House of Representatives
12 June 1902

1^st Parliament · 1^st Session

QUESTION
- UNIVERSAL PENNY POSTAGE
SUSPENSION OF FODDER DUTIES
COMMONWEALTH FRANCHISE BILL
QUESTION
- TENDERS FOR MILITARY SUPPLIES
QUESTION
- FEDERAL PRINTING
BONUSES FOR MANUFACTURES BILL
- Second Reading

Mr. Speaker took the chair at 2.30 p.m., and read prayers.

page 13595

QUESTION

UNIVERSAL PENNY POSTAGE

Mr CROUCH:
CORIO, VICTORIA

– I desire to direct the attention of the Minister representing the Prime Minister to the following statement which appeared in the London Times of 2nd May -

Mr. Henniker Heaton has reason to believe from hisconversation with the Hon. J. G. Drake, Post master-General of Australia, in January last, that on the date of the King’s Coronation,Australia will adopt penny postage everywhere.

I desire to know whether there is any truth in the statement?

Mr DEAKIN:
Attorney-General · BALLAARAT, VICTORIA · Protectionist

– The honorable and learned member’s professional experience will have taught him that what is a reason sufficient to induce some people to believe, is no reason for others. In this case there would be no reason for any such belief on the part of any one who knew the facts.

page 13595

SUSPENSION OF FODDER DUTIES

Mr FULLER:
ILLAWARRA, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I desire to direct the attention of the Minister representing the Prime Minister to the following statement, which appears in this morning’s Age, in the form of a telegram from Sydney-

It is very doubtful whether the Government will, after all, take any action with reference to the fodder duties.

I wish to know whether, in the event Of the New South Wales Government refusing to act, the Federal Government will be prepared to take any steps in the matter.

Mr DEAKIN:
Protectionist

– I have no reason yet to assume that the Government of New South Wales will not take action, and must not be understood as implying so. The reason why the Commonwealth Governmenthavenot moved is because of constitutional difficulties quite apart from the position taken up by the

Government of New South Wales. Should that Government foil to take action, I fear that it would not be in our power to do anything.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– What are the constitutional difficulties?

Mr DEAKIN:

– There are several. One is that whilst we have power to impose taxation, it is especially provided that there must be no discrimination between the States, or any parts of the States.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– That is not a constitutional difficulty.

page 13595

COMMONWEALTH FRANCHISE BILL

Royal Assent reported.

page 13595

QUESTION

TENDERS FOR MILITARY SUPPLIES

Mr POYNTON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I wish to direct the attention of the Minister for Home Affairs to the fact that no public tenders were called for the supply of uniforms for the last contingent despatched to South Africa from South Australia. I desire to know whether the Minister will see that tenders are called in all cases where supplies are required by the Defence department ?

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:
Minister for Home Affairs · HUME, NEW SOUTH WALES · Protectionist

– The ordinary course was followed in this instance, and I cannot promise in all cases to call for tenders. I do not know the circumstances ; but it may be that there was not sufficient time to permit of tenders being called fora small supply of uniforms. Where it is possible to call for tenders that course is adopted.

Mr POYNTON:

– In cases where public tenders are not invited, does not the Minister think that it would be fair to ask the manufacturers of the goods required to submit prices ?

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:

– As a rule, when tenders are not called, the contractors who have been supplying similar goods in previous cases are called upon, and I presume that was what was done in the present case. Although it is doubtless wise to call for tenders, or ask manufacturers to submit prices in most cases, that cannot always be done.

page 13595

QUESTION

FEDERAL PRINTING

Sir JOHN QUICK:
BENDIGO, VICTORIA

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice-

Whether he will expedite the presentation to the House of a return, ordered by the House on on 18th April, showing the cost of Federal printing ?

