Senate
18 November 1921
8th Parliament · 1st Session
The President (Senator the Hon. T. Givens) took the chair at 11 a.m., and read prayers.
page 12957
QUESTION
NEW ZEALAND
Reciprocal Trade Arrangements
Senator GUTHRIE:
VICTORIA · NAT; UAP from 1931
– I ask the Leader of the Government in the Senate whether, in view of the fact that New Zealand is a sister Dominion, inhabited by our own kith and kin, the Government will, at an early date, make reciprocal trade arrangements such as would tend towards the most friendly feeling between these two far-flung outposts of the British Empire, instead of treating New Zealand as a foreign Power, as has apparently been done in the Customs Tariff Bill?
Senator E D MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917
– I understand that the honorable senator is asking the Government to make reciprocal trade arrangements with New Zealand. I point out that it is not competent for one party to a reciprocal arrangement to answer such a question.
Senator Wilson:
– Some one must
Senator E D MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917
– The Commonwealth Government have made a start by the offer extended through the intermediate Tariff in the schedule to the Customs Tariff Bill. That is an intimation to New Zealand and other portions of the Empire of the attitude which the Commonwealth Government take up.
Senator Keating:
– Similar provision is made in the New Zealand Tariff.
Senator E D MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917
-I was not aware of that; but if it be so, and there should be any desire on both sides to take advantage of these intermediate Tariffs, the making of reciprocal’ arrangements with New Zealand should not be difficult.
page 12957
QUESTION
SHIPBUILDING
Free Admission of Material
Senator GARDINER:
NEW SOUTH WALES
asked the Min ister representing the Minister for Trade and Customs, upon notice -
- Will the Minister admit free of duty all material required for building ships at State shipbuilding yards?
- Or, will the Government give a rebate on material imported for ships built in Australia’ where such material cannot be obtained in Australia?
Senator RUSSELL:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · VICTORIA · NAT
– The answers are: -
- Generally speaking, the answer is No. If, however, conclusive proof be furnished that certain necessary materials cannot be manufactured in the Commonwealth, admission free of duty would be allowed under by-law of such goods, the produce of the United Kingdom. As to goods of other origin, 10 per cent, duty would be levied.
- See reply to ‘No. 1.
page 12958
QUESTION
PAPUA
Purchase of British Interests in OilProspecting - Operations of AngloPersian Oil Company.
Senator KEATING:
asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice -
- Have the Commonwealth Government acquired the rights of the Imperial Government in their hitherto joint interest in the prospecting of Papua for oil?
- If so, when and on what terms?
- Does such acquisition involve the withdrawal of the British Admiralty from cooperation in the development of oil resources in Papua?
- If not, how is such co-operation for the futuresecured?
Senator E D MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917
– I would refer the honorable senator to a statement made yesterday by the Prime Minister in another place, setting out the position as it stands at present, and intimating that, subject to parliamentary ratification, he had agreed that the Commonwealth should buy the British Government’s interests for £25,000, and continue boring operations in New Guinea Territory on behalf of the Commonwealth, as the results obtained from the experiments in Papua had been disappointing.
Senator EARLE:
TASMANIA
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Home and Territories, upon notice -
- Can he inform the Senate what number of bores have been put down in search for oil in Papua since the Anglo-Persian Oil Company started operations?
- What depths have been reached by each bore?
- What quantity of oil has been won, if any?
Senator RUSSELL:
NAT
– The answers are: -
- No bores have actually been put down by the Anglo-Persian Oil Company. They have hitherto confined their operations mainly to a geological survey of the districts which gave indications of oil, with a view to selecting structures- likely to contain oil in commercial quantities. Preparations are, however, being made by the company to sink the first trial bore at Pope, where most of the necessary plant has already been assembled.
- See No. 1.
- No oil has yet been won by the AngloPersian Oil Company.
page 12958
QUESTION
PUBLIC SERVICE
Retirement of Transferred Officers
Senator SENIOR:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA
asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice -
- Has the attention of the Minister been directed to Circular No. 21/46, G20/550, issued by the Acting Public Service Commissioner, under date 12th October, 1921, in respect to retirement of South Australian officers who were compulsorily transferred with the Defence, Trade and Customs, and Postmaster-General’s Departments, as a result of the decision of the High Court?
- Docs the Solicitor-General for the Commonwealth concur in the ruling given by the Acting Public Service Commissioner in the circular named?
-
What was the number of the officers compulsorily transferred from the State of South Australia to the Commonwealth at its inception -
- classified, First, Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Division?
- non-classified?
Senator E D MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917
– The answers are: -
- Yes.
-
The circular is based on advice received from the Solicitor-General; but the circular itself has not been submitted for an opinion. 3. (a) Approximately,549. Particulars are not readily available as to the number in each separate Division.
-
page 12958
QUESTION
IMMIGRATION
Senator LYNCH:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA
asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice -
- Isthe Prime Minister correctly reported in the Melbourne Herald of 14th November, as saying that the most this country could absorb under present arrangements was from 12,000 to 20,000 immigrants, and as indorsing that estimate?
- If so, does the Prime Minister consider that estimate coincides with present normal requirements, or even past experience extending over a considerable period?
Senator E D MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917
– The answer is: - 1 and 2. Under the joint Commonwealth and State immigration scheme, theStates declare to the Commonwealth the number of immigrants they require. The figures mentioned cover approximately the number of immigrants requisitioned for, by the States for this year. Every effort has been made by the Commonwealth to induce the States to increase their immigration activities; but as they have not done so, I must assume that they cannot, under existing circumstances, absorb larger numbers. It was these facts, amongst others, that the Prime Minister had in his mind at the time he spoke. The recent Premiers’ Conference favorably considered proposals, which, it is hoped, will, before long, achieve satisfactory results. But he has stated that what he desired, and what the Commonwealth could absorb, was not less than 100,000 per annum.
page 12959
CUSTOMS TARIFF BILL
In Committee (Consideration of House of Representatives’ message resumed from 17th. November, vide page 12903) :
Item 232-
And on and after 17th June, 1921 -
Per gallon, British, 2s.6d.; intermediate, 3s.; general, 3s.6d.; or, ad val., British, 25 per cent.; intermediate, 30 per cent.; general, 35 per cent.; whichever rate returns the higher duty.
Senate’sRequest. - British, 15 per cent.
House ofRepresentatives’ Message. -Not made.
Senator E D MILLEN:
Minister for Repatriation · NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917
– When this item was lastunder consideration in this Chamber the Committee decided to request a reduction of the duty in the British preferential column from 25 per cent, to 15per cent., leaving the duties of 30 and 35 per cent, in the intermediate andgeneral columns untouched. The item was very fully discussed here, and it is unnecessary that I should detain the Committee by reiterating the arguments used in support of the Government proposal. There is, however, one point to which I think it well to refer. It does seem to me that if by means of a Protective Tariff, we desire to stimulate Australian industries, we should put forth every effort to induce local manufacturers to make the best articles, and should not give such protection as will enable them only to produce inferior articles. The manufacturers of varnish contend that a protection of 15 per cent., as proposed by the Senate would make it impossible for them to compete in the manufacture of the higher grades of varnish. For this reason I ask the Committee to bring this item more into conformity with the general level of the Tariff. An ad valorem duty of 15 per cent, is merely an anomaly in a Tariff the average of which is much higher. I move -
That the request be not pressed.
Senator GARDINER:
New South Wales
.- I move-
That the words “not pressed” be left out with a view to insert in lieu thereof the words “modified by making the British Preferential Tariff, 20 per cent.”
I submit the amendment with a view to effecting a compromise. The matter has reached a stage at which I consider a compromise might very fairly be made. The Committee’s view of ample protection for the varnish industry was 15 per cent. on imports from Great Britain. In the opinion of another place, the British preferential duty should be 25 per cent. I intend to submit a modification making the duty in the British preferential column 20 per cent. A huge factory is not required for the manufacture of varnish. I could produce gallons of varnish at a very cheap rate. The duties proposed would not amount to much on lowgrade varnishes. A good varnish is worth about £2 per gallon, and a duty of 25 per cent, on that would amount to 10s. per gallon. I venture to say that the whole cost of producing a gallon of varnish would not be much in excess of that amount. The Minister (Senator E. D. Millen) has very properly reminded the Committee that this item was discussed fully on the previous occasion, and I am anxious to learn whether honorable senators will be willing to deal with it in the way in which, at the request of Senator Payne, they dealt with some other items last evening, when that honorable senator submitted amendments in the way of compromise. I personally believe that a duty of 15 per cent, on varnish imported from Great Britain is too high, but I am willing to try to meet the view expressed in another place by proposing a compromise which should be acceptable to both Houses. It is not in this case asking honorable senators to go back upon what they have already done, but asking them to maintain what the Senate has already done. And I think it is not unreasonable to look to a majority in the Committee to assist the minority to maintain what the Senate thought right. I remember that on one occasion in the New South Wales Parliament the members of the Government permitted a Bill for the payment of members, introduced by Mr. Daniel O’Connor, to pass as a private.Bill. The Upper House rejected the measure, and then Sir Henry Parkes made it possible for Mr. O’Connor to introduce his Bill as a Government measure, because, although Sir Henry Parkes was opposed to payment of members, he did not consider that the Upper House should he allowed to treat the opinion of the Legislative Assembly in the way it had done. The Senate lias met another place in a most generous way. “We have agreed to 400 items as’ proposed by another place, and have asked for modifications in only about ninety items. Very few of our suggestions have been adopted, and when another place insists upon standing hard and fast to its original decisions on items upon which we have disagreed, the Senate should take some action. I am well aware that the powers of the two Houses are clearly defined in these matters. I know something about varnish, and I am satisfied that, if we made the duty very much higher than is proposed, it would not induce local manufacturers to make the higher qualities of varnish. ‘ What those in the business want is to keep out good varnish, so that inferior varnishes manufactured here may be used.
Senator DUNCAN:
New South Wales
. Varnish quite good enough for all practical purposes can be, and is being, made in Australia. A duty of 15 per cent, against varnish imported from Great Britain is not sufficient protection to enable the Australian manufacturers to carry ou their business. Varnish is made entirely from imported materials.
Senator E D MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917
– Linseed oil is dutiable.
