece goods should bc admitted free. This applies particularly to women’s light dress material in the piece.

The Government propose a duty of 45 per cent, on goods which we do not manufacture, and which Great Britain does not manufacture, a duty which will injure our Ally, France, who sends these goods to us. That will cause every woman in Australia to pay exorbitant prices for her clothes. ‘ lt is, however, in the greater variety of patterns of piece goods for men’s clothing, and especially in the light materials for women’s clothing, that the woollen mills have shown, so far, but little disposition to meet the demand.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The honorable senator’s time has expired.

Senator GARDINER:
New South Wales

– I join with Senator Guthrie in opposing the increase of the woollen duties; but before speaking at greater length on the item I would like him to enlighten this Committee further on the subject with which he is dealing.

Senator GUTHRIE:
VICTORIA · NAT; UAP from 1931

– To continue my quotations from the report of the Inter-State Commission -

No application has been made to the Com- mission by the manufacturers for any increased duty on- woollen piece goods.

Why impose a duty of 45 per cent, if the local manufacturers do not want it ? Mr.

£. Ashley, manager of the Ballarat Woollen and Worsted Company, who was nominated by the Australian Woollen Manufacturers Association, gave this evidence -

We manufacture from year’s end to year’s end men’s tweeds, as there is nothing like the variety required. . . .’ If. the piece goods not made here were admitted free, there is grave doubt as to the Customs Department being able to decide what is men’s and what is women’s. . . .

Mr. F. L. W. Ashby, secretary of the Australian Woollen Manufacturers’ Association, asked that cotton tweeds, which are at present dutiable at 5 per cent., and free as cotton piece goods, should be rated at the same duty as that charged on woollen piece goods, which it was asserted they imitate and displace.

This is the summing up of the Commission -

The woollen mills, apart from flannels, blankets, &c, are only devoting their energies to making tweeds of simple .pattern, /or plain serges, for which there is a large demand. The limited population of the Commonwealth, and the local demand for small quantities of a great variety of patterns -in other lines, do not at present justify the general local manufacture of the latter. The duty, especially on the light material, which the local woollen mills do not intend at present to make, embarrasses the clothing industry in its competition with imported woollen apparel. Several of the women’s clothing manufacturers said they were compelled to import a 11, i and others 90 per cent., of their raw material. The duties on the materials the woollen mills now make would seem ample to enable them to compete with imports and sell to the clothing manufacturers at a profit. It would, therefore, appear that no Protective policy is to be served by maintaining a heavy duty on the light woollens so ‘largely imported and used by clothing .manufacturers.

It has been stated that to admit women’s light material free, or at a reduction of duty would lead to difficulties of administration; but in the Canadian Tariff, “ women’s” and children’s dress goods, &c., composed wholly or in part of wool, not exceeding in weight 6 ounces to the square yard,” when imported in a certain condition, arc admitted at a lower rate of duty, and it should be easy to decide on a standard of minimum weight which would involve no disadvantage to the local woollen mills. The question of ^dealing with the importation of “ end of season “ goods is altogether another consideration. It must be remembered that, we make 80 per cent, of all the apparel consumed locally at present. The Australian manufacture is steadily growing, and the suggestion to remove, or substantially lower, the duty on women’s light woollen dress material will add considerably to the output of the woollen branch of our clothing industry.

The Commission is strongly of the opinion that, to largely increase the clothing duties, as proposed by a few applicants out of several hundred manufacturers, would tend to imduly increase the cost of living, with little compensating advantage. Of the total consumption of apparel in Australia, it is estimated that not more than 4 per. cent, in value consists of what is termed “ end of season “ goods, imported at a low price. To place duties which may” range from 100 to 300 per cent, on many articles of apparel, 30 per cent, of the total of which is made in Australia under present rates (1008 to 1911) of 35 per cent, and 40 per cent., in order to particularly catch 4 per cent., would give the manufacturer opportunity to increase prices all round, for which there would appear to be no warrant. The principal manufacturers state that they prefer free raw material. If they had all their woollen piece goods free, they would have a manufacturing margin of 35 and 40 per cent. Their requests for additional heavy ad valorem and specific duties on the manufactured goods are disproportionately greater than their alternative proposal..

I find further that -

The Commission recommend that no increase in the duties on apparel is necessary.

They go on to say that they think there ought to be a reduction in the duty on women’s dress goods. Those are the recommendations of a Commission directed by the Government to make a searching inquiry into this matter. Then the Bureau of Science and Industry has looked into this question in a very scientific manner.

Senator PRATTEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– Mr. Stirling Taylor?

Senator GUTHRIE:
VICTORIA · NAT; UAP from 1931

– Yes. He deals with the matter particularly well. He is of opinion that there should be a considerable extension of woollen factories in Australia. I claim myself that we should have them all over the country. “We should manufacture in Australia as much of our wool as we possibly can. That would give employment to our people, and would turn the wool into a more profitable article. At page 34 of Mr. Stirling Taylor’s very excellent report, he says that an increased duty is not necessary, and that we possess so many advantages that we can make a fortune from our woollen manufactures. He suggests that we should put £14,000,000 into the business. This suggestion was made before the introduction of this Tariff. Mr. Stirling Taylor says -

Owing to the high standard of living which for many years has been adopted in this country, the Australian operative is not only the equal, but the superior, in intelligence, initiative, and efficiency of any other operative the world over.

I think that he is quite right in that. I was brought up in this trade. 1 had to work twelve hours a day at it at Bradford and elsewhere. I have worked also in Australia, and I say that the Australian operatives can hold their own with the rest of them.

Senator PRATTEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– Would the honorable senator consider Mr. Stirling Taylor a seasoned business mau?

Senator GUTHRIE:
VICTORIA · NAT; UAP from 1931

– I do not know whether he is or not. I have met him only once or twice. In this matter I am giving the Government the evidence they have provided themselves. Mr. Stirling Taylor asks a specific question on the subject, and his report continues -

The specific question, “ Is there any reason known to you why the works cost of this country should not compare favourably with the works costs in any other country for the same manufactured cloth?” was put to the manager of one of our most efficient mills. After careful consideration, the answer was, “ There is no reason whatever known to me.” On further being asked, “ Can you give any reason whatever why Australia should not manufacture woollen goods for export?” he replied, “ There is no reason.”

That is without this stupidly excessive protective duty. I say that without any heavy protective duty at all we can undersell the world. We have the wool here, and a wonderful natural- protection, as we have to pay no ocean freights on it going or coming. Mr. Stirling Taylor proceeds to show that it is possible to make a weave -of 56-in. width of tweed suiting, allow the manufacturer 20 per cent, profit, and sell the article at 6s. 6d. per yard. This estimate was made when wool was costing 2Sd. per lb., and to-day it is not half that price.

Senator Duncan:

– This is from a Government publication ?

Senator GUTHRIE:
VICTORIA · NAT; UAP from 1931

– Yes ; I am giving the Government their own stuff, and I shall give the Aye its own stuff later. Mr. Stirling Taylor says that 6s. 6d. is the price, ex mill, for the highgrade tweed.

Senator Payne:

– Does he say that that can be done, or is being done?

Senator GUTHRIE:
VICTORIA · NAT; UAP from 1931

– We know that it can be done. I know that, as a matter of fact, it is being made for 4s. 6d. per yard. I have mentioned that Mr. Stirling Taylor in the price he gives is adding 20 per cent, profit for tie manufacturer. He is speaking of the use of wool at an exceedingly high price, and sets out every detail of manufacture, including wages and everything else. Then, if it is desired to use the most fashionable high-priced merino wool of 70’s quality, of which we do not produce more than from 20,000 to 30,000 bales out of a total production of 2,000,000 bales of wool in Australia, I can give you Mr. Stirling Taylor’s price for that. He sets out with the supposition, first of all, that- we pay 2Sd. per lb. for greasy wool, when we could buy it at 14d. per lb. The top price in the market this week was round about 16d. per lb., and that for very light conditioned fleece. Mr. Stirling Taylor speaks of 28d. per lb. for wool in the grease, and during the whole operation of the appraisement scheme the record price paid during the war was 31.3d. per lb. Using the highgrade wool, and adding 20 per cent, manufacturer’s profit, . Mr. Stirling Taylor claims that high-grade twill can be turned out for lis. 10 1/2 d. per yard. It is impossible to buy the biggest rubbish imported to-day in the Lane at that price. Why, then, is it contended that we. require this high Protective Tariff? Mr. Stirling Taylor says further in his report -

The best indication that the woollen manufacturing industry is a profitable one is the prosperity of the present mills and the fact that in every State, and even almost in every locality, proposals are before the public for the establishment of further mills.

This is an industry, so we are told by the Government, that wants increased protection. The report of the Bureau of Commerce and Industry proceeds -

On inquiry, we find that the Government had the output of twenty-two mills for the years 1015-1916 and up to the’ end of April, 1917. The capital involved was £1,144,000, and the net profit was £1,197,000,

– The Fair Profits Commission also looked into this subject very carefully, and this is what that body had to say -

After a long and careful inquiry into the Victorian woollen industry, the Fair Profits Commission has arrived at the decided opinion that undue profits have been, and are still being, made by the manufacturers.

Regarding one Victorian company the Commission’s finding was as follows : -

After making all allowances for writing off capital in former years, it could be said - and the Commission adopted the company’s own figures - that shareholders had put more than £60,000 original capital into the business. In addition, within the last few years £30,000 of reserves had been capitalised and issued in shares to the shareholders. According to published statements, at an interim meeting of the company held a few weeks ago, the following distribution of profits for the half-year was made, partly out of accumulated but previously undistributed profits, namely: - Dividend distributed (half-year), £27,000; issue of shares, as a re’sult of writing up plant, &c. - face value £30,000, market value about £90,000. Apart from the shares, the dividend was at the rate of 45 per cent, per annum on the total nominal capital of £120,000, 90 per cent, per annum on capital subscribed by shareholders, and about 90 per cent, per annum on the capital used in the business as shown by the last annual balance-sheet.

That is the opinion of the Fair Profits Commission with regard to this poor “ struggling “ industry, which under the old Tariff was able to distribute 90 per cent, in dividends to its shareholders.

Senator REID:

– That was before the Government look over the mills.

Senator GUTHRIE:
VICTORIA · NAT; UAP from 1931

– Yes. The Com- mission stated further -

The Commission considered that such figures as the foregoing compelled action. The proposals made, if the immediate future was tested by the immediate past, would enable the industry, on the average, to make 18 per cent, to 20 per cent, total net profit on capital, would permit the more successful mills to make more, and would enable the less successful mills to take a fair, though not a high, profit.-

I want honorable senators to remember that I am not attacking any particular mill or the wool industry. I hold shares in two mills. I am also a trustee in the’ Soldiers’ Woollen Mill, and a director of a co-operative woollen mill company in New South Wales.

Senator Reid:

– Have those mills turned over the same dividend?

Senator GUTHRIE:
VICTORIA · NAT; UAP from 1931

– We have not had a dividend at all yet; we are only buying the machinery. But I am game to go into this business without any increase of duty, and, indeed, without any protection at all, because wo have such an enormous advantage in the possession of the raw material.” Look at the enormous price the public have been paying for cloth. The price of wool has little or nothing to do with it. During tho war the people of this country were absolutely robbed. There is no other way of putting it.

Senator PRATTEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– By whom?

Senator GUTHRIE:
VICTORIA · NAT; UAP from 1931

– They all had a finger in it. The manufacturer, the people in the “Lane,” and the large shopkeepers made exorbitant profits. My tailor wanted to charge me £18 for a suit of clothes, and when I protested, he said, “Oh, but look at the price of wool.” The pre-war price of wool was 9 1/2 d. average, and during the war we sold it to the Imperial Government at 15 1/2 d. but the Australian manufacturers got their raw material at the original appraised price. Even supposing they had to pay 15 £d. - but ‘they did not - the increased cost of wool in a suit of clothes would have been only 3s. 6d., yet suits of clothes, which formerly were £5, were raised to £10, and £10 suits were increased to £20, all on the score of the increased cost of wool ! As the result of exposure and propaganda- - I have been hammering at this matter for a long time - prices have come down again within the last few months, and suits are now £5 to £10 again.