Mr DEAKIN:
Protectionist

– The answer to the honorable and learned member’s question is as follows : -

A large part of the information necessary to the preparation of this return has already been obtained, but in the case of some of the States, the returns sent were incomplete. In the case of Melbourne and Hobart complete returns have been received. Incomplete returns have been received from Adelaide and Brisbane, and further requests, to which no reply has yet been received, have been sent. No return has yet been received from Perth. The requesthas been repeated. In the case of Sydney, the Government Printer reported that extra clerical assistance would be required. Thiswas granted, and he was requested to expedite the return. Instructions have been giventhatthepreparationofthereturnshould becompletedwiththeleastpossibledelay.

page 13596

BONUSES FOR MANUFACTURES BILL

Second Reading

Debate resumed (from 11th June, vide page 13554), on motion by Mr. Kingston -

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Upon which Mr. Watson had moved by way of amendment -

Thatall the words after the word “now” be omitted, and that the following words be inserted in place thereof, viz. : -“ referred toaselect committee to consider and report upon the advisability of establishing Commonwealth or State ironworks. That such committee consist of the Minister fur Trade and Customs, Mr. Batchelor, Mr.R. Edwards, Mr. Fuller, Mr. Hughes, Mr. Kirwan, Mr. Mauger, Mr. Thomson, and the mover.”

Mr FULLER:
Illawarra

– After the speeches which have been delivered in connexion with this Bill, it must be apparent that we are all agreed that it would be of advantage to the Commonwealth if the iron industry were established here. There is, however, a considerable difference of opinion regarding the means that should be adopted for bringing it about. I have come to the conclusion that the information at present before the committee is not sufficient to enable us to arrive at a satisfactory decision. The Minister for Trade and Customs has been complimented by several honorable members upon the comprehensive character of his speech in introducing the Bill, and upon the vast amount of information furnished by him. Sofar as I can see, however, no information of any value was imparted to honorable members. The Minister pointed out that the Bill was introduced in order to complete the system of encouraging manufactures which was initiated in Division VIa. of the Tariff. That division still remains unsettled, and thus we are being asked to complete a system of encouragement which has not yet been determined upon. The Minister admits that it would be unwise to impose import duties at present for the protection of the iron industry, because such imposts would have the effect of increasing the price of goods to the consumers,and in order to overcome the difficulty he now proposes to encourage the establishment of the iron industry by means of bonuses. The money to provide for these bonuses is to come out of the national exchequer ; but who can say what is the condition of our finances ? We are told on the one hand that we have a surplus of £700,000, and on the other hand we are being pressed to pass a Loan Bill to enable the Treasurer to borrow £1,000,000. The revenue of the Commonwealth has gone down very considerably recently, owing to various reasons, and our finances are in a very unsettled condition. Yet we are asked to vote £324,000 to provide bonuses for the encouragement of the iron industry. We are told that if bonuses are provided for they will cease to operate after the expiration of five years ; but if we may judge from the experience gained in other parts of the world, we shall probably have demands made at the end of the five years for the extension of the bonus payments. If the bonuses are not continued we shall probably be asked to impose heavy protective duties. The Minister directed lis to the experience which had been gained in Canada. But the bonus system in that country has not been a success. In 1883 a Bill was passed by the Dominion Parliament authorizing the payment of bounties for the encouragement of the iron industry. Various Bills were passed subsequently, and in 1889 a measure was agreed to providing for the extension of the payment of bonuses up to the year 1907. Therefore, although the bounty sytem was initiated in 1883, it is still in existence. I do not wish to assume the role of a prophet, but I venture to think from the way in which matters have been proceeding in Canada that a further extension will probably be asked for at the end of the period now fixed.

Mr Kingston:

– The honorable member knows that the bounties diminish.

Mr FULLER:

-Yes, I am aware of that. If the payment of bonuses in Canada had resulted in the production of all the iron necessary for the requirements of that country there might have been some force in the remarks of the Minister. But what do we find ? In 1892, the value of dutiable iron and steel goods imported into Canada was 9,968,409 dollars, whilst goods were imported free of duty to the value of 2,673,033 dollars, the total being 12,641,442 dollars. In 1900 - the latest year’s statistics which I have been able to obtain - the quality of iron imported into Canada represented a value of 29,300,073 dollars, clearly showing that as far as the Dominion is concerned, although it had the advantage of the operation of the bonus system for a number of years, it was unable to supply the iron which was necessary to carry on the various businesses of the country. The Minister for Trade and Customs has pointed out that in Canada in 1 889 the total production of iron from foreign ore was 46,186 tons, whilst that from home ore was 32,000 tons. As we know, the foreign ore comes chiefly from Bell Island, in Newfoundland, and for all practical purposes, therefore, may be regarded as ore produced within the Dominion itself. But the total annual consumption of iron in Canada varies from 800,000 tons to 820,000 tons, and the Minister for Trade and Customs has pointed out that in 1900 her production from crude ore was only 103,000 tons, so that after the bonus system had been operative for a number of years she was able to produce only one-eighth of her total consumption. Has anything been said by the right honorable gentleman, or by the supporters of this Bill, to prove that a similar state of things will not exist in Australia if this Bill be passed? As far asI can judge, the experience of Canada, and the development of the iron industry in other parts of the world, shows that, with the strong competition which must be expected from big establishments in America and England, the probability is that the development winch has occurred in Canada would not take place in Australia. The Minister for Trade and Customs asked -