Senator DUNCAN:
– We make most pf that here, but tung oil, and the gum wed in manufacturing this article, arc imported, and are subject to a fairly heavy duty under this Tariff. Senator
Gardiner seems to imagine that locallymade varnish is not good enough for Australian requirements.
Senator Gardiner:
– It is not good enough for the best work.
Senator DUNCAN:
– The Railway Department in New South Wales, after exhaustive tests, came to the conclusion that locally-made varnish would best withstand Australian conditions, and it is now used almost exclusively for railway purposes in that State. If Australian varnishes are good enough for such requirements, they should meet all our ordinary needs. I cannot agree with Senator Gardiner that because the other Chamber has not accepted some of our suggestions we should refuse to further nego tiate. Let us judge each case on its merits.
Senator GARDINER:
New South Wales
– Senator Duncan generally casts a certain number of Free Trade votes, and then a few Protectionist votes, and had several items intervened between this and the previous one, I might have found the honorable senator’ in a more reasonable frame of mind. I wish to emphasize the point that the higher grades of varnish are required for the best class of work.
Senator E D MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917
– Such as the varnishing of motor cars?
Senator GARDINER:
– Yes. A really good varnish must be used for that purpose if a fine finish is to be preserved for any length of time. I realize that good varnish is expensive, but ordinary varnish is quite sufficient for ordinary work, such as the. finishing of railway, carriages. Great Britain has to import more of its raw material than Australian manufacturers do.
Senator E D MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917
– But Great Britain imports it free.
Senator GARDINER:
– I realize that the Old Country has an . advantage over Australia through trading in a sensible way. To enable £40,000 to be distributed in wages by Australian manufacturers, about £60,000 has to be paid in duties, so that ordinary linseed oil may be manufactured here. It is useless to attempt what is impossible, and therefore I am not asking for no duty on varnish, but I am suggesting that as a fair compromise the Committee, should fix the rate at 20 per cent., which is midway between the duties asked for by the two Chambers.
Senator E D MILLEN:
Minister for Repatriation · NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917
– I recognise Senator Gardiner’s very reasonable desire to arrive at a compromise, but having made such an excellent start, he should go a little further. It may come as a revelation to the honorable senator when I tell him that I have seen correspondence from officials of the South Australian Railway Department, and one of the responsible officers of the Tramways Trust in Adelaide, showing that they had obtained samples of Australian-made varnish, and, without intimating to the manufacturers what they were doing, had tested the article in their workshops, first, with regard to its appearance, and then as to its utility in service. The opinion they formed was that the Australian varnish was equal to the best imported article.
Senator Gardiner:
– For their work, which is ordinary work.
Senator E D MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917
– I imagine that, for railway and tramway work, a very good varnish that would provide a fine finish and harden well would be required. Seeing that the duty on linseed oil has been raised 50 cent., from 6d. to 9d., and the duty on other ingredients in varnish manufacture has been raised, 15 per cent, cannot be regarded as an effective measure of protection for this industry. For that reason I ask the Committee to support my motion.
Senator GARDINER:
New South Wales
– I wish to correct an impression’ that may be gathered from the remarks of the Minister (Senator E. D. Millen). I certainly did speak of inferior varnish, but I corrected myself by adding that locally-made varnish was good enough for ordinary work. I have no doubt that for such purposes Australian varnishes are as good as any others, just as Australian wines are equal to rival brands. Nevertheless, I do not think anybody would claim that Australia has yet reached that pitch of perfection in wine-making which France has attained. As far as good varnishes are concerned, a percentage duty means a much higher rate than a fixed duty, and the fixed duty applies to the inferior varnishes, because of the price at which they can be purchased abroad. There is no exorbitant duty on the varnishesthat are mostly made, but there is three or four timesas much duty on the higher grade varnishes.
Senator Reid:
-What demand is there for the high-class varnish?
Senator GARDINER:
– It is used on all good work. I mean high-class furniture and articles of that description, such as the fittings in this chamber.
Senator E D MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917
– Most of the fittings in this chamber are frenchpolished.
Senator GARDINER:
– The manufacturers of motor bodies and carriages, particularly those which the sterling old Australian workmen were accustomed to handle, require the better class of varnishes.
Question - That the words proposed to be left out be left out - put. The Committee divided.
AYES: 6
NOES: 17
Majority … … 11
AYES
NOES
Question so resolved in the negative.
Amendment negatived.
Motion agreed to.
Item 262-
Stone and marble -
Senate’s Request. - Insert new paragraph -
House of Representatives’ Message - Not made.
Senator E D MILLEN:
Minister for Repatriation · NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917
.- I move-
That the request be not pressed.
It has been stated that in South Australia there are two distinct deposits of white marble, and it is affirmed that it is suitable for statuary purposes. Apart from the desire to encourage the use of our own materials, it is extremely difficult to determine if marble is imported for statuary or other purposes, and, as the duties are fixed on a low scale, I suggest that it is not worth while dividing the item, and multiplying the administrative work of the Customs Department without any corresponding advantage in the way of revenue.
Senator LYNCH:
Western Australia
– This is one of those little, big things which the Senate should not allow to pass. Notwithstanding all that has been said in this Chamber as to the quality of Australian marble, we must fall hack upon our own personal experiences. Can any honorable senator say that we have in Australia any marble equal in quality to the Carrara marble for statuary purposes? The answer is No. If we consult any person in the trade we shall be told over and over again that up to date at all events, no Australian marble to compare with the Italian product has been found.
Senator Senior:
– It has been found. Here is a sample.
Senator LYNCH:
– How much is there of this product in South Australia?
Senator Senior:
– Millions of tons.
Senator LYNCH:
– We have the inex pert evidence of Senator Senior, but no other evidence, that South Australia can produce a marble suitable for statuary purposes. This sample is full of black, pencil-like seams. Marble has been free hitherto,and we should not now impose any duties upon it. We have only to recall the evidence given before Commission after Commission on this question to realize that so far we have nothing to compare with the Italian product. It is admitted that for general purposes the Australian marble is very good indeed, but for statuary and works of art designed to elevate the tastes of the people there is nothing to compare with Carrara marble. Take Australia House. Is there any marble in that building equal in quality to Carrara ? There is every variety, it is true - red, black, and speckled, and all the rest of it, but nothing to compare in beauty with Carrara. There is only one place in the world where this beautiful, pure white marble is found, and that is Italy. Let us face the facts. We must admit that Aus tralia has not to date produced a marble suitable for statuary purposes.
Senator Earle:
– There is the sample before your eyes. What more do you want?
Senator LYNCH:
– I have consulted men in the business, who certainly know more about the quality of marble than Senator Earle does, and they all say we have not the finer white marble in Australia. Nevertheless, the Government want to compel our people to make statuary out of such materials as we have. It is quite true that we can make statuary out of mud or granite, or any substance that -will hold together, but for the statuary that will appeal to the finer tastes of the people, to the aesthetic side of their natures, we must have Carrara marble. Is there one piece of statuary made from Australian marble in this building ? We want to tear the cobwebs from our eyes in this matter, and get away from this insane doctrine of shutting out the best that the world can produce in the belief that by encouraging the use of some Australian product we are doing something to develop the artistic tastes of the people.
Senator Wilson:
– Well, I hope it will be a long time before we look upon your statue !
Senator LYNCH:
– My work is my statue. I have no wish to be perpetuated in marble. Talk about Augustus finding Rome made of bricks and leaving it in marble ! I hope to be able to say that I found this Senate peopled by politicians and left it peopled by statesmen. In all seriousness, we should make a definite stand on this matter. Let us realize that we have not in Australia, up to date at all events, found pure white marble to equal in beauty the Carrara product.
Senator Earle:
– But the material is here.
Senator LYNCH:
– I refer the honorable senator to any sculptor, and I challenge him to prove that there is. I have not done any globe-trotting since I have been in this country, because I have been too busy trying to earn an honest living, but I ask any globe-trotting honorable senators to say if there is any marble in Australia House, London, to compare with Carrara. The answer is No. Why, then, do we circumscribe our position and hinder the work of our sculptors by encouraging the use of the inferior product when there is available to us this pure and rare product from Italy. Senator SENIOR (South Australia) [11.45]. - Senator Lynch refused to examine the specimens of marble I have placed before the Committee. He could not distinguish between a stain and a lead pencil mark, so superficial was his gaze. He condemned the stone as being not equal in whiteness to Carrara marble, because of a lead pencil stain. He asked whether there was a statue in Australia made of Australian marble. I replied, “ Yes.” What I am saying is supported by the marble workers in Adelaide, who inform me that marble from Italy is shipped as ballast and enters into competition with Australian marble. A large quantity of marble has been sent to Australia House from Angaston, South Australia, and it is there to-day. At Macclesfield, in South Australia, there is a marble equal in whiteness to Carrara marble, and very nearly as fine in texture. I venture to say that it is equal, for general statuary purposes, to Carrara marble. To allow the Carrara marble to come in for statuary purposes will also mean admitting it for commercial purposes. It is not possible to keep track of a piece of marble after it has entered this * country.
Senator Keating:
– Nonsense! The Department keeps track of things much more difficult to follow than marble.
Senator SENIOR:
– The Italian marble, if admitted free, will be used for tombstones as well as for ‘statuary, even though there is ‘a. marble in Australia equally as good.
Senator THOMAS:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT
– Suppose the person who .wants to put up a tombstone thinks differently ?
Senator SENIOR:
– If he wants something very superior, let him pay for it, but do not allow the stone to come in surreptitiously, to compete with a good commercial stone. From Angaston it is possible to get pieces of marble large enough for any purpose. To reason as Senator Lynch has reasoned is to talk without a knowledge of what Australia possesses. If Senator Lynch, and others, would make themselves acquainted with what there is in Australia they would have no need for Italian marble.
Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
Western Australia
– I hope the Committee will persist in its request. The quantity of marble involved is very small. Very little white marble is required for statuary purposes in Australia, so why should not Australia have the best the world can produce for this purpose? Senator Senior claims that South Australia produces a marble equal to the very best in the world, and he has submitted, in support of his allegation, several specimens. I have had a look at them, and, without professing to be an expert, I can say that they appear to be nice and white; but I would describe them as “ coarse white quartz.” I have seen granite polished beautifully, but no one would dream of calling it marble, although I have known it to be sold as marble. I do not doubt that the producers of the article in South Australia have induced Senator Senior to invest in it as marble. Many other men with as rauch technical knowledge and experience as he possesses have probably been taken down in the same way. 1 have- a small knowledge of quartz, having had some technical training in the Adelaide University, and on appearance, without test, these specimens look very like quartz. Even if they be marble, it is not of the same quality as Carrara marble. It is not the class of marble that would be used for art purposes. Why should the Committee not encourage the use of the very best materials for educational purposes? We hope that what our workers in marble produce will be equal to the very best in the world. Then why not encourage them to use the best material the world can offer by giving it to them free of duty ?
Senator SENIOR:
South Australia
– Senator Drake-Brockman professes to come from a university, and he calls these specimens that I have produced “ quartz.” A most rudimentary knowledge of quartz and marble would have told him that marble h carbonate of lime, and that quartz is silica. Marble can be tested in a moment by hydrochloric acid. . The acid, when brought into contact with the marble, will act upon it, and give off a gas. Any member of the Committee is welcome to test the specimens I have produced with hydrochloric acid. The test will prove whether Senator Drake-Brockman’s knowledge is knowledge, or whether what he has said was only a guess. I say that the specimens are. marble.
Senator Drake-Brockman:
– Has the honorable senator tested them?
Senator SENIOR:
– I tested them by several means. ! would not assure the Committee that they are marble if I did not know them to be marble. There are marble deposits all over Australia that have been tested again and again. The stone would not have been sent to AustraliaHouse without being tested. It seems to me that nothing short of a blow on the head with it will convince the honorable senator that it is hard. Vessels that bring Carrara marble to Australia bring it as ballast, and to make up for the light weight of certain cargo. Is the Committee going to be unpatriotic enough to allow the product of the cheap labour of Italy to compete with the Australian product, especially when it is shipped in such conditions?
Senator WILSON:
South Australia
– Senator Drake-Brockman acquired a little knowledge early in life in South Australia, but evidently neglected it for a more profitable profession later. He has now told the Committee that he is a judge of marble.
Senator Drake-Brockman:
– There are millions of tons of this same stone in Western Australia.
Senator WILSON:
-Then it is time Western Australia woke up. It has a great asset. Experts who have reported on the marble of which specimens have been produced before this Committee tell me that it is 08 per cent, carbonate of lime, which is pure marble, and that it contains no silica, which is quartz.
SenatorDrake-Brockman. - Has the honorable senator seen the particular piece which has been placed before the Committee?
Senator WILSON:
– I have inspected the property thoroughly.
Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · NAT
-Brockman. - But the honorable senator has not inspected the exhibit in court. I believe the honorable senator owns a stone quarry.
Senator WILSON:
– I do, and it is a quartz quarry, unfortunately, and not a marble quarry. I am of opinion that the marble from Angaston is good enough for any tombstone.
SenatorDrake-Brockman. - Of course it is; but the Committee is dealing with the duties on marble for statuary purposes.
Senator WILSON:
– How is a line to be drawn between marble used for statuary and for tombstones? Senator Drake-Brockman, with his legal mind, maybe able to draw the line, but I cannot, and I am quite certain that the Department would have some difficulty in doing it.
Senator Foster:
– Is marble from Italy brought out to Australia as ballast in sufficiently large pieces for tombstones?
Senator WILSON:
– Certainly it is.
Senator Russell:
– Australia sent a lot of marble to Europe for headstones for the graves of members of the Australian Imperial Force.
Senator WILSON:
– It has been exported for that purpose, and yet we are told by some honorable senators that it is not good enough for use in Australia.
Senator Drake-Brockman:
– But we import only a few tons per annum of a higher grade material.
Senator WILSON:
– Then why object to the duty ? If the duty is unreasonably low, the way will be open for foreign producers to export large quantities to Australia, and it will then come into competition with the Australian marble used for general purposes. The Minister (Senator E. D. Millen) referred to the inconsistency of several honorable senators, but in this instance I shall prove my consistency by supporting the Government.
Senator GARDINER:
New South South Wales
– I was very much interested in the exhibits of South Australian marble produced by Senator Senior, and I think they should be laid on the table of the Senate. The material appears to me to be too quartzlike and too brittle for work of a fine character. What would honorable senators think if I produced a. miniature piece of ice and called it an Australian diamond? I believe some would say that it was an excellent sample, and I believe it would be just as good a specimen of a diamond as that submitted by Senator Senior is of first class marble. Every reputable firm in Australia using Carrara marble has notified honorable senators that they desire to have the duty removed, because they cannot obtain in Australia the material they require. I have in my office statements from every firm in Australia - including those in New South. Wales which I know something about- that the Australian marble is unsuitable for statuary purposes. Who is to be the judge? Is it those who have to work the material, or men such as Senator Wilson, who own a quarry?
Senator E D MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917
– It is not new for some persons to decry Australian products.
Senator GARDINER:
– -That may have been the policy years ago, but that time has passed.
Senator E D MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917
– That does not appear to be so from the tone of the debate.
Senator GARDINER:
– I do not think that is the general desire of Australians ; but when it is a question of the opinion of experts as against that of laymen, surely we should take some notice of those who are able to judge.
Senator Crawford:
– How many sculptors are there in Australia?
Senator GARDINER:
– There are many monumental works, and in some of these there are first-class sculptors. If South Australia can produce marble equal to the best imported, why has it not been used in this building, and placed side by side with the statuary made of imported marble? I do not profess to be an expert, but I never saw anything more quartzlike than the samples in the possession of Senator Senior. The material appears to be too brittle, and of such a character that it would chip at, perhaps, the most critical time.
Senator Senior:
– A statue of Robert Burns erected in Adelaide was made from Australian marble obtained at Angaston.
Senator GARDINER:
– That is a most excellent way in which to use an Australian product.
Senator Senior:
– The acid test has been applied, which proves conclusively that it is not quartz.
Senator GARDINER:
– It does not appear to me to be suitable for fine work, and would probably develop flaws when least expected. There appears to be a desire to impose duties to encourage industries; but we are following the unsound, and, if I may be permitted to say, the unseemly practice of each State ‘ ‘ barracking “ for its own products.
Senator Senior:
– I am prepared to encourage the New South Wales industry.
Senator GARDINER:
– The qualityof New South Wales marble is well known, because it is used in many of our buildings for staircases, panelling, and other work, but I do not claim that it is equal to the imported article for statuary purposes. I believe that the output of New South Wales is greater than that of all the other States combined, and its quality is magnificent; but I am not going to say that it is suitable for purposes other than those I have mentioned. I join with Senator Lynch in his desire to get the best at the cheapest price, and I do not wish to assist in placing the best beyond the reach of those who have to use it. Why should not students be able to practice on, and become acquainted with the various textures of, all marbles used in monumental work so that they will be able to produce work equal to that of the fine old artists ?
Senator FOSTER:
Tasmania
– I intend to vote for the higher duties, because I understand that large quantities of Italian marble may possibly be imported ‘ as ballast at a very low rate, and may come into competition with the marble used for general purposes. I do not wish to be accused of hampering the arts and placing a duty on an article that is essential to sculptors, but I intend to vote for the motion for the reason I have given.
Motion agreed to.
Item 275 -
On and after 31st October, 1921-
Sulphur, per ton., British, 15s.; intermediate, 20s. ; general, 50s.
Senate’s Request. - Amend sub-item to make it read -
(1) Sulphur, n.e.i., per ton, British. 15s.; intermediate, 20s.; general, 50s.
Sulphur, volcanic, for manufacturing purposes, for which purposes sulphuric acid produced from pyrites or other sulphide ores is not suitable, as prescribed by departmental by-laws, British, free; intermediate, free; general, free.
House of Representatives’ Message. - Made with the following modification: - The date has been altered to - “ On and after 31st March, 1922.”
Senator E D MILLEN:
Minister for Repatriation · NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917
– When the schedule originally came to this Chamber, it provided that the duty was to operate from the 31st October, 1921, and that date has been, altered by another place to 31st March, 1922. It is only a matter of a few months, andthe alteration has been made. because it was thought that the industry was not in a position to supply a reasonable quantity of this material within that time. It has now reached the position where it is able to deliver, and as it is only a question of five months, I suggest that the Committee agree to the modification. I move -
That the modification be agreed to
Motion agreed to.
Item 281-
Drugs and chemicals, viz. : -
And on and after 22nd June, 1921 -
- Arsenic, arsenious chloride, arsenic sulphide, arsenates of calcium, lead and soda, arsenites of soda and zinc, ad val., British, 25 per cent.; intermediate, 25 per cent.; general, 35 per cent.
Senate’s Request. - Make the duty on - Arsenate of lead, ad val., British, 10 per cent. ; intermediate, 15 per cent. ; general, 20 per cent.
House of Representatives’ Message. - Not made.
Senator E D MILLEN:
Minister for Repatriation · NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917
.- I move-
That the request be not pressed.
The duties originally fixed by another place were 25 per cent., 25 per cent., and 35 per cent, respectively. The Senate requested another place to reduce the rates on arsenate of lead to 10 per cent., 15 per cent., and 20 per cent. Arsenic, which is the material principally used in arsenate of lead, has been made dutiable by both Houses at 25 per cent., 25 per cent., and 35 per cent., and it appears to be an amomaly to place a. higher duty on the raw material than that proposed on the manufactured article. For that reason I ask the Committee to support the motion I have submitted. The production of arsenate of lead has madeconsiderable strides during and since the war period. It is said by Customs officers that the local manufacturers are now in a position to supply the Australian requirements, and are doing so at a price lower than that charged for the imported article.
Senator Senior:
– Arsenate of lead is used as an insecticide by fruit-growers, and that is why the duty is lower.
Senator Duncan:
– How many local manufacturers of arsenate of lead are there?
Senator E D MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917
– I am informed that there are three in Victoria and one in South Australia respecting whom the State Government officials have given certificates as to the efficacy of their product. There are, I believe, some also in Queensland.
Senator Reid:
– Tons of ore for the manufacture of the article are turned out there. The mine has had to be closed because there is not a sufficient demand for the raw material.