Senator Reid:

– . The £18 suit is not down to £5.

Senator GUTHRIE:
VICTORIA · NAT; UAP from 1931

– It is down to £10, and you can now get a suit of good English tweed, if you prefer it, at £5 5s. in the leading shops of this city. In order to show that the increased price of clothing during the war period was a scandal, I propose to quote some figures relating to the Commonwealth Woollen Mill. There were three or four parties exploiting the public. The manufacturers were concerned in it to a certain extent, “Flinders-lane” was in it all the time, and the large retailers were also concerned in it. There was no necessity to compel the people to pay £10 and £20 for a suit of clothes. The Commonwealth Woollen Mill, although at the beginning of the year it naturally had dear stocks of wool on hand, has been making the most beautiful material, out of the very best fleece wool, for 5s. 6d. a yard.

Senator Payne:

– What is the width of that material ?

Senator GUTHRIE:
VICTORIA · NAT; UAP from 1931

– Fifty-six inches; and 3J yards are used in the making of a

Bult of clothes.” The- Commonwealth Woollen Mill is selling this beautiful tweed at 5s. 6d. a yard, blue serges at 7s. a yard, and one special class, 56 inches wide, made of what is practically the very best merino wool, at 6s. per yard. Honorable senators will say that the mill cannot be making any profit when it sells its products at such prices. I have here its balance-sheet for the year, and it shows that it is. It- is admitted that it opened the year with stocks of dear wool, which it had obtained from the Pool at very high prices, and that since then the market has been falling. Wool that you purchased last week at what you considered to be a low price is dear this week, because the market has been slumping. Yet, after writing off £18,449 on account of depreciation, the Commonwealth Woollen Mill, which, has been selling magnificent material at these extraordinarily low prices, made a profit of £26,000 for the year. Had it been able to concentrate on two or three particular lines, it would have made enormous profits. The position, however, is that it is called upon to make small quantities of a variety of goods, and that, we all know, adds greatly to the cost of production. It has had to make a special twill for the Air Forces, highquality thick material for suits and overcoats for naval officers, and special lines for the Defence Department, the Navy, the Railway Department, and trainees, &c. I was astounded when I took His Excellency the Governor of Victoria over the mill the other day to see that it was producing some forty or fifty different lines. If it were able to concentrate on one or two lines it would make far greater profits; but, despite the fact that it has been called upon to produce an infinite variety of material, ranging from rugs and blankets to the finest of tweeds, it shows for the last twelve months a profit of £26,000, plus £18,449 written off in respect of depreciation. And this notwithstanding the low prices charged for its products.

I think I have shown from the report of the Inter-State Commission, as well as from statements by Mr. Ambrose Pratt, Mr. Stirling Taylor, and the balancesheet of the Commonwealth Woollen Mill, that the industry does not need this increased protection. I do not say that we should remove the whole of the protection which it enjoys. We want to make sure of our position, because the high wages now ruling in England and France, as well as the high freights, may fall at any time. When the woollen industry of Australia was started, it was very much in need of protection. When I was working some years ago. in the woollen mills at Home the hours of the operatives were very much longer than they are here, while the wages were only a fourth of what we pay. The freight on our wool to England was only from 1/4d to id. per lb., and the freights back were the same. Here to-day we have a wonderful supply of the raw material. The wool used in the manufacture of flannel, for instance, is obtainable at 6d. per lb. in Australia. That same wool costs, landed in Bradford, 9d. per lb., so that in respect of that one item alone we enjoy an advantage of 50 per cent. Our competitors there have also to lose interest on their money in respect of the time spent in getting their wool Home and sending back the manufactured article. The woollen mills here have at hand the pick of the best wool in the world - they can obtain it to-day and have it on their looms to-morrow - whereas our competitors at Home have to pay delivery charges, freight, insurance, and railage to the mills and back again, plus a highly Protective Tariff on the manufactured article. Since the framing of the Tariff of 1914, under which the woollen manufacturers were making fortunes, wages in the woollen manufacturing industry of England and France have increased 400 per cent., while freights have also increased about 400 per cent. In these circumstances, I ask honorable senators to have regard to the enormous advantages that we have over our overseas competitors, apart from any increased duty.

Senator Lynch:

– All of which advantages mean more protection for the local manufacturer.

Senator GUTHRIE:
VICTORIA · NAT; UAP from 1931

– Yes. We have an advantage of 25 to 50 per cent, to start with on the cost of the raw material. I propose now to show that even such a staunch Protectionist newspaper as the Age- which so unkindly Avro te of me the other day, because of my desire to keep out German lager from Australia, that I evidently took more interest in the Australian beer trade than in the wool industry, in which I have made my living all my life - apparently considers that our woollen manufacturers need no further protection. In its issue of the 10th February, 1920, there appeared this statement -

Wool-growing in itself is profitable enough, but the profits of the pastoralists pale before those of the spinners and manufacturers.

Senator PRATTEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– In Australia?

Senator GUTHRIE:
VICTORIA · NAT; UAP from 1931

– Yes.

Senator PRATTEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– I will show that that is absolutely inaccurate.

Senator GUTHRIE:
VICTORIA · NAT; UAP from 1931

– That, at all events, is the statement of the Age, which loves the primary producer! When this statement was published, wool-growing was payable, but to-day it is the reverse. The wool-grower, however, is not whining for protection for hia wool. ‘He is prepared to take the rough with the smooth.

The CHAIRMAN” (Senator Bakhap:

– Order! The honorable senator’s time has expired.

Senator DUNCAN:
New South Wales

– I have listened with a great deal of interest to the speech made bySenator Guthrie, and unless the arguments which he has so far advanced can be controverted, I shall be almost convinced that the increased duties are entirely unnecessary. If Senator Guthrie has further facts to place before the Committee, I hope that he will let us have them.

Senator GUTHRIE:
VICTORIA · NAT; UAP from 1931

– I shall try to conclude my remarks as quickly as possible.

Senator PRATTEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– Will the honorable senator not admit that he represents the wealthiest class in the community?

Senator GUTHRIE:
VICTORIA · NAT; UAP from 1931

– No. I got far more votes from the poorer section of the community than from the rich. I may say, indeed, that I received very few votes from the wealthy, because I am generally hitting them, just as I am now doing. I have had to work for my living throughout my life.

Senator PRATTEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– I was referring to the wool-growers.

Senator GUTHRIE:
VICTORIA · NAT; UAP from 1931

– The wealthiest class in the community is not the woolgrowers, but the over-protected manufacturers. Wool-growing,’ the greatest industry in Australia, has been built up by the pluck, brains, and hard work of the people of this great country, and to-day we have the cheapest wool in the world. On the 2nd September, 1920, the Age in a leading article said -

Rates of wages and hours of labour are now very much the same in this country as they are in countries from which we import, and it is acknowledged that the Australian workmen and workwomen are as adaptable as any. The raw materials are here, and manufacturing costs in all respects ought to compare favorably” with those elsewhere. There is big money in Australian industries, and especially in Australian wool.

These words are very true, because the cost of labour has gone up in Great Britain and France to the extent I have already .shown. When the 1914 Tariff was framed, giving what was considered to be adequate protection to the Australian in dustries, and which was sufficient to enable the manufacturers to make the big profits they now acknowledge, and which were exposed by the Inter-State Commission, wages in those countries were frightfully low, and the woollen manufacturers of Bradford were getting their raw material carried to their mills al £d. per lb. The natural protection afforded to the Australian manufacturers is from 25 to 50 per cent., according to the value of the raw product, but they also a-void the payment of freight, interest, and duty charges. Yet it is proposed to further penalize the British and French’ manufacturers, though in doing so we shall really be penalizing ourselves. It is unnecessary for me to quote anything further in proof of what I am saying. When Mr. Tudor, as Minister for Trade and Customs, in 1914 raised the duties to 25 per cent. British, and 30 per cent, general, the Australian manufacturers were making fat profits, which they now admit; yet it is proposed to in-‘ crease these duties to 30 per cent, and 35 and 45 per cent, respectively. The duty against France - our brave Ally, and the best customer we have for the finest merino wool grown in Australia - which makes the ladies’ dress wear and babies’ wear which England does not make, and which we have never attempted to make, because it would not pay to do so, owing to the comparatively limited demand, is thus increased by 50 per cent, as compared with the former Tariff. To-day the wages of those engaged in the woollen trade in Franca -and England are slightly higher than they are here. One would think that this Australian industry to which we are giving such an extraordinary protection was a specially good trade for the workers. As a matter of fact, it is a fairly low-wage industry. In 1916, according to the Australian Tariff Hand-booh,* page 180, there were 3.900 employees in the woollen mills, who earned £357,000 for the year; that is to say, £91 10s. 9d. per head per annum, or £1 15s. 2d. per head per week. Wages are as high in France and England.

Senator PRATTEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– Why do you say that?

Senator GUTHRIE:
VICTORIA · NAT; UAP from 1931

– Because I have evidence of it.

Senator PRATTEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– Can you give the Committee that evidence?

Senator GUTHRIE:
VICTORIA · NAT; UAP from 1931

– Not in detail. I have the figures for Roubaix, but I can assure honorable senators that I have evidence to prove that the wages of those employed in the woollen industry in Great Britain and France have increased 400 per cent, since 1914. I am making no comparison with Germany or Japan, and it is in regard to those countries that I would like to see different rates provided in the Tariff, because, although wool is not manufactured for export in Japan, those engaged in the industry there work seventy-two hours a week for 20s. The time will come when we shall require a very high protective duty against Japan. The wage earned by the average adult male engaged in the woollen mills of Australia for forty-eight hours a week was £3 6s. in 1916, the latest figures made available to us by the Statistician. Even adding 25 per cent, to that amount, to allow for increases awarded since that date, the wages earned by those engaged in a similar occupation in France or Great Britain are, if anything, higher. I have shown the natural protection the Australian manufacturer has, that he has at his door 847 different kinds of wool of the best class in the world to choose from, 2,000,000 bales per annum, and practically no delivery charges to pay; that Australia produces 50 per cent, of the merino wool of the world, and that the Australian manufacturer has no duty to pay, and avoids the payment of interest on outlay of capital which his European competitor is obliged to pay during transit delays. . Is there any reason for this increased duty? I wish success to every mill in Australia. I want mills to flourish all over the place and work up as much of our wool as they can, but, in view of this irrefutable evidence from the Age, Mr. Ambrose Pratt, the Bureau of Commerce and Industry, and the InterState Commission, and in view of the extraordinary natural protection we have, and the huge profits made by our manufacturers under the old Tariff, is not the duty now sought to be imposed’ Protection running stark, staring mad?

Senator Gardiner:

– When were those huge profits made by our manufacturers ? .

Senator GUTHRIE:
VICTORIA · NAT; UAP from 1931

– It does not matter what the year was; their profits are always good. In view of all this irrefutable evidence I ask the Committee, in fairness to the growers and the manufacturers, and, above all, in fairness to the poor unfortunate people of this country, who have to buy clothing, to- refrain from imposing duties which are not required. Let us keep the high duties for items in regard to which they are necessary, and in a sensible way adopt the Tariff as proposed by Senator Payne, thus securing prosperity for the woollen manufacturers of Australia without unduly penalizing the people.

Senator GARDINER:
New South Wales

– The speech of Senator Guthrie more than justifies the request I previously made, that progress be reported. For the sake of the prestige of the Senate it is always to be regretted when an honorable senator, having prepared material for a speech, is not afforded an opportunity to deliver it at the most suitable time; It is most unfair that such a speech, which might have been anticipated from Senator Guthrie, should have, to be delivered at midnight. The Government, I think, might have so arranged matters that we could have heard Senator Guthrie’s remarks at a time when it would have been possible for them to have appeared in the press reports of our proceedings. The Age, which has attacked Senator Guthrie, accuses me of desiring for Australia the cheap products of other nations. I ask for nothing of the sort. I desire Australian money, contributed by Australian people, to be devoted to developing our industries in an intelligent way, without resorting to the indirect method of protection. Ten years ago the Commonwealth Woollen Mill came into existence, and it can now turn out material equal to any in the world. Despite high wages, the year just closed showed a profit of £20,000, and, in addition, the deficit of £18,000, due to the cost of the establishment of the factory and the wastage of machinery, has been wiped out. That is an example of real protection and real development of industry. Give me the £32,000,000 taken out of the people’s pockets last year under the name of Protection, and I venture to say it could be used so effectively that all our natural products could be worked up, and there would not be one unemployed man from one end of Australia to another.