Senator GARDINER:
New South Wales
– This item concerns fruit-growers to a very great extent. The article is used in the spraying of fruit trees, and, taking that view, the Committee, when the matter was previously under consideration, placed it in a subitem by itself. If it can be supplied, as Senator Reid has suggested, from Queensland, it is clear that the duty suggested by the Senate gives the industry ample protection.
Senator Reid:
– I do not say that the manufactured article is produced in Queensland, but the raw material for it is produced there.
Senator GARDINER:
– Even so pronounced a Protectionist as Senator Earle voted for lower duties on arsenate of lead, as he had a right to do, in the interests of a number of fruit-growers whom he represents, and who are certainly entitled to consideration. However, the motion submitted by the Minister will give Senator Earle an opportunity to get back to his old Protectionist position.
Question - That the request be not pressed - put. The Committee divided.
AYES: 5
NOES: 0
Majority . . 10
AYES
NOES
Question so resolved in the negative.
Motion negatived; request pressed.
Item 281-
Drugs and chemicals, namely:. -
Lactose, ad val., British, 20 per cent.; intermediate, 25 per cent.; general, 30 per cent.
Senate’s Request. - Or per lb., British, 6d. ; intermediate,9d.; general,1s.; whichever rate returns the higher duty.
House of Representatives? Message. - Made with the following modification : - “ Instead of the alternative duties, the duties now made - Ad val., British, 30 per cent.; intermediate, 35 per cent.; general, 40 per cent.”
Senator E D MILLEN:
Minister for Repatriation · NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917
– The Senate’s request on this item was to substitute specific duties of 6d., 9d., and1s. per lb. for the ad valorem, duties on the article lactose, the idea evidently being to give a higher measure of protection than was proposed by another place to the manufacture of this particular product. Another place has agreed to the principle of the request, but, instead of accepting the specific duties, has preferred the ad valorem duties imposed on the other sub-items, and in this case has increased to 30, 35, and 40 per cent, the ad valorem duties originally proposed. I move -
That the modification be agreed to.
Senator GARDINER:
New South Wales
.- I do not think that the Committee should let this motion go. The Government and honorable members in another place thought that advalorem duties of 20, 25, and 30 per cent, would be sufficient on this item.
Senator E D MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917
– Honorable senators wanted higher duties.
Senator GARDINER:
– What the Senate requested was the imposition of fixed duties of 6d., 9d., and1s. per lb., and we left it to the Department to impose the ad valorem duties if they were higher.
Senator Lynch:
– The House of Representatives has used the Senate’s request for the purpose of raising the duties.
Senator GARDINER:
– That is so. I point out that, under the request made by the Senate, if the ad valorem duties originally proposed by another place were higher than the specific duties suggested by the Senate, the ad valorem duties would be imposed. In these times, when prices are constantly changing, it is very difficult to say when a specific duty will be higher or lower than an ad valorem duty. In this matter the Senate has not received fair treatment from another place. We are new asked to go beyond the duties originally imposed by another place merely because the request made by the Senate has provided the opportunity to propose an increase in the duties. I enter my protest against the motion.
Senator E D MILLEN:
Minister for Repatriation · NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917
.- I am surprised that Senator Gardiner should have accused the Government of using the request of the Senate on this item to raise the duties on lactose.
Senator Gardiner:
– I said that another place had done so.
Senator E D MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917
– If another place declines to accept suggestions we made, honorable senators complain of a lack of consideration for the Senate. When another place has fallen in with our views, or has submitted a modification of a Senate request, we are told that our request has been used as a means to raise a duty. In order to relieve another place of this very serious imputation, honorable senators may reject what is now proposed, and go back to their request; but I point out that honorable members in another place have made an effort to meet the views of the Senate. They evidently thought that duties of 20, 25, and 30 per cent, would be sufficiently high on this item, but the Senate asked for duties representing 100 per cent. Another place has proposed a via media, and is now accused of using our request in order to raise these duties.
Senator Drake-Brockman:
– They can accept whichever is the higher duty.
Senator E D MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917
– No. The modification proposed by another place makes no provision for the alternative. If it is agreed to, there will be no question of a higher or lower duty, but the ad valorem duties proposed by another place will replace the specific duties suggested by the Senate. The view of the matter apparently taken by another place was that the Senate desires higher duties on lactose than they originally considered necessary, but they are prepared to meet us by going more than half way along the road, and, therefore, propose to lift the ad valorem duties they originally suggested to 30, 35, and 40 per cent. They are not inclined evidently to agree to the 100 per cent, duty which honorable senators desired to impose on this particular article. The modification of the Senate’s request made by another place is a reasonable effort to adjust the difference of opinion on the subject between the two Houses.
Senator WILSON:
South Australia
– Those competent to express an opinion on this subject are the persons who are directly and financially concerned in the manufacture of lactose. What do they say about these ad valorem duties? They tell us that, during the war, importers of this article were getting 4s. 6d. per lb. for it, and they are now prepared to dump it into Australia for a. few pence per lb. When we considered the matter previously, I told honorable senators that the manufacture of lactose is a side line ‘ of the dairying industry, and I reminded them that the Commonwealth and State Governments have spent hundreds of thousands of pounds in settling returned soldiers on irrigation blocks to carry on the dairying industry. If Australia is to be made a dumping ground by importers of this article, the local industry cannot he carried on. The Senate requested the imposition of specific duties of 6d., 9d., and ls. per lb. on lactose, and I personally tried to induce honorable senators to agree to duties of 9d.. ls., and ls. 3d. per lb. The Department presented such a case to Senator Pearce, and (that Minister made such a plea for me to accept the modification, that I very reluctantly did so. If the other Chamber had been conversant with the effect of this alteration of duty, it would not have agreed to it. Within the last hour I have received a note from the manager of a cooperative company which contemplates establishing a factory at Murray Bridge for the manufacture of lactose. Such a factory would enable1 the returned soldiers settled in that locality to get the full benefit of their efforts in. connexion’ with dairying.
Senator GUTHRIE:
VICTORIA · NAT; UAP from 1931
– And they need it, too.
Senator WILSON:
– The letter states-
We note that, the Government has knocked out the fixed duty, although increasing the ad valorem duty by 10 per cent. This .will give opportunities for dumping, and, unless ft. fixed duty is in force, even if you have to accept the 9d. a lb. instead of ls., we are afraid that it will be ton risky for us to spend ‘ £25,000 at Murray Bridge.
Senator E D MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917
– So 30 per cent., 35 per cent., and 40 per cent, isnot regarded as enough?
Senator WILSON:
– I want a fixed duty of 6d., 9d., and ls. a lb. This cooperative company cannot be expected tospend £20,000 or £30,000 unless it is sura of its ground. The price of this article was 4s. 6d. per lb. when we had to import it.
Senator GUTHRIE:
VICTORIA · NAT; UAP from 1931
– Where is it likely to be dumped from?
Senator WILSON:
– America.. We know the trading peculiarities of the Americans, and every encouragement will be needed by the local industry.
Senator E D MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917
-YOU are1 asking for over 100 per cent. It has been claimed by some honorable senators that if an industry cannot continue with a protection of 20 per cent, it deserves togo. out of existence. »
Senator WILSON:
– Every case should bo treated on its merits1. There is no other way pf dealing with a Tariff.
Senator E D MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917
– Every case in. its own State.
Senator WILSON:
– I am not parochial in asking for this protection in the interests of the returned soldiers. The Minister in charge (Senator E. D. Millen) has made out no case to show that the Committee should go back on a straight-out duty. The letter which I have quoted shows clearly that unless such a duty is imposed the industry cannot be established.
Senator E D MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917
– There are two? such manufactories in operation now. If they can be carried on, I do> not see why the South Australian venture should not be.
Senator WILSON:
– I have been fighting the Tariff to the best of my ability, but in this particular instance it will be necessary to grant a straight-out duty in the’ interests of returned soldiers engaged in dairying.
Senator GUTHRIE:
VICTORIA · NAT; UAP from 1931
.. - I support the remarks of Senator Wilson. Why did the Senate, after very mature consideration, previously agree by quite a good majority to a compromise of 6d., 9d., and ls.? Has any proof been given that the Committee was wrong? If it is necessary to protect this industry in the interests of soldiers, we should do so. Owing to the collapse in the market for the output of the primary producers, their prospects are anything but good, and we should be anxious to do anything we can to prevent returned soldiers who have been settled on the land sustaining failure. “We do not want to see their holdings thrown back on the Government. If the price of butter fat is to remain for any length of time as low as lid. or ls., where it is to-day, dairy farms cannot be made to pay.
Senator E D MILLEN:
Minister for Repatriation · NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917
– I have nothing to say against the arguments advanced in opposition to my motion, but they surprise me, coming from the honorable senators who venture to put them forward. Throughout this debate there has been a certain line of demarcation between groups of senators. A number of senators, with considerable consistency, have contended for a lower range of duties, and they have claimed to be reasonable and sane Protectionists. Sanity, as they understand it, means putting a very low duty on some items, which may concern certain interests, while they impose high duties on others. But that is not sanity.
Senator GUTHRIE:
VICTORIA · NAT; UAP from 1931
– You are evidently in favour of rule-of-thumb Protection.
Senator E D MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917
– I favour a fiscal policy which is fairly reasonable and uniform, not a policy which picks out certain industries for favours which are denied to others. That is making the Tariff a means for the distribution of public benefits. Much has been said of the imports coming here, and it is contended that the proposed duties will save soldier settlement. I would point out that the value of the imports of lactose in 1919-20 was only £20. The question is whether a duty of 30 per cent., 35 per cent., and 40 per cent, is a reasonable measure of protection. The low Tariffists say “No,” and they want over 100 per cent. Senator Wilson, who has been a consistent low Tariffist, but has been in communication with representatives of this particular industry in his own State, wants, not 100 per cent., but in the neighbourhood of 150 per cent. If there is such a thing as reasonable protection, it is not represented by 150 per cent.
Senator Wilson:
– I have put the case. The responsibility is on the Committee.
Senator E D MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917
– The other Chamber proposed a reasonable duty, and now this Committee is- asked to jump from 30 per cent, to over 100 per cent. I hope the Committee will accept my motion.
Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
Western Australia
– The duties fixed in this item were the result of a compromise when last it was debated in this Chamber. There was a proposal by Senator Wilson for a higher range of duties, and Senator Pearce, who was in charge, suggested the compromise which is represented by the Senate’s request. I have not heard anything to justify any change in the attitude adopted on that occasion. It is true that during the war we had to pay 4s. 6d. per lb. for this article. At that price a duty of 6d. would not have been too high; but to-day the price is somewhere in the vicinity of ls., and it is suggested that, in consequence, the duty of 6d. is too high. It all depends on what the price of ls. means. If it means what I am informed it does mean, namely, that an effort is being made to keep down the price in order to introduce the commodity from abroad, there is every justification for the retention of the higher duty. I am not prepared to give an authoritative opinion on the subject, because I have not received much information, but, on the information supplied by the Government and other honorable senators, I know of no reason why I should alter my view. The request made by this Chamber was a reasonable one. The Leader of the Senate (Senator E. D. Millen) is inclined to accuse honorable senators - I know he has me in his mind - of blowing hot and cold on this question of high or low duties. I have endeavoured to explain before that, in the fixing of duties, my object all the time has been to fix what, in the circumstances” of the case, may be regarded as a reasonable duty, neither a higher range nor a lower range, but a range sufficient to give an adequate measure of protection to the industry without injuriously affecting the primary industries of this country. That is the attitude I have adopted all through the Tariff debate, and that is the attitude I shall assume to the end. If the circumstances call for high duties, I shall vote for them. If, on the other hand, the circumstances demand low duties, I shall vote for low duties. In this case I have not yet been convinced that the request made by the Senate is unreasonable, and until further information has been furnished why we should change our opinions I propose to adhere to my previously expressed view.
Senator LYNCH:
“Western Australia
– I have very grave doubts as to how I should vote on this item, as I do not know how I voted on the last occasion. What Senator Drake-Brockman has said is literally true. When this proposal was before the Chamber previously, the compromise agreed to was suggested by Senator Pearce. While I am not prepared to vote for wild duties of 150 per cent., we should consider what may happen to this industry if _ America dumps 90 tons of this product into New Zealand and Australia. That will be a serious matter. It will result in the closing of the factory at Murray Bridge, South Australia. I feel, therefore, that I am on the horns of a dilemma. I do not want to vote for high duties, and yet I do not wish to see this Australian industry closed up. I do not know whether the manager of the South Australian Co-operative Union Limited is so much an interested party as to discount the value of his opinion, but the fact that he represents a co-operative enterprise should entitle him to consideration. I am impressed by his statement that the American papers report that the glaxo people have bought, in one lot, over 90 tons of sugar of milk lactose for shipment either to New Zealand or Australia. The American people, so he says, are pleased at the deal, because it means that they are getting rid of the surplus manufactured product. It seems that the Australian industry is in peril. An anti-dumping measure is promised, but we do not know whether or when it will be passed. In the meantime, we are asked to vote for these extraordinary duties. I am inclined to demonstrate my loyalty for once in respect of this Tariff and support the Government’s attitude, not of to-day, but as outlined by Senator Pearce in August last.
Senator E D MILLEN:
Minister for Repatriation · NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917
– I was not present on the last occasion when this item was under consideration, but, from what has been said, I submit that it is not fair to say that the request made by the Senate was Senator Pearce’s proposal. The Government proposition was in the schedule, as submitted to the Senate. Certain honorable senators made other proposals. Senator Wilson, I understand, made a move for a much higher range of duties than was accepted by the Senate, and Senator Pearce, in his endeavour to bring about an agreement between honorable senators who held divergent views, suggested the compromise which was agreed to.
Senator Wilson:
– I placed the Department in full possession of all the facts, so there could be no misunderstanding. The suggested compromise came from Senator Pearce, after full consideration of all the facts.
Senator E D MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917
– I doubt very much whether Senator Pearce, as Senator Wilson suggests, thoroughly investigated the position, but whether he did or not, the proposition for a compromise was made in order to bring together the two divisions into which the Committee had fallen. It cannot be said that it was what he wanted or what he advocated. It is only fair to recognise that it was not the policy of the Government. It was an expedient suggested by Senator Pearce to overcome the differences of opinion in this Chamber.
Senator WILSON:
South Australia
– I feel very strongly on this matter. As I have already said, I placed the whole of the facts before Senator Pearce. I find, from the Hansard record of the date, that Senator Pearce, referring to my proposal, said - “If the honorable senator will amend his request to 6d. British, 9d. intermediate, and1s. general Tariff, I will accept it.” The Senate indorsed that attitude, and I am going to ask honorable senators to stand by the compromise.
Question - That the modification be agreed to - put. The Committee divided -
Ayes … … … 15
Noes … … … 8
Majority … … 7
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Motion agreed to.
Sitting suspended from1 to2.30 p.m.
Item 291-
Timber, viz.: -
Timber, undressed, cut to size for making boxes, per 100 super feet, 5s.
Senate’s Request. - British, 5s.; intermediate, 7s. 6d.; general, 8s.6d.
House of Representatives’ Message. - Made, with the following modification : - Sub-item
-
made to read : -
- (1) Timber, undressed, n.e.i., forthe manufacture of boxes, as prescribed by departmental by-laws, per 100 super feet,1s.
- Timber, undressed, cut to size for making boxes, per 100 super feet, 5s.
Senator E D MILLEN:
Minister for Repatriation · NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917
.- Originally, the Tariff upon timber, undressed, n.e.i., for the manufacture of boxes, asprescribed by departmental by-laws, was 3s. 6d. per 100 super feet all round, while the duty on timber, undressed, but cut to sizes, was 5s. Thus, a protection to the extent of1s. 6d. per 100 feet was afforded local dressers and manufacturers. The Senate requested that the intermediate and general rates should be raised, to provide a wider margin between the duty on undressed timber and on timber cut to sizes. The House of Representatives, taking the view that the outcome would’ he to impose additional charges upon those who use these boxes for the transport of their produce, deemed it advisable to retain the 5s. rate on timber cut to sizes but to lower the duty on the raw material to1s. per 100 feet, in order to afford a wider margin of protection. I move -
That the modification be agreed to.
Senator GARDINER:
New South Wales
– On what principle does the Minister (Senator E. D. Millen) agree to the proposed modification, seeing that there is no consistency in his general attitude? Ican only presume that some of his most, influential supporters must be interested in these timber duties. What is there of a really beneficial character in the suggested modification ? Is it not, after all, another compromise?
Senator E D MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917
– No. The modification virtually concedes what this Committee desired, to secure in its request; but, in another way, and in a manner which will not be harmfulto local interests.
Senator GARDINER:
– It would appear, then, that the House of Representatives is a better judge of what the Senate wants than are honorable senators themselves. It is another case of saying, “ Yes, gentlemen of the House of Representatives,” and it is of no use for me to protest.
Senator DUNCAN:
New South Wales
– Upon certain items of the Tariff it cannot be said that Australia is offering very much encouragement to trade with New Zealand. It has been pointed out more than once that the intermediate rates afford opportunities for entering upon reciprocal arrangements with our sister Dominion, as well as with other countries. Here, however, the proposed rates are all the same. We import large quantities of New Zealand timber. Why has no provision been made for reciprocity ?
Senator E D MILLEN:
Minister for Repatriation · NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917
– It does not follow that, because we may be generally anxious to enter into reciprocal arrangements, we should make specific provision in respect of every item of the Tariff. It is true that there is not a special intermediate rate applied to this item, upon the basis of which bargaining may be undertaken. In order to provide a different rate in the intermediate column, I presume that Senator Duncan would raise the general duties. That, however, would impose penalties upon our own people.
Senator Duncan:
– Then why not leave the intermediate Tariff at 5s., and make the general rate 7s. 6d.?
Senator E D MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917
– The Senate did not originally proffer any such request. The Senate desired to make a wider margin between the duty on undressed’ timber and that leviable upon timber cut to sizes.
Senator Duncan:
– I am glad, at any rate, that the House of Representatives has rectified the position.
Senator E D MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917
– Yes. The other House, as I have already mentioned, is anxious to retain the margin of 4s. suggested by this Committee; but it thinks that the Senate’s way of doing it would have the effect of penalizing Australian users of these boxes.
Senator GARDINER:
New South Wales
– I have seen blocks with saw-cuts run into them, so that all that is necessary is to pull apart the various box lengths and place them in position, when the box is immediately ready for use.
Senator E D MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917
– Such a block would be classed as partly dressed timber, cut to sizes, and would therefore come under the higher rate; so that any such ingenious method would be defeated by departmental administration.
Senator GARDINER:
– I am glad to hear that, and to know that the watchfulness of the Department prevents the intentions of Parliament from being frustrated. No doubt, the Customs officials have become expert in dealing with all manner of trickery. I certainly have no complaints against them except that - holding such fiscal views as I do - I do not think there should be any Customs officials. Some time ago a deputation waited upon me and discussed the subject of box manufacture. I do not know that the Tariff, as it is now about to be modified, will help the people very much, seeing that no considerable protection is being offered; but, without question, the raw material for manufacture may be imported without heavy handicap. A duty of 5s. per 100 super feet is not a heavyduty on partially dressed timber. I suppose it is not more than a matter of 20 per cent, where the timber is purchased; it would certainly not be more than 25 per cent.
Motion agreed to.
Item 323-
Hides and skins, viz.: -
- Hides, limed or fleshed or split, per hide, 3s.
Senate’s Request. - Insert new sub-item - (c) Hides, green, per lb.,1d.
House of Representatives’ Message. - Not made.
Senator E D MILLEN:
Minister for Repatriation · NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917
.- I move-
That the request be not pressed.
The position with regard to this item is that the imported hides are not the same class of hides as are produced in Australia. Owing to the warmer atmosphere of Australia, heavy hides are not produced in this country. The heavy hides, nevertheless, are necessary for certain manufacturing purposes. Our tanners, to meet the demand of the market for the heavier leathers, have to import the heavier hides. These hides do not come into competition with Australian hides. The effect of the duty, if it stopped importations, would be to deprive Australian tanners of some of the material with which they at present work. To that extent it would be prejudicial to the interests of Australia. If we are going to develop the leather manufacturing industry in Australia, it is a mistake, when 75 per cent, of the operations are carried on with Australian hides, to stand between the tanners and the source of the other 25 per cent, of their supplies.