Senator de Largie:

– Is not the Free Trade idea to close up works and pay the employees for going idle?

Senator GARDINER:

– That is the full extent to which Senator de Largie is capable of understanding Free Trade.. What I say is that Protection is stupid in its incidence. The Commonwealth Mill, by the material ft produces, by the wages and conditions it offers to employees, and by the profit it earns, shows that high duties are not necessary, or, at any rate, that higher duties are not required. Of course, we have not the balance-sheets of the other mills before us, but in view of the fact that, unlike the Commonwealth Mill, they do not” endeavour to turn out a great variety of materials, but concentrate on one material which pays best, we may conclude that they are earning enormous profits in proportion to the capital invested. We have a statement showing that practically all that capital has been returned to those mills in the years 1916-17-18.

Senator Reid:

– That was when they were commandeered by the Government.

Senator de Largie:

– When are these mills going to export cloth as we export wheat?

Senator GARDINER:

– The mills arc turning out material at 6s., and the very finest at 6s. 6d., so that they can compete even with Great Britain; and the reason is very simple. Britain has to convey all the wool from Australia, whereas we incur no greater cost in transporting the manufactured material than Britain does in securing the raw material. It has been clearly and unmistakably shown that in the case of the woollen industry, when we increase the duties, we deliberately put our hand into the people’s pockets.

Senator de Largie:

– -Give the industry time until it reaches the exporting stage !

Senator GARDINER:

– Of course, if a statesman like Senator de Largie were to undertake the development of Australian industries, we should soon be able to compete with Great Britain or any other country. The honorable senator’s desire, however, is not to utilize Australian labour in the most profitable direction, but to create a condition of things under which employers may become as rich as woollenmill balance-sheets show them to be; then, when a Tariff comes before us, not to impose duties for the protection of in- fant industries, but to create greater profits for those which have developed into sturdy manhood. My idea is not to ask the community to put its money into concerns for the profit of individuals, but to undertake enterprises for their own benefit. The statements of Senator Guthrie will stand searching tests. The more closely they are examined the more clearly do they reveal that the Government will be ill-advised in giving manufacturers further scope for accumulating profits while adding to the cost of the materials with which the people must clothe themselves. In everything pertaining to wool, Senator Guthrie is a recognised expert. He has been able .to convince me that, even when the very highest prices were being charged for wearing apparel, the cost of the wool made a difference of only about 3s. 6d. in the price of a suit. For the Government to demand from the community the payment of increased taxes by way of Customs collection, in order to add to the already exorbitant profits df the manufacturers, is utterly without justification. ‘’ As Senator Guthrie emphatically stated, the woollen manufacturers themselves did not ask for what the Government have conferred upon them. The makers realize that they are already upon an excellent wicket. I look with grave concern to the financial prospects of Australia. We shall not be improving the outlook if honorable senators support the Government in further enriching one very small section of the com- munity while further, impoverishing the great mass of the people.

Senator PAYNE:
Tasmania

– The Tariff of 1908 gave woollen manufacturers ample protection. That has been proved by the wonderful expansion of the industry. In corroboration of a statement which I made earlier to-day, to the effect that manufacturers are not able to cope with the demand, I quote from a letter which a warehouseman has received within the past day or two from a prominent woollen manufacturer, as follows : -

We beg to advise you that the above company is prepared to allot your firm twenty-eight pieces, for delivery between July and December 31st, 1921. The reduced quantity is brought about by making allowance for probable reduction of working hours in the textile industry. Herewith enclosed is price list for the period mentioned, and we trust to hear from you, by return post, that the allotment has been accepted.

I said, also, that there had been a scarcity of flannel, notwithstanding the enormous profits made. I believe that without any _ protection there would have been the same demand for the output of the factories. My request is not in any way an attempt to secure a reduction upon the duties imposed in 1914. Since the 1914 Tariff was never discussed by Parliament - its imposition having been ratified by legislative enactment year by year - the present is the first opportunity given to the representatives of the people, since 1908, to debate individual items of Customs duties. That being the case, honorable senators are entitled to deal with the numerous matters arising upon their merits and as they are applicable to presentday circumstances, the Committee need not be influenced in any way by the 1914 Tariff.

Sitting suspended from 12.1k to 1 a.m. (Friday).

Senator PRATTEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– I cannot allow the remarks made in connexion with the Australian woollen industry by Senator Payne and Senator Guthrie to pass without comment. The latter, I admit, delivered a strong and wellreasoned speech that calls for and necessitates a reply, but a good deal of the argument used by Senator Guthrie was based upon wrong premises by saying that the duties in this Tariff .have been increased as compared with those in the 1914 Tariff. Before proceeding further with my reply to Senator Guthrie’s statement, I may point out that the British duty now proposed by the Government is exactly the same as embodied in the Tariff adopted in 1914, which duties, as compared with those in 1908, were increased by 5 per cent. There was a duty of 25 per cent, on woollen goods in 1908, 30 per cent, in 1914, and 30 per cent, is now proposed. We are more interested in these British rates, because importations of woollens or articles containing wool into Australia in 1919-20 were valued at £3,429,000, of which £3,323,000 worth came from the United Kingdom.

Senator Reid:

– In spite of the Tariff.

Senator PRATTEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– Exactly. I admit that the present Tariff differs in comparison with the 1914 Tariff, which comprised only two schedules, and in which we imposed 35 per cent, on goods coming from countries outside the United Kingdom. The duties in this Tariff are 30 per cent., 40 per cent., and 45 per cent The 40 per cent, and 45 per cent, practically do not apply, because, the bulk of the woollen goods imported into this country which enter into competition with our woollen materials comes from the United Kingdom. Honorable senators supporting the request have made their first point on the assumption that the duties have been raised, and their second point is that they apply to woollen goods, particularly of French manufacture, which are not made in Australia.

Senator Payne:

– The duty is raised as compared with the 1908 Tariff.

Senator PRATTEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– The point was made over and over again that the duties have been raised recently.

Senator Payne:

– I did not say that the British duties had been raised beyond those in the 1914 Tariff.

Senator PRATTEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– Honorable senators have said that the duties, particularly those under the general Tariff, apply to goods not manufactured in Australia, as well as to those which are, and if they had submitted a proposal to differentiate between woollen goods manufactured here and those imported and not made here particularly from France, a better case would have been presented to the Committee. In discussing duties on woollen goods, we have to remember that we are dealing with a basic industry, and one that is rapidly developing. I believe I am correct in saying that during the last three or four years approximately four times the amount of capital has been made available for investment in woollen manufactures as was offering a few years ago because it has been shown by reports quoted that the total capital invested in the woollen industry in Australia five or six years ago was a little over £1,000,000 sterling. Within the last week or two a statement appeared in the press that for developments proposed in Tasmania and the States of the mainland nearly £4000,000 has already been ear-marked for investment in woollen manufacture, inclusive of the capital already employed. I desire to meet the accusation that the Australian tweed manufacturers have not “played the game.”

Senator GUTHRIE:
VICTORIA · NAT; UAP from 1931

– Has any one insinuated that?

Senator PRATTEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– I do not think the honorable senator did, but Senator Payne said, “ The Australian manufacturer has not been fair to the local consumer.”

Senator Payne:

– I was referring to the flannel manufacturers. Senator Guthrie dealt with tweeds.

Senator PRATTEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– I accept the disclaimer. I thought the honorable senator was also referring to tweeds. To prove that the Australian tweed manufacturers, at all events, have been fair to the Australian consumers, I desire to refer to some remarks I made on the 27th August, 1919, when we were discussing the Commercial Activities Bill. I then gave, on the authority of one of the oldest established tweed manufacturers in Australia, the prices at which his tweeds were then being sold ex-factory. It is by the prices that the manufacturer charges to the merchants that he must be judged; he cannot be blamed for what may occur in the wholesale and retail distribution of his cloth or the making of it into clothing. At that time, when wool was considerably dearer than it is now, the lowest price charged for this tweed was 6s. 6d., and the highest 10s. 6d., per yard. The Australian manufacturers at that time supplied only one-third of the cloth used in the Commonwealth, two-thirds of it being imported; and I believe that a good deal of the Australian tweed was bought from the factories at low prices, and illegitimately retailed at a high cost as imported tweed. That, in my opinion, was how much of the profiteering was done in connexion with clothing. The figures which Senator Guthrie has quoted from the Inter-State Commission’s report are, no doubt, accurate; but I would point out that they are for the four years 1914 to 1917, and not for three years ; so that the average profit, which he spoke of as 33 per cent., was really only 25 per cent.

Senator GUTHRIE:
VICTORIA · NAT; UAP from 1931

– The figures I quoted were for a three-year period.

Senator PRATTEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– I have figures taken from the Prices Investigation Re- port, No. 11, on Clothing, for the years 1914, 1915, 1916, and 1917.

Senator GUTHRIE:
VICTORIA · NAT; UAP from 1931

– Only to April, 1917.

Senator PRATTEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– My figures are for a period of four years, and show a lower average percentage of profit on capital than those used by the honorable senator.

Senator GUTHRIE:
VICTORIA · NAT; UAP from 1931

– The manufacturers admitted that the average net capital for the whole of the mills of Australia was 33i per cent, per annum.

Senator PRATTEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– According to the report which I have mentioned, the figures are these -

The CHAIRMAN (Senator Bakhap:

– The honorable senator’s time has expired.

Senator GARDINER:
New South Wales

– I have here some wage figures which I should like to put before the Committee, but I wish to hear the conclusion of Senator Pratten’s remarks before doing so.

Senator PRATTEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– I am obliged to Senator Gardiner for the opportunity to continue. The profits which I have just mentioned are high, and are not justifiable; but in view of the very big figures mentioned by Senator Guthrie in connexion with the operation of two or three concerns - he stated that one Victorian factory made £100,000 in. one year, and another, I think, about £90,000 - it is reasonable to assume that the old-established - and, shall I say, respectable? - woollen manufacturers of Australia did not make an average profit of more than 20 per cent, on their capital for a few war years. Moreover, it is to be remembered to their credit that during nearly the whole of this period they were working for the Defence Department in the manufacture of cloth for military purposes. The Department directed their output, and arranged the prices they should charge, and in some cases three shifts were worked, which meant a great deal of extra wear and tear on their machinery. They did get -20 per cent.; but do honorable senators know what occurred at Bradford during the same period? The whole of the Bradford manufacturers were grossly profiteering upon the world. Mushroom millionaires sprang up there in plenty. It should be remembered that even if the Australian manufacturers did make abnormal profits, and I admit that they did, because 20 per cent, profit is abnormal, there was an excess profits tax in operation at the time, and most of those who made 20 per cent, paid a considerable amount of that back into the revenue as excess profits taxation. I put that forward in fairness to them. I wish now to refer to the report of the Bureau of “Commerce and Industry, of which the Director is Mr. Stirling Taylor, which was quoted by Senator Guthrie. I do not accept many of the statements made by Mr. Stirling Taylor, ‘for the reason that he has grossly misrepresented the amount of capital that is required to manufacture woollens. In his report, speaking from memory, I believe that he fixed the sum necessary to carry out a scheme he suggests at £14,000,000. I am informed on irrefutable authority that in view of the price of machinery to-day, which is three or four times what it was before the war, the capital required to carry out that scheme would not be £14,000,000, but would certainly be over £40,000,000, and probably nearer £60,000,000.

Senator Reid:

– Perhaps Mr. Stirling Taylor’s figures represent merely a first instalment.

Senator PRATTEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– If that be so there was no necessity for him to mislead the public as to the capital required to give effect to his scheme. I do not consider that a gentleman who will say that £14,000,000 is required for the purpose when certainly over £40,000,000 will be necessary is a well-seasoned business man of ripe judgment and experience.

Senator Bolton:

– Is that an opinion, or is it the result of calculation?

Senator PRATTEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– I assume that it is merely Mr. Stirling Taylor’s opinion.

Senator Bolton:

– “What is the honorable senator’s authority?

Senator PRATTEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– I am informed by one of the leading men in the woollen industry that Mr. Stirling Taylor’s estimate is a gross miscalculation, and is not more than one-third, if it is one-third, of the total amount that would be required to carry out the scheme, under existing world conditions.

Senator Reid:

– Can the honorable senator say how much money is invested in the woollen mills we have?

Senator PRATTEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– I have informed the Committee that the money invested and ear-marked for the development of the industry amounted, according to the latest information, to £4,000,000, which covers the establishment in Tasmania of a worsted factory that will be able to supply the whole of Australia’s requirements in that direction. If our woollen industry had been sufficiently extensive to have supplied the whole of the treed Australia required during the war we should not have been blackmailed to the extent we were by the high prices charged for imported tweeds. I go so far as to say that if Australia hal been producing the whole of her tweed requirements during the period of the high profiteering by Bradford manufacturers, when we were charged four, five, and six times the prices of prewar days, we might have saved two or three, guineas on every suit of clothes worn in the Commonwealth during that time.

Senator Reid:

– We might have saved more.

Senator PRATTEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– I want to put the position moderately. I have no hesitation In saying that if, during the war period, this industry h’ad been developed as we hope to see it developed within a very short time, we should have saved two, three, or even four guineas a suit, which we had to pay to the profiteering manufacturers abroad. When Senator Guthrie speaks of millionaire manufacturers and of the manufacturing industry as if it were the only industry making a reasonable profit, I should like to remind him that the wool-growers aTe, on the average, the biggest individual income taxpayers in Australia. I may inform him that 11,493 of them pay an average income tax of £170 each, whilst the manufacturers pay an average income tax of less than £100. The pastoralist companies in Australia pay an average income tax of £1,100 each, whilst the manufacturing companies pay an average income tax of £250. I bid the honorable senator remember these figures when he makes so many unfair references to successful Australian manufacturers. That is all I have to say, and I have made these remarks in justice to a very reputable Australian industry.

Senator GARDINER:
New South Wales

– My chief reason for rising at this stage is to supplement some of the remarks which were made by Senator Guthrie with respect to the enormous profits made in the woollen industry, by a quotation- of current rates of wages and working hours in the industry. I quote from the labour and industrial statistics issued by Mr. Knibbs. I find that in the clothing industry the weekly wage in Sydney is 76s. lid. In Melbourne it is 71s. 4d.; Brisbane, 74s. 2d.; Adelaide, 72s. 10d.; Perth, 72s. 4d.; Hobart, 58s. 6d. ; and the average weekly wage for the six capital cities is 73s. fid. Referring to working hours, the figures given are - Sydney, 46.21; Melbourne, 46.34; Brisbane, 44.27; Adelaide, 44.27; Perth, 44.36; Hobart, 46.57; and the average, 45.89. The hourly wage given is - For Sydney, ls. 8d. ; Melbourne, ls. 6 1/2d. Brisbane, ls. 8d. ; Adelaide, ls. 7fd.; Perth ls. 7£d; Hobart; ls. 3d.; and the average ls. 7 1/2d.

Senator Reid. What branch of the industry do the figures refer to - the manufacturing or the making up ?

Senator Payne:

– If the mills had formerly concentrated on flannel, they would have made the industry pay.

Senator REID:

– The mills did not do that until they were commandeered by the Government, and, as I say, made solvent. I am afraid that if we lower the duties we shall find our market flooded with cheap foreign goods. Germany was formerly one of our greatest competitors; she imitated $11 the British patterns, and sent the goods in large quantities to Australia. Some of these goods were of high quality, while others were quite the reverse; but if Germany regains her former position, and acts -in the same way, our mills will have very little chance.

Senator Payne:

– How could Germany do that with a Tariff of this kind, and a depreciated market?

SenatorREID. - I am simply showing what may take place if we dispense with the duties. Senator Guthrie said that the industry could stand alone.

Senator GUTHRIE:
VICTORIA · NAT; UAP from 1931

– I did not say it could stand alone against Germany and Japan, but that it could against England or France, with the present wages and conditions, combined with high freights both ways.

SenatorREID. - We do not know what freights or wages may be in the future ; but we do know the standard that we wish to maintain in Australia. Even if extra profits were made owing to war conditions, I am still in favour of keeping the industry going. I am sure that Senator Guthrie regards it as one of the most important industries in Australia.

Senator GUTHRIE:
VICTORIA · NAT; UAP from 1931

– I should like to see woollen mills all over the country.

SenatorREID. - So should I, and, therefore, I am in favour of retaining tie Tariff as it is.

Senator LYNCH:
Western Australia

– I do not think that all-night sittings will assist our progress with the Tariff, and although we have not got as far as we should have liked to-day, I suggest it would be only fair to report progress now. The supporters of the high duties ask why the consumption has not been overtaken, and why the duties have not enabled the manufacturers to succeed. I remind honorable senators that Australia has been federated for only twenty years, and that Victoria, which was then the one Protectionist State, imposed a duty of only 15 per cent, on woollen goods. At that time Victoria was competing against Great Britain and all other countries which desired to get control of her market. The wages and conditions in Great Britain then were, as Senator Guthrie has said, and as most of us know from experience, much inferior to those in Australia. Furthermore, the freight on raw material from Australia to the Old Country is now three times what it was prior to 1902. It will be seen that the Victorian manufacturers were Competing against the British manufacturers under most disadvantageous conditions. What did Federation do for the woollen industry? The only Protectionist colony in Australia a little more than twenty years ago was Victoria.

Senator Reid:

– Queensland also.

Senator LYNCH:

– At any rate, Victoria was regarded as the Protectionist State, and the rate of duty imposed upon imported British woollens was only 15 per cent. That was inadequate, bearing in mind the conditions under which Australian manufacturers had to contend with outside competition. Wages are now becoming equalized all over the world. Mr. Ambrose Pratt, in his publication, uses a new phrase when he states that there is an international labour charter to-day. At the time in question, however, wages in England were from a third to one-half of the rates paid in Australia, which fact reveals that the local manufacturers had to fight fierce competition, and were scarcely able to hold their own. When Federation was accomplished, the Victorian Tariff was adopted, and the duty remained at 15 per cent. The difficulties with which Australian manufacturers had to contend were not lightened. The 1908 Tariff provided the first attempt to place the woollen manufacturing industry of the Commonwealth upon a fair footing. The duty was raised to 25 per cent. That marked the point from which the industry began to hold its own. From 1908 to 1914, when the war broke out, the young industry was given a chance to overtake local consumption. Manufacturers had only five or six years in which to perfect their organization, set up plants, meet the worldspread competition, and overtake local consumption. The brevity of that period really explains why the Australian demand has not yet been filled. Now comes the question whether the present duty is fair. Under the conditions, and in all the circumstances, I hold that it is. At any rate, it is one which should be given a fair trial before a heavier impost is placed upon imported woollens. I am prepared to make due allowance for the war period, and for the disturbing effect which it had upon production and consumption. Parliament is endeavouring to frame a Tariff which will cover the transition period during which conditions are sliding down from abnormal to normal. It would be wrong to place an exaggerated value upon the conditions pertaining to the war years. To do so would lead Parliament, perhaps, to cut down the degree of protection to a dangerous margin. The best authorities concerning whether the duty hitherto ruling was fair or insufficient are the manufacturers themselves. What do they say? One of the leading Australian woollen manufacturers - Mr. Vickers, of New South Wales - stated in the course of a public speech about the beginning of last year that the time was fast approaching when the manufacturers of woollen goods in this country would overtake consumption. He said so without asking for increased protection.

Senator PRATTEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– When Mr. Vickers made that remark the British duty was 30 per cent., and it had been so since 1914.

Senator LYNCH:

– If such is the case, my argument is to some extent weakened. Possibly Mr. Vickers had in mind the lower rate of duty. Certainly, he would not go out of his way to state that the imposition of 30 per cent, was unduly high, even although, in his heart, he might feel that it was. At the same’ time, there are the statements of witnesses called before the Inter-State Commission, not one of whom asked for an increased duty. Before I record my vote I desire information from the Minister (Senator Russell) or some one else concerning the “hard times” the factories of the Commonwealth experienced prior to the imposition of the higher duties. We shall then have an opportunity of balancing those arguments against the statements submitted by Senator Guthrie, one of which was to the effect that a comparatively small mill-owner in Geelong had made a fortune of £680,000. We hear on one hand that struggling millowners have been driven into liquidation or that they had such a bad time that they could not carry on profitably, and on the other that huge fortunes are being made. I do not wish to do anything which would press unduly upon these men, and I would like some information before a division is taken.

The CHAIRMAN (Senator Bakhap:

Senator GUTHRIE:
VICTORIA · NAT; UAP from 1931

’. - Senator Pratten questioned the average wages paid in the woollen trade in Australia to-day, and for his information I may say that the average rate for forty-eight hours per week is 66s. for adult male workers.

Senator PRATTEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– Is that in the woollen mills or the cloth mills ?

Senator GUTHRIE:
VICTORIA · NAT; UAP from 1931

– The woollen mills. In regard to the profits made, I shall quote the finding of the Inter-State Commission, which is repeated again in the 1920 annual report of the Bureau of Commerce and Industry. It reads -

On inquiry we find the Government had the output of twenty-two mills from 1915 to April, 1917. The capital involved was £1,144,000 and the net profit was £1,197,000.

They received a return equal to .the whole of their capital in approximately two and a half years.

Senator PRATTEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– The honorable senator is quoting from the report of the Bureau of Commerce and Industry, and not from the report of the Inter-State Commission.

Senator GUTHRIE:
VICTORIA · NAT; UAP from 1931

– They are the same. ;”-?v’tf-

Senator PRATTEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– I quoted from the report of the Inter-State Commission.

Senator GUTHRIE:
VICTORIA · NAT; UAP from 1931

– The Govern- ment are responsible for this publication. The finding was that a profit of -33^ per cent, was made, and the whole of the capital was returned in two and a half years.

Senator PRATTEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– What does the honorable senator consider the decent manufacturers made?

Senator GUTHRIE:
VICTORIA · NAT; UAP from 1931

– Twenty to 30 per cent.

Senator PRATTEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– That is more than the average.

Senator GUTHRIE:
VICTORIA · NAT; UAP from 1931

– They had badly-managed mills, with obsolete machinery. I do not know how they did it, but they made a profit of from 20 to 30 per cent.

Senator PRATTEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– If the average profit was 33£ per cent., and two or three manufacturers made an altogether abnormal profit, some of the others must have made much less than the average.

Senator GUTHRIE:
VICTORIA · NAT; UAP from 1931

– I spoke of one concern that made a profit of £90,000.

Senator PRATTEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– And a Geelong firm made £100,000 out of flannel.

Senator GUTHRIE:
VICTORIA · NAT; UAP from 1931

– Those are only two out of twenty-two companies. On the other hand, as I have said, there were mills with obsolete machinery that cannot have made large profits.

Senator Reid:

– I understand that the Federal mill made 10 per cent, on its output after paying all expenses, and sold its cloth to the Government at fixed prices.

Senator GUTHRIE:
VICTORIA · NAT; UAP from 1931

– I. was informed that that mill could have made over 30’ per cent, if allowed to sell its output in the ordinary way. »

Senator GARDINER:
New South Wales

– As the Government intends to continue for a considerable time yet, and as I wish to. help Ministers in passing the Tariff, I propose to quote from a book which I am reading with a great deal of interest. It shows that the Protectionists of to-day are just where the Protectionists of 100 years ago stood, having made no intellectual advancement. The book to which I refer is the Life of Friedrich List, by Margaret E. Hirst. List was a German, and a highlyeducated man, who was driven out of his native State ; but after his death a monument “was erected to his memory because he had been a Protectionist. The .writer says -

By the modern bureaucrats and official professors of his native land he is remembered as a rebel against their own class, a rash and dangerous champion of free speech, a believer in democratic institutions, and a Tariff reformer whose doctrines would be altogethersubversive of the so-called “ scientific “ Tariff of modern Germany. If List had had his way there would have been Free Trade from Rotterdam to Memel, and from Memel to Trieste. This great territory he would indeed have surrounded by a temporary Tariff for the purpose of protecting manufactures (but not agriculture) until its “ infant “ industries wereable to resist the competition of their stronger rivals in England. When the time came, and the industries reached the stage at which they could export and compete successfully in neutral countries, the Protective Tariff would be removed, and the consumers who had been taxed during this period of probation in order that the productive capacity of the nation might be nursed into life and vigour would be relieved of their burdens and allowed to enjoy the blessings, not only of cheap food (of which List would never have deprived them), but of cheap clothing, and boots, and tools, and of all the other conveniences of life. This idea of the Tariff as a nursery, grew upon List during his stay in America. Had he lived another half-century to see the American Tariff on worsteds and woollens raised higher and higher, until the natural cost of warm clothing was doubled for the whole American people, he might have begun to question the working value of his theory. Instead of Tariffs falling as industries grow, colonial, American, and European experience tells us that the reverse is usually the case.