Senator LYNCH:
Western Australia
– I was waiting with breathless excitement to hear the high priest of Protection, Senator Earle, electrify the Committee with a protest against the action of the Government. I cannot account for the absence of that protest. The roaring Protectionist lion of this Committee has suddenly been transformed into a lamb. Here is an outrageous proposal by the Government to abandon the policy of high Protection, and Senator Earle follows tamely behind them; The fidelity of “ poor dog Tray “ is nothing as compared with Senator Earle on the present occasion. I suggest to the Minister that it would be well at present to retain this duty, if only for the purpose of using it later to obtain reciprocal concessions from New Zealand. New Zealand has put up Tariffs against Australia, and Australia has done the same against New Zealand. If we wipe out this duty on green hides, it will leave us entirely bereft of anything to offer to that country. There are some things produced in New Zealand which Australia would benefit by importing.
Senator EARLE:
Tasmania
.- Hansard does not reflect the genial smile of Senator Lynch, when he makes his little jokes at my expense. I desire, therefore, to say that I am following the Government because I think they are taking a very wise step. Australia is a cattle-producing and meat-exporting country. I believe Australia can supply plenty of hides for tanning purposes, and that there is absolutely no necessity to import them. If, on any occasion, green hides are required for the tanning and leather industries of Australia, I want to see them come in from abroad. I have never taken any action in the direction of restricting the industries of Australia. I want to build them up. Cannot Senator Lynch see that this proposal is not restricting any industry in Australia? It is helping to bring in the raw material. Evidently, when the item was last before this Committee, somebody got a little befogged, and was able to induce the Committee to agree to the imposition of a duty of Id. per lb. on green hides. That duty is not in the interests of Australian industry. If there were any necessity to protect the production of green hides in Australia, it would be a different matter. We want all the hides we can get, if we can use them and export them as leather.
Senator GARDINER:
New South Wales
– I am surprised that Senator Earle should take it as a joke when the fact is mentioned that he, the “roaring lion of Protection” on every other industry, is not out to protest the producer of hides. As Queensland is the chief producer of hides, it is getting no sympathy. Nobody appears to have any sympathy for Queensland, whether in regard to bananas, pineapples, or hides. Honorable senators are always prepared to “ put the boot “ into that State. Senator Earle may say it is a joke to call attention to the fact that the “lion of Protection “ is lying down with the “lamb of Free Trade,” but I see no joke in it. Probably if one lived in Tasmania one would develop a sense of humour. Senator Earle’s attitude on this item0 is evidence of what is naturally happening to members ‘of this Senate. While this Tariff has been before the Senate every senator who set out in favour of high Protection has given a vote, some time or other, in favour of Free Trade. There is a feeling that the Protectionist cause is getting weaker, and the Free Trade cause stronger. Senator Earle realizes that the imposition of high duties is not the way to prosperity, and he has made a start along the road of reform by agreeing to the abolition of the proposed duty on green hides. If the duty on hides is abolished, then why not also on leather; and if on leather, why not on boots ?
Motion agreed to.
Item 324-
Leather, viz.: - (a) Chamois leather, free. And on and after 1st January, 1922, ad val., British, 10 per cent.; intermediate, 15 per cent.: general, 20 per cent.
Senate’s Request. - British, 20 per .cent.; intermediate, 25 per cent.; general, 30 per cent. And leave out the words “ And on and after 1st January, 1922, ad val., British, 10 per cent.; intermediate, 15 per cent.; general, 20 per cent.”
House of Representative!? Message. - Made with the following modification: - “Duties made - on and after 1st January, 1922, ad val., British, 20 per cent.; intermediate, 25 per cent.; general, 30 per cent.”
Senator E D MILLEN:
Minister for Repatriation · NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917
– I direct the Committee’s attention to this item as evidence of the extremely reasonable attitude of the other House, and as a reply to the taunt that the other House has only agreed to the Senate’s requests when they were in the direction of raising the duties. In the case of green hides, the other House showed a’ desire to stand by that section of this Committee which was careful not to impose unduly high duties. In this item they have accepted the duties imposed by the Senate, but make a slight alteration in the date when they are to come into operation. They have postponed the date of the operation of the duties to the 1st January, 1922. The other House also asked the Senate to reduce the timber duties. I move -
That the modification be agreed to.
In. substance, the Senate’s request has been accepted. The difference between the two Houses is only a matter of five or six weeks regarding the date when the duties shall come into operation. The delay has been deemed advisable because the manufacturers of this kind of leather are not in full working order, and every week brings them nearer to the point when they will be able to supply a reasonable proportion cif Australia’s requirements.
Motion agreed to.
Item 329 -
Boots, shoes, slippers, clogs, pattens, and other footwear (of any material), n.e.i.; boot and shoe uppers and tops; cork, leather, or other socks or soles n.e.i., ad val., British, 40 per cent.; intermediate, 45 per cent.; general, 50 per cent.
Senate’s Request. - British, 30 per cent.; intermediate, 35 per cent.; general, 40 per cent.
House of Representatives’ Message. - Slade with the following modification: - “Duties made - ad val., British, 35 per cent.; intermediate, 40 per cent.; general, 45 per cent.”
Senator E D MILLEN:
Minister for Repatriation · NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917
– ‘The decision of the other House on this item represents another effort to meet the wishes of the Senate. The original duties proposed were 40 per cent., 45 per cent., and 50 per cent. The Senate suggested 30 per cent., 35 per cent., and ‘40 per cent. The other House practically says, “ Halve U.” I move -
That the modification be agreed to.
Senator GARDINER:
New South Wales
– If my memory serves me rightly, when this item was discussed previously the Senate was most emphatic in its decision. I have in my mind a statement by an honorable senator on the Government side couched in such language that I would not be allowed to repeat it. The statement referred to the. manufacturers of boots as “robbers.” The language that was used would not be considered parliamentary. Notwithstanding that denunciation from the Government benches, the other House appears to be ready to help these ‘ ‘ robbers 1 ‘ by increasing the duty 5 per cent, above what the Senate requested. If the Government has decided to accept the modification, it is no use arguing the point. The honorable senator to whom I have referred denounced the manufacturers of boots because of the bad-quality material they use, and the high prices they charge.
Senator Earle:
– That statement referred not to the manufacturers, but to the sellers.
Senator GARDINER:
– I do not think Senator Earle can hold the seller responsible when children’s boots wear out on two trips. There is little excuse for the manufacturer of shoddy boots in a country where hides are admitted free, and leather is abundant. Why do we want a duty against the outside world as high as that which is proposed? The only explanation I can find is that the Government is out to tax the working classes. This Tariff is a revenue Tariff from end to end. It produced £32,000,000 of revenue last year, and I believe it will produce nearly as much this year.
Senator DUNCAN:
New South Wales
– I would not have risen to speak but for the remarks of Senator Gardiner. The necessity for doing what the Government proposes is so obvious that there ought to be no need for discussion. Senator Gardiner has been at some pains to reiterate a statement made in a previous debate. I do not know whether he indorses it, but I would remind him that all boot manufacturers are not supporters of this Government. The largest boot manufacturer that I know in my State, and perhaps the largest in that State, who never loses an opportunity of boasting of his wealth, is a gentleman who stands high in the councils of Senator Gardiner’s party. He is a member of the State Parliamentary party to which the honorable gentleman ‘belongs, and he is a capitalist. If boot manufacturers are “ robbers,” then I have not heard that this gentleman is selling his boots at any lower price than any other manufacturers. As far as my observations go,- he sells them at a little higher price than others charge. Certainly I have never been able to alford to purchase a pair. I understood that Senator Plain intended to he here this afternoon to say that when he made certain statements in a previous debate he did not understand the situation, and that the statements were made without justification. The facts are that boot manufacturers are making far less money than the manufacturers of other items of apparel. This is shown clearly in the Commonwealth Statistician’s Bulletin No. 7, where the whole of the articles of wearing apparel, including boots and shoes, are grouped. But if- boots and shoes are excluded, a gross profit of 24.5 per. cent, is disclosed.
Senator Wilson:
– Up to what period?
Senator DUNCAN:
– To 1920. The boot and shoe manufacturers have not been making anything like that profit, but one in the region of 14 per cent.
Senator Wilson:
– Who is getting it?
Senator DUNCAN:
– The middleman, and not the manufacturer. These figures, which can be verified, should be placed on record, and I trust that the motion submitted by the Minister will be agreed to.
Senator GARDINER:
New South Wales
– I do not know why Senator Duncan should have gone out of his way to refer to a certain boot manufacturer in New South Wales in the way he did, because when this matter was previously under discussion Senator Plain referred to the Victorian boot manufacturers, and not to those in New South Wales. Senator Duncan has now seen fit to mention the fact that a certain wealthy member of the Labour party in New South Wales is a boot manufacturer. I do not know why.
Motion agreed to.
Item. 334-
Paper, viz. -
- (1) News printing, not glazed, mill- glazed, or coated, in rolls not less than 10 inches in width or in sheets not less than 20 inches by 25 inches, or its equivalent. . . . And on and after 6th July 1921, per ton, British, free; intermediate, £3 ; general, £3.
Senate’s Request. - Per ton, British, free; intermediate, £2; general, £2.
House of Representatives’ Message. - Not made.
Senator E D MILLEN:
Minister for Repatriation · NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917
– I do not think it necessary for me to remind theCommittee of a position which has arisen in connexion with this matter. The other House, against the wish of the Government, decided that the intermediate and general duty on newsprint should be £3 per ton, and that British importations should be free. The Senate decided to reduce the intermediate and general duties to £2 per ton in each case, leaving the British preferential column unaltered. When the request went to the other Chamber, honorable members followed the example that has been tendered by some honorable senators, and stood fast to the original proposal. As the other House has twice declared in favour of the higher rate, I ask the Committee to support the motion which I now move -
That the request be not pressed.