I have pegged away night after night in the hope of inducing senators to discontinue taking money from the pockets of the people to put it into those of the manufacturers without hope of getting cheaper materials from those manufacturers. There should, however, be a quorum to listen to my remarks. [Quorum formed,] I see that Tariff history is not appreciated at this hour of the morning, and therefore I shall not weary the Committee with further quotations, but will allow honorable senators to read the book for themselves. They will find it full of interest. I am reading it because it contains the opinions of persons who think differently from me.

Senator Drake-Brockman:

– Would you have us believe that you are a broadminded man?

Senator GARDINER:

– No; I am as narrow as the class to which I belong. I come here to represent a section of the community.

Senator Bolton:

– And you do it very well.

Senator GARDINER:

– I thank the honorable senator. The reading of the book to which I have referred convinces me that the growth of Protection during last century was fostered by the antipathy of Germany and the United States of America to Great Britain. The German States were then struggling into unity, and after the War of Independence a large section of the American public was always anti-British. But why should this country show antipathy to Great Britain, and impose a duty of 30 per cent, on goods which Great Britain makes better than any other country? There might have been a reason for American prejudice arising out of the struggle with Great Britain for American independence. There might have been some influence exercised by party spirit in America, since a political party might hope to secure a’ powerful political pull by pandering to the prejudice against Great Britain. But one would think that political advantage here would be with the party that would try to do something for both Australia and Great Britain. Senator Payne has moved a request for a reduction in the proposed duty on British imports by 5 per- cent., and I appeal to the Minister (Senator Russell) to consent to that reduction. The difference between a duty of 30 per cent, and a duty of 25 per cent, against British imports is not a matter about which the Minister should be obstinate, and he would place his supporters in a better position before the electors if he consented to the reduction than he will by asking them to take part in a division against it. Senator Payne was right in saying that the Tariff of 1914 was never discussed. It was a Tariff of the Government and not of Parliament, because Parliament shut out the discussion of Tariffs during the period of the war, and the 1914 Tariff went through in one day in order that it might have the sanction of Parliament before it was prorogued. I know that my appeals fall upon deaf ears, because the Minister has made up his mind as to how far he will get with this schedule during the present sitting. I think that he will get as far as he intends, but he would get there much more quickly if he displayed a certain amount of reasonableness in dealing with the different items. How he could have sat unmoved after a speech such as that delivered by Senator Guth’rie I cannot understand. A reasonable man would have said that in view of the facts presented by Senator Guthrie he would be prepared to compromise in the matter and accept a reduction of duty which would be more favorable to imports from Great Britain by 5 per cent, than that proposed in the schedule. There ‘ would still be a duty’ “of 45 per cent, against Germany when her goods again came into the market, and 35 per cent, against Canada or New Zealand.

The CHAIRMAN (Senator Bakhap:

– The honorable senator’s time has expired.

Question - That the request (Senator Payne’s) be agreed to - put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 8

NOES: 12

Majority . . 4

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Request negatived.

Request (by Senator Payne) proposed -

That the House of Representatives be requested to make the duty, sub-item (f), intermediate, ad val., 30 per cent.

Question put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 7

NOES: 12

Majority . . . . 5

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Request negatived.

Senator PAYNE:
Tasmania

– I move -

That the House of Representatives be requested to make the duty, sub-item (f), British, ad val., 25 per cent.

Senator Reid:

– It is coming down.

Senator GUTHRIE:
VICTORIA · NAT; UAP from 1931

– The purchasing power of the sovereign is still about half what it was before the war.

Senator PRATTEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– I would remind the honorable senator that no other Dominion gives Britain a greater preference than is given by this Tariff.

Senator GUTHRIE:
VICTORIA · NAT; UAP from 1931

– Is a duty of 30 per cent, on British woollens a fair thing ? Why have the Government, while increasing the duties on woollens, reduced the Tariff on luxuries? It seems to me that this is a Tariff for” the rich, and not for the poor. It provides for a reduction of the old duties on velvets, plushes, furs, astrakhan, laces for attire, Bouncings, nets, embroidery, and other frills and furbelows. The old duties on such articles are reduced from 30 per cent, to 20 per cent, under the general Tariff. The Government is putting up a very bad case to present to the electors at the next general election by bringing down the duties on luxuries while increasing the duties on woollen goods, which the people of Australia should all be able to use, and which the doctors tell us are absolutely necessary. 1

Senator PRATTEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– Neither Canada, South Africa, nor New Zealand give Britain as great a preference as we do in this Tariff as a whole.

Senator GUTHRIE:
VICTORIA · NAT; UAP from 1931

Senator LYNCH:

– That is. true, but no thanks are due to the Government for them. I am not here to give a silent vote on such a matter. I have my own opinions, . but propose to keep an open mind in dealing with this Tariff. As a matter of fact, if it were dealt with on its merits, if convinced Free Traders would vote Free Trade and convinced Protectionists were willing to adopt a policy of giving adequate protection and nothing more, those who are in accord with my views would win hands down. But the Tariff is not being considered on its merits. If the Government holds up its hand in one direction, there are senators willing to slavishly and blindly follow.

Senator Earle:

– You have no right to say that.

Senator LYNCH:

– I can say nothing less. Not a single case has been cited of an Australian industry which is languishing as a result of the present Tariff. When the time arrives when it is sought to put other industries on a fair level, we shall see whether there are honorable senators prepared to single out the woollen manufacturers, and give them duties for which they do not ask, while, at the same time, protection is curtailed in the case of industries which, perhaps, are entitled to more consideration. Apparently we are proceeding as though the operatives in the Old Country still received half the wages that are paid to Australian workmen. If we desire to have a well-balanced Tariff, we must see that even-handed justice is done all round, and that not only those who happen to be woollen manufacturers receive the benefits.

Question - That the request (Senator Payne’s) be agreed to - put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 5

NOES: 13

Majority . . 8

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Bequest negatived.

Senator PAYNE:
Tasmania

– I move -

That the House of Representatives be requested to insert the following new sub-item - “ (ff) Woollen, or containing wool, for women’s and children’s dresses, ad val., British,. 20 per cent.; intermediate, 25 per cent. ; general, 30 per cent.”

This request will appeal to the good sense of the majority of honorable senators in view of the fact that we are not manufacturing any of these textile fabrics. It has been shown very clearly, even by those who opposed my previous requests, that these , are all imported from Great Britain.

The CHAIRMAN (Senator Bakhap:

– The same point arises with respect to the request of Senator Payne as in the case of that moved by Senator Pratten. Its subject-matter is included in and covered by sub-itemf, which has been disposed of. I cannot accept the proposed request.

Senator Payne:

– Sub-item freads, “ Woollen, or containing wool, n.e.i.” My purpose is to include something which is not elsewhere included.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The honorable senator may effect his purpose by securing the recommittal of the item after the schedule has been considered.

Senator Payne:

– Shall I be inorder in requesting the inclusion of a new subitem which will read, “ Materials for the manufacture of women’s and children’s dress goods other than cotton and linen” ?

The CHAIRMAN:

– The honorable senator may not move except as is provided under the Standing Orders, and according to the practice of the Senate. I repeat that, since the subject-matter of his requested amendment has been already dealt with, I cannot accept it.

Item agreed to, subject to requests.

Item 106 -

Buttons, n.e.i., for bonnets, hats, shoes, and other attire, not being partly or wholly of gold or silver; Cotton featherstitch braids; Piping; Tinsel cloth; Tinsel belting, having warp or weft composed wholly of tinsel or of continuous threads of tinsel and an alternate thread of textile; Tinsel thread, ad val., British, free; intermediate, 5 per cent.; general, 15 per cent. i fu) Trimmings’ and- ornaments n.ai. (except buckles, clasps,, and slides, of metal):, ; ; .. . ad-. val, British, 15 per’ cent.; intermediate^ 20 per. cent.; general, 30 per cent. -

Senator PAYNE (Tasmania) [3.39 a.in.J. - r moves -

That the. House- of Representatives be. re? quested, to amend sub-item (a.) by insertingafter “ Tinsel’, thread “ the following words:”‘Plain braids- under 3 inches in width, of one colour., webbings, n.e.i.,, and bone belting.”

Senator Russell:

– Braids- are included in’ the’ next sub-item.-

Senator PAYNE:

– But there they would be dutiable, and. my object is- to include these in the free, list, as they are as necessary for manufacturing purposes -as are the articles in sub-item a. Plain braids are used very extensively in making’ dresses, and the webbing and Bone belting is also essential. I produce samples of the materials to which I have referred, and honorable senators can accept my assurance that these articles are not manufactured in Australia. Cotton feather-stiched braids; used extensively in trimming underwear, are admitted free, and the. items, in. connexion with which I have submitted a ‘ request are equally necessary. Webbing is. used as a waist band on skirts. I have been sup- - plied’ with- the- following information: -

Webbings n.e.i. should be included, in item No. 106a… They have been included in the - proposals under sub-item (b),and made, dutiable there at 15 per cent’., 20’ per cent’:, and- 30’per cent., although- they are- not manufactured in Australia,, and. are not worn externally,, being solely, for internal- use in- the manufacture- or women’s wear. At. present, they are all de livered as minor articles (item 404) under Ministerial’ by-law, duty- free British, 10’ per cent, foreign. This- by-law could be- cancelled at’, any moment, thus- automatically restoring the rates of duty provided for by their mention in this Item. Probably when the Tariff has been, finally disposed of, it is intended to cancel the by-law; otherwise; why have these goods been specifically included under item 106b? It .would seem that an explanation is necessary to clear away any doubt.

Senator PRATTEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– What da you want?

Senator PAYNE:

SenatorRussell. - I am informed that the industry was started during the war, and that while supplies could not be imported, the locally-made articles were much in demand; but that when the imported articles could again be obtained, the local articles could not compete against them, and the local manufacturers,in some cases, found it necessary to reduce their hands. There is not the slightest difficulty in the manufacture of these articles, and we should be able to supply our own requirements of them.

Senator PAYNE:

– In view of that statement, I shall not press the request.

SenatorRUSSELL. - The same condition will apply as obtains in connexion with the previous sub-item.

Request, by leave, withdrawn

Item agreed to.

Item 107-

Wovenmaterials in the piece or otherwise.-

Badges . ..Ribbons and galoons having not more than 48 ribs to the lineal inch, ad val., British, 35 per cent.; intermediate, 40 per cent.; general, 50 per cent.

Senator PAYNE:
Tasmania

– I move -

That the House of Representatives be requested to amend the item by leaving out the words “Ribbons and galoons, having not more than 48 ribs to the lineal inch.”

– I do not wish to press the matter at this particular moment, but I suggest that its- consideration bo postponed so that we may deal with it while it is fresh in our minds.

Senator E D MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

The CHAIRMAN (Senator Bakhap:

-Does Senator Payne intend to persist in bis request for an amendment?

Senator Payne:

– The Minister has promised to make further inquiries with a view to the recommittal ofthe item. I accept his assurance.

Request, by leave, withdrawn.

Item agreed to.

Item 108 (Feathers)- agreed to.

Item 109-

Artificial plants, flowers, fruits, leaves, and grains of all kinds, and materials, ad val, British,80 per cent,; intermediate, 35 per cent.; general, 40 per. cent.

Senator RUSSELL:
VicePresident of the Executive Council · Victoria · NAT

, - I move -

That the House of Representatives be requested to amend the item to read - 109 (a) Artificial flowers n.e.i.,. artificial plants, fruits, leaves, and grains of all kinds and materials, ad val., British,30 per cent.; intermediate, 35 per cent.; general, 40 per cent.

Artificial flowers in. spray, trails, or posies, per dozensprays, trails, or posics, British; 48.; intermediate, 4s.6d.; general,5s; or, ad vat, British, 30 per. cent; intermediate, 35 per cent: ; general, 40 per cent., whichever rate returns the higher duty.

Artificial flowers are seasonable goods in other countries, and, as a consequence, there is a. certain amount of seasonal dumping which prejudicially affects the local industry. This requested amendment satisfies those engaged in the trade here, and it is believed that it will accomplish the object of the Department.

Senator PRATTEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– I cordially support the request, which is designed to preserve a very active industry in Sydney, and, in my opinion, is only fair play.

Request agreed to.

Item agreed to, subject to a request.

Item 110-

Apparel n.e.i.for the human body, partly or wholly made up, including materials cut into shape therefor; also material defined by pattern or design for manufacture, into apparel. ad. val., British, 10 per cent. ; intermediate, 50 per cent.; general, So per cent.

– I would like to see the British manufacturers of .corsets ‘keep pace with those of other countries, but the latter have outstripped their British competitors in the degree of comfort they can guarantee to the wearers of their -.corsets. Unfortunately, Great Britain has been somewhat conservative in respect to many of its manufactures.. America -has captured a great portion of the boot :and shootrade of the United Kingdom, because the

– Then it is absolutely beyond the reach of the average woman. Before the war a woman could purchase a good British, American, or French corset for 7s. 6d. or 8s., but to-day for a corset, which will not be of high quality, the price is 10s. per pair wholesale. The request I have moved means protection, so far as the English corset is concerned, of at least 35 per cent. I move -

That the House of Representatives be requested to insert the following new sub-item: - “(c) Corsets, ad val., British, 15 per cent.; intermediate,20 per cent.; general, 25 per cent.”

The CHAIRMAN (Senator Bakhap:

-The honorable senator’s time has expired.

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
Western Australia

– I should like some further information regarding this item, because it certainly seems to me, to use a colloquialism, that the proposed duty is “ red hot.” From 15 per cent, to 55 per cent, is a big jump, and represents the highest duty I have yet discovered so far in the Tariff.There must be some adequate explanation, but if there is not we ought to revert to the old schedule.

Senator RUSSELL:
VicePresident of the Executive Council · Victoria · NAT

– The reason the duty is so high is that nearly all the materials for the construction of corsets are dutiable, and, of course, the duty on the finished product must be higher than that on the raw materials.

Senator Drake-Brockman:

– Senator Payne produced a corset which scarcely supports that statement.

Senator Payne:

– I produced a corset without any embellishments. In any case the bones, busks, and, I believe, every thing used in the construction of that corset is duty free.

Senator RUSSELL:

– There has been a satisfactory development of the industry, and, according to my information, a new company has recently been formed in Sydney, the Paxton Corset Syndicate, with a capital of £25,00.0. The wages paid at present by this company amount to £3,000 per annum, and the capacity of the’ present plant is four dozen corsets per week. By about the end of 1921 the wages will probably be at the rate of £10,000 or £12,000 per year. During the year 1920, Berlei Limited, Sydney, turned out 6,778 dozen corsets valued at £27,260. This company employed forty-five hands in January, 1921, and ninety-one in December 1921, and during the year paid £5,150 in wages. The Australian Hygienic Corset Company, Sydney, has a capital of £85,000, and the output is about 5,000 dozen per year, valued at £6 5s. per dozen, or £81,250. The plant is capable of doubling this output, and when the demand warrants the plant is to be increased to the capacity of 20,000 dozen per year of a nominal value of £125,000. At present seventy-five hands are employed. It will be seen from the information supplied that this is quite a substantialindustry, and is growing rapidly.

Senator Drake-Brockman:

-What profits are made on the capital invested in the industry?

Senator RUSSELL:

– I am not in a position to say, but the industry is ap- parently doing very well. The Australian I ndustries Protection League has fur nished the following information regarding corset making in Australia: -

Names of manufacturers: -
1. The Belasco Corset and Tie Co., 430 Bourke-street, Melbourne.
2. Berlei Limited, 39 Liverpool-street, Sydney.
3. Australian Corsets Limited, 60 Yorkstreet, Sydney.
4. Robert Paxton, Yarra-street, Sydney.

Note. - There are, in addition, quite a number of others who make corsets in a small way. The above munes are the principal makers. Amongst the smaller makers are the following:

Madame Florens, Culwulla Chambers; Mrs. Glasheen, 350 . George-street; A. Govell & Co., 83 Market-street; Madame Pauline, Elizabeth-street; Mrs. A. McDonald, 13 Bathurst-street, Woollahra; Miss McGuinness, Ocean House, Moore-street; Miss Richardson, the Strand Arcade; Airs. S. Glover, Epping; Mrs. Hultgren, Collingwoodstreet, Drummoyne.

Melbourne, Victoria. - Miss Warland, Collinsstreet; Mrs. J. Wade, 114 Russellstreet; Mrs. A. B. Webb,59a Wellingtonstreet, Prahran; Miss Sherman, 16 Alexander-street, Elsternwick ; Mrs. M. Hardy, 98 Elizabeth-street.

Adelaide, South Australia. - Miss E.Gibb,

Bowman’s Arcade.

Perth. - Miss A. Kyle, Bairde Arcade.

Brisbane. - Madame Jenyns Corset Coy., 327

George-Street.

Value and quality of output (three factories only) : -
1. For past six months, £25,000 - 6,200 dozen pairs.
2. For running six months, £59,000 - 10,000 dozen pairs.
Amount of capital invested (three factories only), £125,000.
Number of hands employed, 175; weekly wages, £307.
Evidence as to quality and prices:- One maker states - “ Our corsets are only -the best, and for quality compare’ most favorably with the imported article; and the price is, wo arc pleased to say, considerably lower.” - (Belasco Corset Co.) .

Another says- “ The quality of all our goods compare with any imported model, and prices average from 33 per cent, to 40 per cent, below prices asked for a similar grade imported article.” - (Australian Corsets Ltd.)

For your further information, it may be added that the league learned, on excellent authority, that should the Tariff be adopted, it is the intention of Warmer Bros., of America, to open a factory in Australia.

It is also probable that the Canadian D. & A. Corset Co. will open in Australia if the ‘Tariff schedule be adopted. Mr. Hopwood, their Melbourne agent, might probably be able to give some information on the matter.

I do not say that these manufacturers produce all the requirements of Australia, but it is evident that they are making an effort to establish the industry, and have met with considerable success. The particulars of importations of corsets over a period of years are as follow: -

In view of the strong representations of honorable senators I shall be prepared to accept a request for the reduction of the duties by 10 per cent, in each instance. The situation as it may then develop will be carefully watched by the Tariff Board.

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
Western Australia

– The information furnished by the Minister (Senator Russell) fails tosatisfy me of the need for even the modified rates just indicated. The Australian manufacturer say they can produce better corsets than those imported, at from 33 to 40 per cent, less cost. Surely, the local manufacturers do not need any further protection.The schedule rates provide an instance, not of protection gone mad, but of prohibition gone mad. There are some 2,000,000women in the Commonwealth requiring these essential articles of apparel; so that, in the light of the facts and figures provided concerning the local output, an enormous proportion must be imported. In my view, the previous rates of duty were more than sufficient for the protection of an industry which, so far as the quality and value of its products is concerned, can easily hold its own. I shall support Senator Payne’s request.

Senator LYNCH:
Western Australia

– The rather discouraging figures quoted by the Minister (Senator Russell) disclose the inability of the local, manufacturers to hold their own under high protective- duties; and the fact that the only competition comes from America and Canada, which are white-labour countries where wages and conditions are, if anything, better than our own, lead one to believe that if we cannot carry on under these rates a duty of 100per cent, would not be adequate. In these circumstances I am inclined to support the request submitted by Senator Payne.

Senator PRATTEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– I understand that the Minister (Senator Russell) has offered a concession of 10 per cent.

Senator E D MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

– But it has been rejected.

Senator PRATTEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– Not by the Committee.

Senator E D MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

– The suggested amendment is. tantamount to nullifying it.

Senator PRATTEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– The Minister has agreed to make the duty 30 per cent., 40 per cent., and . 45 per cent., instead of 40 per cent., 50 per cent., and 55 per cent. I am concerned only in the British preferential rate, as the higher duties operate only against Germany, America, and Japan. I do not care, if the duty on importations from those countries is 75 per cent. The, intermediate rate on the Minister’s suggestion would be 40 per cent, but it would not operate at present: With a reciprocal arrangement with.

France and Canada, which? is well within the range of practical policy, a duty of 40 per cent would operate against those countries. The Minister has shown how this industry has grown, and the facts are these. About £300,000 worth of corsets, are imported annually into Australia. Until these duties were imposed the corset business was practically non-existent; but since they have been in operation considerable development has begun, and. from June, 1920, to July last Australianfactories have produced £100,000 worth of corsets, which is equal to one-third of the total importations. The Minister has informed us that the D. & A. Co. of America intend establishing a factory here, and a drastic reduction of the proposed duties would prevent the rapid development of the industry, and probably be the means of American capital being kept out of the country.

Senator Bolton:

– They would soon wipe out our manufacturers if they came under these conditions. .

Senator PRATTEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– Protection encourages local competition, and it would not make much difference to Australian users so long as they were purchasing the corsets made by Australian workmen.

Senator Drake-Brockman:

– If available at a reasonable price.

Senator PRATTEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– That is the point. It is not fair to be continually harping on pre-war prices, particularly when we have heard, over and over again, that the rates of wages, and the prices of material, machinery, and everything else are three or four times more than before the war. Yesterday afternoon, when discussing the duties- on woollen goods, we were informed that the wages in France were four times higher than before the war.

Senator Payne:

– The new season’s corsets will cost about 70 per cent, more than the pre-war article.

Senator PRATTEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– It has been said that, before the war, corsets were available at a . low price. I ask the Committee to consider the matter carefully before drastically reducing these duties.

Senator Drake-Brockman:

– The proposition is to increase them-.

Senator PRATTEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– -They have been increased, and the result has been that within twelvemonths one-third of the country’s requirements in ‘the way of corsets has been manufactured in Australia. According to the figures of the Minister., Australia used to import annually about £300,000 worth of corsets., but during the last financial year three factories - now there are four, and also a number of individuals making to order - made £94,000 of corsets, of which £35,000 worth were made in the first six months, and £59,000 worth in the second six months. As a Protectionist, I think that the duties have fully justified themselves.

Senator E D MILLEN:
Minister for Repatriation · NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

– I do not wish any honorable senatorto vote under a misapprehension, and therefore rise to point out that if a division is taken on the request of Senator Payne, and the request is defeated, it will not becompetent to accept the offer of the Minister. The Committee having rejected a duty of 15 per cent., will be taken as having rejected any higher rate.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Buzacott:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– Our practice has been to deal with the lower rate first.

Senator E D MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

– The Committee is considering not a proposed reduction of the rate,but a specific proposal to make corsets dutiable at 15 per cent. If the Committee decides that they shall not be dutiable at 15 per cent., the decision will he taken to mean that they shall not be dutiable at morethan 15 per cent.

Question - That the request (Senator Payne’s) be agreed to - put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 10

NOES: 6

Majority … … 4

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Request agreed to.

Senator PAYNE:
Tasmania

– I move -

That the -House of Representatives be requested to insert the following new sub-item: - “ (d) Undershirts, undervests, underpants, andcombinations, British,25 -per cent.; intermediate, . 30 percent. general, 40 percent.”

– Ifit is the feeling of the Committee that we should do so in this ease in order to ho consistent, I shall confine this request to woollen goods, and will move for the insertion of another item covering these articles made of cotton at a lower rate of duty. With the consent of the Committee I can amend my request by inserting after “combinations “ the words “ wool or containing wool.”