Senator GARDINER:
New South Wales
– I think this is an instance in which the Minister (Senator E. D. Millen) should give way by agreeing to a duty of £2 10s. per ton instead of £3. The people most interested in this item are the proprietors of country papers, to whom an additional duty of £1 per ton means a considerable sum. During the war there was no section of the community so imposed upon as the newspaper proprietors. Paper that was selling at from £10 to £12 per ton in pre-war ‘days rose to from £60 to £70 per ton during the war, and after that soared to £100 per ton. Since this duty was proposed paper has been falling in price, and supplies can now be purchased at from £21 10s. to £29 per ton. If £2 per ton was considered a fair duty when this Tariff was framed - on the ad valorem basis it would now be much less - a lower rate than that suggested should be agreed to. This is an instance in which we could submit a modified request with the idea of meeting the other House half way. I trust there will be no opposition to such a proposal, because there can be no doubt concerning the conflicting opinions which prevail on this matter. I know from information received that three honorable members who paired against these duties would have supported them if they had been voting. I move -
That the motion be amended by leaving out the words “not pressed,” with a view to insert in lieu thereof the words, “ modified by making the intermediate and general Tariffs, per ton, £2 10s.”
Senator VARDON:
South Australia
– I trust the Committee will not agree to the amendment moved by Senator Gardiner. We have heard a good deal concerning the position of country newspaper proprietors, but I am safe in saying that 75 per cent, of them do not use more than 2 tons each per year. The total importations represent 75,000 tons, and of this quantity country newspaper proprietors use 6,000 tons. A fortnight ago, when speaking to a country newspaper proprietor in Adelaide, I asked him if he used 2 tons per annum, and he informed me that he did not use 1 ton. That is the position of a majority of the country newspaper proprietors. I am acting quite independently in this matter. I use from 65 to 70 tons a year, so that the higher duties will affect me to some extent. I am, however, prepared to vote for the rates proposed, and trust the Committee will agree to them.
Amendment negatived.
Motion agreed to.
Item 334- (C)(2) Printing, n.e.i. (glazed, unglazed, mill-glazed, or coated), not ruled or printed in any way in rolls not less than 10 inches in width, or in sheets not less than 20 inches by 25 inches or its equivalent, ad val., British, 5 per cent.; intermediate, 10 per cent.; general, 15 per cent
Senate’s Request. - Per ton, British, free; intermediate, £2; general, £2.
House of Representatives’ Message. - Made with the following modification: - Duties made - Per ton, free British preferential Tariff, £3 intermediate Tariff, £3 general Tariff.
Senator E D MILLEN:
Minister for Repatriation · NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917
– In connexion with this item, the Committee suggested the same duties that were proposed in connexion with newsprint, namely, free, £2, and £2 per ton respectively. The other Chamber having decided to adhere to the rates originally adopted on newsprint, I suggest that we accept the rates with the modification of another place, which makes the duties in this sub-item in. keeping with those in the previous one. I move -
That the modification be agreed to.
Motion agreed to.
Item 359-
Vehicle parts, viz.: -
Parts of vehicles with self-contained power, propelled by petrol, steam, electricity, oil, or alcohol, n.e.i., whether incorporated in the complete vehicle or separate, viz.: -
And on and after 1st July, 1921 -
Chassis, but not including rubber tyres: -
Unassembled, ad val., British, 5 per cent.; intermediate, 7½ per cent.; general, 10 per cent.
Senate’s Request. - Free.
House of Representatives’ Message. - Not made.
Senator E D MILLEN:
Minister forRepatriation · NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917
– I ask the Committee to reconsider its decision in this matter, in which the original duties were 5 per cent., 7½ per cent., and 10 per cent, respectively. The Senate made the item free throughout, and another place has dissented. In view of our financial position and the fact that this is a largely revenue duty, I move -
That the request be not pressed.
Senator LYNCH:
Western Australia
– It is well within the knowledge of honorable senators that when this item was previously before the Committee an animated debate ensued, and the position was approached from every possible angle. It was admitted at the time that these articles were not made in Australia, and as the Minister (Senator E. D. Millen) has admitted that the duties are imposed largely for revenue purposes, we should know how to vote. Motor vehicles are essential toencourage the development of the interior, and we cannot do that by imposing restrictions of any” kind on means of communication. There is nothing I know of in this great continent which is. more essential than easy and cheap means of transit. I can only repeat the arguments I advanced before, and I again ask the Minister if he intends to press any of the requests submitted by the Committee. Why should we not break new ground and insist on our requests, because in doing so we shall be helping development, and preventing those engaged in the interior from bearing undue impositions.
Question - That the request be not pressed - put. The Committee divided.
AYES: 14
NOES: 8
Majority . . . . 6
AYES
NOES
Question so resolved in the affirmative.
Motion agreed to.
Item 384-
Senate’s Request - Amend sub-item to make it read - (a)(1) Photographic and X-Ray dry plates, ad val., British, 25 per cent. ; intermediate, 30 per cent.; general, 35 per cent.; or per square foot, British, 6½d. ; intermediate, 8d. ; general, 9½d., whichever rate returns the higher duty.
House of Representatives’ Message - Made with the following modifications : -
Paragraph (a) (1)- After “ plates “ the words “ and flat films, sensitized “ inserted ; and the fixed duties made - 5d. British, 6½ intermediate, 8d. general.
Paragraph (a) (2)- -After “Films” the letters “n.e.i.” inserted; and the fixed duties made - 8d. British,10d. intermediate, 12d. general.
Paragraph (a) (3)- After “n.e.i.” a semicolon and the words “ Postcards (sensitized with or without letterpress) “ inserted.
Paragraph (a) (4) - The words “ Postcards (sensitized with or . without letterpress) “ omitted.
Senator E D MILLEN:
Minister for Repatriation · NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917
– This item is not so complicated as a glance at the schedule would lead one to believe. Honorable members in another place have accepted the principle of the Senate’s request in separating the original item into subdivisions as proposed, and the imposition of alternative specific duties, but have slightly lowered the specific duties suggested by the Senate. It has been brought under notice that the words of the item embrace linen fabrics used for blue prints, which are cheaper than photographic papers, and in respect of these fabrics the duties suggested by the Senate are unduly high, and run as high as 220 per cent. Honorable members in another place, in re-casting the item, suggest the inclusion of fabric for blue prints under a different heading. This does not in any way affect the purpose which honorable senators had in view in making their request. In paragraph 1 the Senate requested the imposition of duties of 6½d., 8d., and 9½d. per square foot, as alternative duties; and the other House reduced the duties to 5d., 6½d., and 8d. respectively. I have no doubt that Senator Lynch and other honorable senators will hail with great pleasure this evidence on the part’ of another place to meet the wishes of honorable senators who favour reduced duties.
Senator Lynch:
– Is this another½d. reduction ?
Senator E D MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917
– No, this is a reduction of1½d. On the second paragraph the Senate proposed specific duties of 10d., 12d., and 14d., and another place proposes duties of8d., 10d., and 12d.It is proposed to make separate provision for linen material for blue prints that was not contemplated when the matter was under consideration in the Senate. I move -
That the modifications be agreed to, provided that the following paragraph be added after paragraph 4, viz. : -
Sensitized blue print, and heliographic papers and fabrics -
On and after 11th November, 1921, ad val., British, 25 per cent.; intermediate, 30 per cent.; general, 35 per cent.
Motion agreed to.
Item 397 -
Explosives, viz. : -
- Cartridges, n.e.i., on and after 8th
July, 1921, ad val., British, 15 per cent. ; intermediate, 20 per cent. ; general, 20 per cent.
Senate’s Request - General, 30 per cent.
House of Representatives’ Message - Made with the following modification - The duty, General Tariff, made 25 per cent.
Senator E D MILLEN:
Minister for Repatriation · NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917
– This deals with the sub-item confined to cartridges, n.e.i. Another place proposed duties of 15, 20, and 20 per cent., and the Senate requested the imposition of a duty of 30 per cent, in the general Tariff, leaving the duties in the British and intermediate columns unaltered. In this case, the message from the House of Representatives proposes a splitting of the difference, and that the duty in the general Tariff should he 25 per cent. I move -
That the modification be agreed to.
Motion agreed to.
Item 397-
Explosives, viz. : -
Explosives, n.e.i., ad val., British, free ; intermediate, 5 per cent. ; general, 5 per cent.
Senate’s Request - Amend sub-item to make it read -
-
(1) Coal-getting explosives, being those explosives named and specified in any permitted list approved by the Department, ad val., British, 15 per cent. ; intermediate, 20 per cent. ; general, 25 per cent.
- Explosives, n.e.i., ad val., British, free ; intermediate, 10 per cent. ; general, 15 per cent.
House of Representatives’ Message - Not made.
Senator E D MILLEN:
Minister for Repatriation · NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917
– It will be remembered that the Committee decided that this sub-item should be divided into two paragraphs, one embracing coal-getting explosives, being those named and specified in any permitted list approved by the Department and the other covering Explosives, n.e.i. We proposed that explosives included in the first paragraph should be dutiable at 15, 20, and 25 per cent., and that explosives covered by the second paragraph should be free from Great Britain and dutiable in the intermediate and general columns at 10 and 15 per cent. The other House has declined to fall in with the suggestion of the Senate. In view of the fact that in another place the opinion of honorable members on this item has been twice expressed, and that there is a considerable section in this Committee who approve of the decision of another place, I move -
That the request be not pressed.
Senator GUTHRIE (Victoria) [3.251. - After very full discussion of this subject on a previous occasion, the Committee decided to request the imposition of duties on coal-getting explosives of 15, 20 and 25 per cent. Our request has not been acceded to by another place. It is unnecessary to go over the arguments used in the previous debate in this Chamber on this item, but it is perhaps as well to remind honorable senators that we are dealing here with a key industry. If we have to import the whole of our explosives in time of war, we shall be unable to obtain necessary ammunition. Of what use will be our Small Arms Factory and the splendid military organization which we maintain at very great expense unless we can locally manufacture explosives? Those who are engaged in the manufacture of explosives at Maribyrnong behaved splendidly throughout the war. They have a clean record from start to finish. They supply a good article at a reasonable price and employ a very large number of satisfied employees under the conditions laid down by the Government of this country. This is a Protectionist Tariff, but it provides for practically Free Trade in the case of this industry, which requires only the moderate Protection for which we have asked. It is necessary that this industry should be protected and supported if Australia is to be properly developed and effectively defended. I can see no justification for honorable senators going back upon their previous decision on this item.