SenatorRussell. - The duties the honorable senator proposes will be lower on these garments than on the raw material. The duty on woollen goods and goods containing wool are 30, 40, and 45 per cent., under sub-item f of item 105.

Senator PAYNE:

– That item covers woollen piece goods. I am dealing with woven fabric, which is a totally different thing from textiles. The difficulty might be overcome by a further alteration of my request, and I ask leave to amend it to read -

That the House of Representatives be requested to insert the following new sub-item: - “ (d) Woven undershirts, undervests, underpants, and combinations,’ wool or containing wool, British, 25 per cent.; intermediate, SO per cent.; general, 40 per cent.”

Request, by leave, amended accordingly.

Senator EARLE:
TASMANIA · NAT

, - I am a little perplexed about this proposal. I certainly regard the duties

Bet out in the schedule as extremely high. At the same time I want the manufacturers of these garments to be given some protection against the imported goods. As has been pointed out by the. Minister the duties proposed by Senator Payne are lower than those imposed under sub-item f of item 105. I should like an assurance that the rather sweeping reduction which has been suggested by the honorable senator will not remove the reasonable amount of protection at present afforded to those engaged in making up these particular garments; and that importers will not have an opportunity to import garments from cheap-labour countries, thereby disorganizing what is probably an extensive industry in this country.

Senator PAYNE:
Tasmania

– There may be something in the contention that the Tariff in the proposed new sub-item would beinconsistent if it were less than the duty on textile fabrics, which has been fixed at British, 30 per cent., intermediate, 40 per cent., and general, 45 per cent. With the permission of the Committee I wish to again amend my request.

Request further amended accordingly and agreed to.

Request (by Senator Payne) agreed to -

That the House of Representatives be requested to add the following new paragraph to sub-item (d) just inserted: - “ (2) Cotton, ad val., British, 20 per cent.; intermediate, 25 per cent.; general, 35 per cent.”

Senator Duncan:

– I think we should have a quorum. [Quorum formed.]

Item agreed to, subject to requests.

Item 111 (Articles of natural or imitationhair), item 112 (Purs and other skins and articles made thereof), item 113 (Gloves, except of rubber), and item 114 (Hats, caps, and bonnets), agreed to. Item 115-

Socks and stockings for human attire, viz.: -

Cotton, ad vol., British, 30 per cent.; intermediate, 40 per cent.; general, 45 per cent. ‘

Senator PRATTEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– This item deserves some attention from the Committee. Speaking from memory, in the 1908Tariff, cotton socks and stockings were free. In the Tariff of 1914 they were again free, but under this Tariff they are subject to duties of 30 per cent., 40 per cent., and 45 per cent. As Senator Payne informs me that he has given notice of a request for a reduction of the duty, I shall make way for him.

Senator PAYNE:
Tasmania

– I thank the honorable senator for his courtesy. I move-

That the House of Representatives be requested to make the duties, sub-item (a), British, 15 per cent.; intermediate, 20 per cent.; general, 30 per cent.

Senator Payne:

– Their manager assured me that they had none in stock, and that they could not manufacture them, because there was no demand for them.

Senator RUSSELL:

– The manufacture of cotton hose presents no special difficulty. Its establishment and expansion depend wholly on effective Protection being given. The raw material, cotton yarn, is provided for in item 392a, under which it is proposed to admit it free under the British and intermediate Tariffs, and to impose a duty of 5 per cent, ad valorem under the general

Tariff. As an indication of the progress made in the cotton hose industry and related industries, the value of the importations of cotton yarn increased from £40,214 in 1913 to £184,436 in 1918-19. In view of this wonderful increase in the importations of cotton yarn, and seeing that the hosiery makers can fill their spindles just as easily with cotton as with wool, there seems to be no reason why we should not be able to manufacture cotton hosiery here.

Senator Payne:

– But the duty I am proposing ought to be ample protection for them.

Senator RUSSELL:

– The rate of 15 per cent, which the honorable senator proposes seems to be rather low. We ought to give a reasonable protection to the industry. Mr. Lincoln, of the mills at Coburg, which employ 700 people, says that he can undertake the manufacture of these socks if he is protected. He is evidently at present dealing with wool, . which is protected, and from which he probably gets a better return. He says that he only desires a certain amount of help, and that to-morrow, if necessary, he could convert the machinery so as to deal with cotton goods. All the raw material for the manufacture of cotton goods is free of duty, and we ought, I think, to do something that has at least the appearance of giving a little protection. The Government suggests 30 per cent., and Senator Payne suggests 15 per cent. At 30 per cent., on the lowest-priced cotton stocking at ls. a pair, the duty is 4d. - or 2d. under the honorable senator’s proposal - and on the highest priced, at ls. 7d., the duty is 6£d., or a mean of 5d. These are prices for ordinary cotton stockings, not for the high grades, which are much dearer. On prewar prices, with the lowest at 4d. and the highest at 7d., the duties would be ld. and 2Jd. respectively, or a mean of, say, 2d.

Senator EARLE:
Tasmania

– I do not like sweeping reductions of duties, and if there is any possibility of building up an industry some effort should be made to do so. At the same time, I think the duty is rather high, and I suggest that Senator Payne should make the British preferential duty 20 per cent.

Senator Lynch:

– We are given to understand that the industry was started by Messrs. Foy and Gibson without any duty.

Senator EARLE:

– That does not seem to be so. I suppose that of late years there has been very little demand for this class of goods.

Senator Lynch:

– Up to March of last year there was no duty at all against Great Britain.

Senator EARLE:

– That is so, but it is reasonable to assume that in years to come there will be a greater demand for these goods. Personally, I would not use them on any consideration, though, I dare say, some people prefer them. If there are goods of such large value coming into Australia, surely it is worth while manufacturing them here, for, evidently, there are people who use them. If Senator Payne were to move that the duties be 20 per cent., 30 per cent., and 45 per cent., I should be inclined to support him.

Senator PAYNE:
Tasmania

– I arn prepared to make the’ duties 20 per cent., 25 per cent., and 35 percent and ask leave to so amend my request.

Request, by leave, amended accord,ingly

Senator PAYNE:

– In quite a large number of retail establishments in Hobart and Launceston, I have been informed, during the last few months, that none of these goods are in stock and have not been offered, and my experience has been similar in a dozen other places in Melbourne. I do not dispute the statement of the Minister, but I fear that it may convey, the impression that Australian, cotton hose is in general use.

Senator Bolton:

– The difference between the conditions in Australia and in Japan represents more than 15 per cent.

Senator PAYNE:

– I do not think that the British preference in any case exceeds 15 per cent.

Request, as amended, agreed to.

Item agreed to, subject to a request. -

Item 116 (Parasols), item 117 (Blankets), item 118 (Carpets), item 119 (Coir articles), item 120 (Textile articles), item 121 (Curtains and blinds), and item 122 (Articles n.e.i.), agreed to.

Item 123-

Waddings and cotton wool, n.e.i., ad val., British, 20 per cent.; intermediate, 25 per cent.; general, 30 per cent.
Waste, engine cleaning, ad val., Bri tish and intermediate, free; general, 10 per cent.
Waste, axle, ad vaL, British, 10 per cent.; intermediate, 15 per cent.; general, 20 per cent.

Senator PAYNE:
Tasmania

– The increase of the rates of duty on waddings from 15 per cent. British and 20 per cent, general to those- set out in the schedule requires explanation. It had been my intention to request an amendment; but if the Minister (Senator Bussell) can satisfy me of the need for the enhanced imposts I shall be content.

Senator RUSSELL:
VicePresident of the Executive Council · Victoria · NAT

– Waddings and cotton wool are being manufactured by Messrs. Laycock, Son, and Nettleton, Melbourne. In June, 1919, that firm wrote to the Cuatoms Departments as follows: -

So great was the demand that firms who never bought the Australian article before 4th August, 1014 (except as a convenience when short of imported stock), declared they would give us their full support and “ stick to us “ after the war if we would only accept and execute their orders, which we did; and we claim that we supplied the requirements of the Commonwealth for over four years, sending our manufactures to all States direct. We feel compelled, however, to direct attention to the change which has come over our -new-found friends since 11th November, 1918. The raw material is pure cotton, which we obtain from India and Queensland. It may be of interest to state that we purchased by public tender the entire cotton crop grown in Queensland last year from the Agricultural Department, and we hope to do so again this and the succeeding years. -

The large increase in importations during 1918-19 supports the statement made by this firm and indicates the need for higher duties.

Senator PAYNE:
Tasmania

– In view. of the statements made concerning the Melbourne company I shall not proceed with my proposed request. I was aware that, some years ago, Australia was dependent upon outside supplies. I am glad to know that there is now a local industry which, up to 1919, at any rate, claimed to be able to meet the requirements of the Commonwealth, and which was, at the same time, using for its raw material cotton grown in Australia. It is only fair that the company should look for support from the community to-day seeing that it supplied its wants during the war years, when foreign importations were not available. I was interviewed on Wednesday by a representative of a firm concerned in the manufacture of engine-cleaning waste. I was to be supplied with certain interesting information, and it has not yet come to hand, since I informed my interviewer that the item could not be reached before Friday.

Senator RUSSELL:

– Engine-cleaning waste is subject only to a 10 per cent, general duty.

Senator PAYNE:

– I am concerned as to whether the industry should not be given some reasonable degree of protection. The firm of Frederick S. Holt and Company Proprietary Limited, of South Melbourne, hae established substantial mills, and has been. turn-, ing out an excellent cotton^ waste, among other things. The plant was recently enlarged in order to cope with rapidly expanding ‘ orders. Will the Minister consent to postpone the item that I may secure the information which is to be made available for me?

Senator Russell:

– I suggest that the item be agreed to. It can be subsequently recommitted.

Senator REID:
Queensland

– During the war it was almost impossible to secure supplies of waddings and cotton wool such as are used for padding in clothes and the like. And such stocks as were obtainable were of poor quality. The Queensland Government are encouraging the cultivation of cotton^ and have furnished substantial guarantees. More cotton is now being grown in Queensland than can be .consumed locally, and some of the product is being exported. Any encouragement, therefore, that can be given to an industry using Australian cotton as its raw material should be afforded. I am pleased to learn that the firm using cotton purchased the whole of the Queensland crop last year. I believe, however, that the area has been increased to such an extent that that State has been able to export 200 tons.

Senator DUNCAN:
New South Wales

– I move -

That the House of Representatives .be requested to insert the following new sub-item: - “ (d) Kapok, per lb., ad val., British, 6d.; intermediate, 9d.; general, 9d.?’

I have submitted this request with the object of giving encouragement to a very important undertaking, recently established in Sydney, which is closely associated with the woollen industry. Arrangements have been made whereby scoured low-grade wools are now being used for packing mattresses, and the firm which has undertaken this work has received orders from the proprietors of large new flats, and also from the Hotel Australia. In the past it has been the practice to fill mattresses with kapok, and it is believed that if sufficient protection is given to this undertaking by imposing duties on kapok, a very important industry will develop. Practically the whole of our supplies of kapok are obtained from Java and the East -Indies, and out of the 5,500,000 pounds weight imported 5,314,000 pounds came from Java. The disposal of low-grade wools is somewhat of a problem at the present juncture; but if they can be utilized in this way considerable assistance will be given to primary producers, and purchasers of mattresses will be able to obtain a more sanitary article.

Senator Reid:

– Question.

Senator DUNCAN:

Senator LYNCH:
Western ‘ Australia

– In my opinion, the request is on the steep side, even though the industry which it is sought to protect is a new one. If there can be made of wool a material superior to kapok, it will be welcomed; but we do not wish to have to pay too much for it. Wool will get back to normal values much sooner than those interested in it will like, and recently refuse pieces, such as locks and bellies, have been sold at from 3d. to Id. per lb.

Two honorable senators’ have lately sold wool at Id. per lb. If. should not need, a very costly process to convert such wool into an. article suitable for bedding; and a duty of 6’dv per lb. would be almost 500 , Der cent, *ad valorem** I think- that’ Senator Duncan would be well advised to’ accept a duty of 2’0 per cent., putting this article on the same footing, as cotton wool.

Senator DUNCAN:

– NO other article competes with cot-ton wool. These duties are proposed to assist a new industry.

Senator LYNCH:

– I am not inclined #o support the high rates proposed, with such meagre information concerning the industry -Senator E. D. MILLEN (New South “Wales - Minister for Repatriation) [6.38 a.m.]. - I suggest” that Senator Duncan should withdraw the request, so that it may be- considered in connexion with item 402, which seems a more appropriate place for it,, that item dealing with hair- and fibre suitable for upholstering purposes. That course would give the ]Department time to look thoroughly into the matter. At present, very little informmation is available.

Senator DUNCAN (New South- Wales) ][6.39 a.m.]. - I am prepared to meet the Minister in- this matter, being assured by those who are making these mattresses - Newlands Brothers - that, they have northing to1 fear, and court the fullest investigation: So confident are they of the merits of their case that I am sure they would be willing to leave this matter, to the Department for inquiry. I wish to know, however, whether I shall be in order in moving to amend item 402. I do not wish to be told when we come to ihat item that I have lost my opportunity 4o do anything. On the understanding that I shall be allowed to move my request on item 142, I ask leave to with.draw it now.

Request, by leave, withdrawn; Item agreed to.

Item 124 (Braids); and item 125 (Felt) agreed to.

Item 126 -

Saddlers’ Webs, Upholsterers’ Webs, Collar Check and Collar Cloth 36 inches and oyer in width, Saddlers’ Kersey, Saddlers’ Serge and Felt; Pelt- for lining horse and cattle rug’s, ad’ val., British free, intermediate free, general 10 per cent.

Senator LYNCH (Western Australia)? (&.41 a.m/.) - This; item) includes1 collar cheek to which Senator Guthrie! made some reference? and I suggest’ to- the Minister that in view of what Sen’ator Guthrie said he might postpone the consideration of this item! until’ the honorable senator is present. If there is an industry in Melbourne engaged in production of collar check, I see’ no reason, why it’ should’, not be given a chance;

Senator E D MILLEN:
Minister’ for Repatriation · NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

– My colleague would have moved a’ request on this item, which, in.his. absence, I submit. We propose, instead’ of- including so: many articles’ inr item. 126, to divide them at- different rates of. duty. I move -

That the House of Representatives be. re* quested to amend the item, by adding, the following words: - “And on and’ after 1st January, 1922- (a)’ Saddlers’ webs, upholsterers’ webs, saddlers’ felt, and felt for lining horse and cattle- rugs,, ad - val., British, free; intermediate, free* general, 10 per cent’. (jb)’ Collar check, collar cloth, saddlers’ kersey, and saddlers’ serge; ad’ val:, British, 30 per cent;; intermediate, 40 .per cent.; general, 45 per. cent.”

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · NAT

-Bboceman.. - Why such high duties’ on the. proposed* sub- item b ?

Senator E D MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

– The1 reason, I am informed,, is that’ an industry has been started! for the weaving’ of these things in this country,- and in conformity with what I understand to be the’ acccepted policy of the Commonwealth it is desired to give the industry the: benefit of the protective duties, proposed.

Senator PLAIN:
Victoria

– I am prepared to go as far in the direction, of protection as any member of the Committee, but collar check is “a material that is very widely used throughout Australia,, and it would require a factory of very great dimensions to cope with our requirements; If there:is only a small industry established here for the weaving of this cloth it will not be capable of- supplying one-tenth of our: requirements, and in the circumstances, a duty of 45’ per cent, is altogether too high.

Senator E D MILLEN:
Minister 5or Reparation. · NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

p#B a.m.].– I :admit that Senator Plain taas raised an important point. Ho inquires

*8 to the ‘‘extent ‘of .the industry that ‘has been started here. Unfortunate^ I ;canudt give him the details for which Ibo asks, but I am informed lhat a factory has been started in Collingwood with every prospect of being able ‘to supply. -a very large proportion of Australia’s ‘requirements lor these goods, and it te considered that with the encouragement of the duties proposed the factory would in a - short time be in a .position to supply the whole of our local requirements.

Senator EARLE:
Tasmania;

.- The duties proposed tin connexion with sub-item b of the Minister’s request would involve considerable additional expense to mors of these materials. If there is only one factory in Collingwood making them, it cannot hope to supply the whole of the requirements of Australia, and duties as high as 45 per.cent are unreasonable. If we could be assured that an industry was aboa t to be established that would be capable of meeting the demand for these goods, and that it was likely to suffer from the competition of similar goods from industrial centres where our conditions of manufacture do not prevail, I should he prepared, to. give the protection necessary to permit of the manufacture of the goods here at a reasonable rate. I think,_ however, that a duty of 45 per cent, cil the actual value of the goods is too high.

Senator PLAIN:
VICTORIA · NAT; UAP from 1931

– ,1 should like to have some particulars as to what the Collingwood factory “is capable of turning’ out, Immense quantities of these materials are required for horse collars, and for cattle and horse rugs. It would take an enormous mill to supply Australian requirements for these materials. To ask for a duty of s-5 per cent, in tha .interests of a ‘little mill that cannot supply our requirements for these materials is imposition pure and -simple. Unless we are given particulars of what the factory is capable of turning out, I do not think we should be justified in supporting a duty of even 25 per cent. Bud requests are calculated to deter honorable senators from giving fair .protection to enterprises of .this kind. To agree >to <tlie request would I think, create a very unsatisfactory precedent.

Senator E D MILLEN:
Wales-Minister for Repatriation · NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

, - I quite recognise the force d£ Senator Plain’s contention. The position is (hat, judging by the rate of .progress! which the Committee .has hitherto made with the schedule, the officers advising the> Vice-President of the Executive Council (Senator Russell) did not anticipate that we would reach this item by this time. I suggest that if the Committee ‘will pass the item as it stands, we can recommit it, together with other items which, no* doubt, will be recommitted, ‘for further consideration. I am sot abandoning the proposal. 1 ask the Committee to pass it on the understanding -that when full information is available it will be reconsidered. The Committee can then decide the proposal on its merits.

Request, ‘by “‘leave,’ withdrawn.

Item agreed to.

Item 187 (Hop cloth, ,&c), item ASS (Milling silk), item 129 (Hessians, ito.), item 130 (Canvas and duck), item 131 (Tents, sails, and flags), item 1S2 (Diving dresses), agreed to

Item 133 (Bags and Backs of calico).

Senator LYNCH:
Western Australia

– I should like to know if bags and sacks, -included in this item, are for purposes ‘other ‘than those indicated in item 184? If they ore intended for wheat, I shall have a good steal ;to say about the duty which, in the general Tariff, is 35- per cent., as we can,only obtain these bags from one source.

Senator E D MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

– Cornsacks come under item 184, free.

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
WesternAustralia

– Meat wraps, under this item, are dutiable. It seems to me that they should come in free, in the sama category as cornsacks, unless the Minister can advance some good reason to the contrary.

Senator E D MILLEN:
Minister for Repatriation · NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

– There is- a particular reason, though I cannot ‘say if ‘the honorablesenator will regard it as adequate, why meat wraps, under ‘this item, .should be dutiable. The raw material is admitted. free under a previous item, and the desire is to have the meat wraps made in Australia. For that reason a duty has been imposed on meat wraps that are partly or wholly made up.

Item agreed to.

Item 134 (Bags, sacks, packs, &c.), and item 135 (Accoutrements, buttons, braid, &c.), agreed to.

Progress reported.

page 10954

SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT

Motion (by Senator E. D. Millen) agreed to -

That the Senate, at its rising, adjourn until 8 p.m. on Tuesday next.

page 10954

ADJOURNMENT

Pair

Motion (by Senator E. D. Millet?) proposed -

That the Senate do now adjourn.

Senator PLAIN:
Victoria

, - I desire to make an explanation with regard to a vote I gave on item 105. I - had arranged a pair with Senator John D. Milieu, and unfortunately I forgot all about the matter. I make this explanation in order to put myself right with honorable senators.

Question resolved in the affirmative,

Senate adjourned at 7 a.m. (Friday).

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 11 August 1921, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1921/19210811_senate_8_96/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant

Senate11 August 1921

PAPERS

INDEMNITY BILL

Senator DUNCAN:NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator E D MILLEN:NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

Senator Duncan:

Senator E D MILLEN:NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

QUESTION

PUBLIC SERVANTS’FURLOUGH

Senator THOMAS:NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator E D MILLEN:NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

QUESTION

EXCHANGE AND CUSTOMS COLLECTION

Senator RUSSELL:Vice-President of the Executive Council · VICTORIA · NAT

QUESTION

BRIGADIER-GENERAL ELLIOTT

Senator ELLIOTT:VICTORIA

Senator PEARCE:Minister for Defence · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · NAT

Senator Gardiner:

Senator PEARCE:

QUESTION

EASTERN TRADE COMMISSIONER

Senator RUSSELL:NAT

CUSTOMS TARIFF BILL

Senator PAYNE:Tasmania

Senator CRAWFORD:QUEENSLAND

Senator PAYNE:

Senator SENIOR:SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Senator PAYNE:

Senator Rowell:

Senator PAYNE:

Senator CRAWFORD:

Senator PAYNE:

Senator Crawford:

Senator PAYNE:

Senator Crawford:

Senator PAYNE:

Senator Vardon:

Senator PAYNE:

Senator GUTHRIE:VICTORIA · NAT; UAP from 1931

Senator PAYNE:

Senator Keating:

Senator PAYNE:

Senator Keating:

Senator PAYNE:

Senator Crawford:

Senator PAYNE:

Senator Crawford:

Senator PAYNE:

Senator Senior:

Senator PAYNE:

Senator RUSSELL:VicePresident of the Executive Council · Victoria · NAT

Senator THOMAS:NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator RUSSELL:

Senator PRATTEN:NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator RUSSELL:

Senator THOMAS:NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator RUSSELL:

Senator Payne:

Senator RUSSELL:

Senator VARDON:South Australia

Senator de LARGIE:

Senator VARDON:

Senator PAYNE:Tasmania

Senator Bolton:

Senator PAYNE:

Senator Bolton:

Senator PAYNE:

Senator Pearce:

Senator PAYNE:

Senator Pearce:

Senator PAYNE:

Senator Pearce:

Senator PAYNE:

Senator RUSSELL:VicePresident of the Executive Council · Victoria · NAT

Senator PAYNE:Tasmania

Senator Russell:

Senator PAYNE:TASMANIA · NAT; UAP from 1931

Senator Russell:

Senator PAYNE:

Senate
11 August 1921

Senator DUNCAN:
NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator E D MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

Senator E D MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

Senator THOMAS:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator E D MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

Senator RUSSELL:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · VICTORIA · NAT

Senator ELLIOTT:
VICTORIA

Senator PEARCE:
Minister for Defence · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · NAT

Senator RUSSELL:
NAT

Senator PAYNE:
Tasmania

Senator CRAWFORD:
QUEENSLAND

Senator SENIOR:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Senator GUTHRIE:
VICTORIA · NAT; UAP from 1931

Senator RUSSELL:
VicePresident of the Executive Council · Victoria · NAT

Senator THOMAS:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator PRATTEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator THOMAS:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator VARDON:
South Australia

Senator PAYNE:
Tasmania

Senator RUSSELL:
VicePresident of the Executive Council · Victoria · NAT

Senator PAYNE:
Tasmania

Senator PAYNE:
TASMANIA · NAT; UAP from 1931

Senator SENIOR:
South Australia

Senator GUTHRIE:
VICTORIA · NAT; UAP from 1931

Senator RUSSELL:
VicePresident of the Executive Council · Victoria · NAT

Senator PRATTEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator PRATTEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator PRATTEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator PRATTEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator PRATTEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator PRATTEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

The CHAIRMAN (Senator Bakhap:
TASMANIA

Senator PRATTEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator PRATTEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator PRATTEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator PRATTEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator PRATTEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator PEARCE:
Western AustraliaMinister for Defence · NAT

Senator PRATTEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator PRATTEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator GARDINER:
New South Wales

Senator KEATING:
Tasmania

Senator LYNCH:
Western Australia

Senator SENIOR:
South Australia