Senator SENIOR:
South Australia
– There is a strong reason why the Committee should make a stand on this item. Some of the elements used in the manufacture of explosives h ave to be imported, and they are dutiable at15 per cent. I refer to nitrate of ammonia, which is used in the manufacture, particularly, of explosives for coal-mining. If we are to reduce the duty on the finished article whilst the duty on the elements used in its manufacture is retained, the effect will be to give a bonus to outside manufacturers of explosives. Only adults are employed in the local manufacture of explosives, and they receive an average wage of £4 5s. 6d. per week, as against an average wage of £1 per week paid in the industry in. South. Africa.
Senator GUTHRIE:
VICTORIA · NAT; UAP from 1931
– Where black labour is employed in the manufacture of explosives.
Senator SENIOR:
– That is so. Another point which is worthy of consideration is that the manufacture of explosives involves a very large consumption of cool. Two and a half tons of coal are consumed in the manufacture of lton of explosives, and therefore the local manufacture of this article must give considerable employment to local coal-miners.
Senator E D MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917
– What impost would the honorable senator place on the coal-miners who have to get the coal used in the manufacture of this article?
Senator SENIOR:
– The manufacture of explosives locally would provide coalminers with work.
Senator E D MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917
– They would have to work so much longer and harder to enable them to pay the duty which the honorable senator would impose on explosives.
Senator SENIOR:
– The Minister’s argument really is that if we permit the admission of explosives manufactured by black labour, it will be more beneficial for coal-miners, since, as a result, they will be unemployed. I have heard it said that it is unsafe to use explosives manufactured in Australia, but I have seen original certificates stating that locallymade explosives have been tested in Great Britain and found to be thoroughly trustworthy. The factory here is capable of supplying Australia’s present needs. It would be wise in time of peace to have this article made here, because the industry is tending to become a key one.
Senator E D MILLEN:
Minister for Repatriation · NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917
– When this item was originally before the Government, and I think when it was before the other Chamber, there was reason to believe that operations on a big scale were about to be launched, but the enterprise has not materialized.
Senator Senior:
– For what reasons?
Senator E D MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917
– I cannot say. The promoters probably thought that it was not a sufficiently attractive opening. The original duty was made a deferred one, because it was thought that some time would elapse before the factory would be in a position to deliver supplies. Now the industry is not to be proceeded with.
Senator Wilson:
– For the obvious reason that the Government are not encouraging it.
Senator E D MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917
– That has nothing to do with the matter.
Senator Senior:
– Is the mining industry equal to-day to what it was in 1914?
Senator E D MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917
– Of course not. That industry is somewhat under a cloud, but we are not likely to lift the burden from it by making the requisites for carrying on the industry dearer. Until explosives are produced in Australia on a sufficiently large scale to meet local needs, the proposed duty would make the articles dearer to the men who have to use them.
Senator SENIOR:
South Australia
– The demand for explosives has decreased by one-third since the war began, and the factory in Australia is now capable of supplying all our needs.
Senator E D MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917
– Then why was there a proposal to carry on operations on a large scale?
Senator SENIOR:
– The assumption was that the Government desired that there should be a factory established that would meet the full demand for explosives. On many items, the Minister in charge (Senator E. D. Millen) has said that duties must be put on to encourage the manufacturers to produce those articles, the argument being that without protection their operations cannot be extended, while with protection expansion of industry may be expected. I am informed that there have been no actual profits made in this industry. If it is capable of meeting present local heeds, that is all we can expect.
Question - That the request be not pressed - put. The Committee divided.
AYES: 11
NOES: 12
Majority . . . . 1
AYES
NOES
Question so resolved in the negative.
Motion negatived; request pressed.
Item 402-
Hair and fibre, curled, suitable for upholstering purposes, ad val., British, 25 per cent.; intermediate, 30 per cent.; general, 40 per cent.
Senate’sRequest. - Insert new sub-item: -
Kapok, per lb., British, 4d.; intermediate, 6d.; general, 6d.
House of Representatives’ Message. - Not made.
Senator E D MILLEN:
Minister forRepatriation · NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917
– The Senate requested that a new sub-item - kapok - be inserted, with the following duties : - British, 4d. ; intermediate, 6d.; and general, 6d. The other Chamber rejected that suggestion on the voices. Inquiry shows that a duty of 6d. would mean the payment by importers of £150,000 per annum. A prominent wool authority has stated that the proposed duty cannot help the wool industry.
Senator GUTHRIE:
VICTORIA · NAT; UAP from 1931
– Who is the prominent wool authority who made that foolish statement?
Senator E D MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917
– Does the honorable senator say that the imposition of this duty, even if it resulted in theuse of wool for kapok, would materially affect the wool-growing industry?
Senator GUTHRIE:
VICTORIA · NAT; UAP from 1931
– It would materially assist the producers of low-class wools that are unsaleable.
Senator E D MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917
– I move-
That the request be not pressed.
It is claimed that there are some special processes by which low-grade wools can be cleansed. I have had to sleep on a woolpack containing such wool, but I shall never do it again.
Senator GUTHRIE:
VICTORIA · NAT; UAP from 1931
– People sleep on hardly anything else in the Old Country.
Senator E D MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917
– The honorable senator must be speaking without thought. I suppose many honorable senators have, under the stress of circumstances, used wool in either a pack or a (bag for a bed. That might be good enough for the first night or two, but, after that, as far as I am concerned, anybody could have the wool, and I would prefer the empty bag. I do not believe the proposed duty would create an industry worth speaking of.
Senator GUTHRIE:
VICTORIA · NAT; UAP from 1931
– I cannot allow this item to go without a protest. We went into the matter thoroughly when last it was before us, and honorable senators with the whole of the evidence before them agreed to the request by seventeen to nine. It is absolutely absurd for any person posing as a wool authority to say that these duties would not help the Australian woollen industry. I know who is the so-called authority mentioned by the Minister (Senator E. D. Millen). He is a gentleman who had nothing to do with the wool trade, except in a secretarial capacity, for the last two or three years.
Senator E D MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917
– Then when you asked who was the authority, you knew all the time?
Senator GUTHRIE:
VICTORIA · NAT; UAP from 1931
– I only wanted the Minister to confirm my statement. We all know what is the present position of the woollen industry. Hundreds of thousands of bales of crossbred wool, some of it particularly suitable for mattressmaking, are being produced by our small farmers at very much above present market rates. The statistics show that the Bawra stocks of crossbred wool, instead of decreasing, have increased during the last two or three years by 300,000 bales, although we are able to sell our merino wools at a good price. Wool for mattressmaking has been used in Europe for the last hundred years. No one will say, of course, that its use in this country will result in moving a mountain of crossbred wool off the market; but, at all events, it will encourage the use of the Australiangrown product manufactured by Australian people under Australian conditions in preference to a product grown by black labour in Java. Wool is better than kapok for mattress stuffing. Kapok, being a vegetable matter, is inflammable, and is a conductor of both heat and cold - in addition to which, it powders, and is liable to attract microbes - whereas wool, being an animal matter, is a non-conductor of heat or cold, and is non-inflammable. It is admitted that those engaged in the mattress-making industry were at first supplied with an unsuitable material, in the Lincoln wool, which was then selling at 3d. perlb, becauseit felts and ropes.
The ideal material is the crossbred noils. The wool-combing industry is established both in Melbourne and in Sydney. We are exporting the tops, but there is very little sale for the noils, which are the short bits combed out. There is also a large stock of second crossbred lambs and short pieces, and what we call crutchings, almost wasting at the present time; this also may be used: One firm of returned soldiers, working on a co-operative basis, bought a lot of this cheap wool for mattress-stuffing. We were very glad of their competition. They have invented a machine for cutting long Lincoln wool up into requisite lengths for mattressstuffing. Treated in this way, it is an ideal material. I have taken the trouble to write to the mattress manufacturers who have been getting supplies from these returned soldiers, asking if the material is suitable, and I have had a sheaf of replies to the effect that they are very well satisfied, and would not go back to the kapok. It is probable that some of the Minister’s advisers - who, perhaps, have never seen wool in theirlives except out of a railway carriage window - will say that this is unsuitable because a certain amount of the grease has not been removed. It would not be so terrible after all if, say,½per cent, of grease remained; but if any of the grease is left in the wool it only indicates careless preparation. The wool can be bone-dry scoured, which means that every particle of grease is taken out of it. Some of the English manufacturers purposely leave a small proportion of the grease in the wool In Yorkshire they put as much as 5 per cent, of olive oil in wool when combing it, but on the ‘Continent, and particularly in France, the manufacturers comb the woolbone-dry. We can do the same in Australia, and as we can produce the wool at a relatively cheap price, we should be able to build up a first-class industry in mattress-making, using our own materials instead of the product of black labour in Java. What is more, the wool will last very much longer than kapok, and if properly prepared it will neither felt nor rope. A Sydney firm has supplied the Hotel Australia with these wool mattresses, and I understand that the management is delighted with the product.
Senator Reid:
– But the manufacturers who use kapok say they cannot get the wool.
Senator GUTHRIE:
VICTORIA · NAT; UAP from 1931
– They can get as much of it as they want. Of course, these returned soldiers for whomI am speaking are not millionaires. They have no huge factory or big plant. We must give them a chance to live and build up the industry. They can already supply the wants of all the mattress manufacturers in this State if they are sufficiently protected from the cheaplabour product of Java, and their business will develop. It is not necessary to confine mattress-makers to the use of crossbred wool. They can use the broken yarns from the spinning mills established in Victoria and New South Wales. Some of the mattress-makers prefer these broken yarns. Honorable senators know the position of the wool industry in Australia. We are producing about 2,000,000 bales per annum. Of this quantity 36 per cent., is crossbred, and, unfortunately, about 25 per cent of this class of wool is only saleable at very much below the cost of production. This being so, why should we attempt, by means of this Tariff, to penalize men who are endeavouring to establish a new industry? At all events, they should have protection against the Java product for a few years.
Question - That the request be not pressed - put. The Committee divided.
AYES: 14
NOES: 5
Majority . . ‘ 9
AYES
NOES
Question so resolved in the affirmative.
Motion agreed to.
Senate adjourned at 4 p.m.
Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 18 November 1921, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1921/19211118_senate_8_98/>.