Shall we stand still now that a golden occasion is afforded for us to progress, and when companies are desirous of takingad vantage of any opportunities we may offer to come here and establish their industries ?

He tells us that in America men are looking with anxious eyes to the development of the iron industry in Australia, that there are individuals in our midst who are ready to embark in the enterprise, and that it is the duty of the Government to listen to the manufacturers who are so desirous of spending their money within the Commonwealth. His statement would almost lead one to believe that quite a horde of patriotic men within the Commonwealth were prepared to invest their capital to develop this important industry. But before they propose to spend their own money they ask this House to vote £300,000 to assist them in establishing the industry. The bonuses payable under this Bill are to cease at the end of five years, but I feel satisfied that at the expiration of that period we shall hear the same cry for a continuation of their payment that we have heard from all other industries which have enjoyed the advantage of bonuses. The same wail will be raised that men will be thrown out of employment if the payment of the bonuses is discontinued, and the argument relative to the pattering of bare feet upon the pathway will be heard in an attempt to make honorable members of this House sympathize with the proposal to continue the system. Some speakers have contended that the passage of this Bill means handing over the industry to a monopoly. It has been argued by some that the Government have power to nationalize the enterprize, whilst others are equally strong in the belief that any such action would be unconstitutional. The matter in dispute, I presume, will have to be settled by the High Court. If the industry should be carried on by private enterprise, I have no doubt that it will develop into a huge monopoly. That is what has happened in America under practically the same system. There the industry is in the hands of vast monopolies. Men have become millionaires owing to the opportunities offered to them to extort money from the people. I am willing to admit that in days gone by manufacturing enterprise could be more successfully controlled by private individuals than by the State or syndicates. But those times have passed away. We live in a day of syndicates, when the conduct of these concerns is in the hands of managers. I failto see any difference between a huge syndicate employing a manager to look after its affairs, and one of the States or the

Commonwealth engaging an individual to discharge a similar duty. The question whether any State should carry on this industry has been sufficiently discussed, and I do not propose to further debate it. But in regard to the question of the establishment of a monopoly I think that ail necessary inquiries should be instituted. In New South Wales some years ago a proposal was submitted by the late Mr. Joseph Mitchell to float a company to work the iron deposits of that State. That scheme failed for various reasons which it is unnecessary to touch upon at this stage. More recently still - in 1900 - when the present Minister for Home Affairs was Premier of New South Wales, a similar proposal was placed before the Government of that State. In referring to the matter, Coy/dan, in The Seven Colonies of Australasia, Says -

During the year .1900 the Government of New South Wales agreed to take 100,000 tons of steel mils, delivery to extend over ti period of four years, from a large company which purposed erecting steel and iron works in the vicinity pf Port Kembla, at a COst pf between £500,000 and :£7.”>0,000. The company has deposited £1.0,000 with the Treasury us a guarantee of good faith.

That company asked for no bonuses, and I do not think any information has been forthcoming to show that the iron industry cannot be started in Australia without any such artificial encouragement. One of the principal reasons why it was not established in New South Wales was that the markets of the other States were closed against it. But now that we have federation, the whole of the markets of the Commonwealth are open to any company who chooses to commence operations in our midst. I think that the Minister for Home Affairs might supply the committee with very valuable information in connexion with the proposed establishment of this industry in New South Wales, and I think that if he did do so it would be found that the syndicate or company which proposed to establish works at Port Kembla were prepared to do so without the aid of any bonus from the State. I entirely disagree with the proposal that this bonus should be paid only upon pig-iron which is made from ore which is native to the Commonwealth. Of course we should all like to see the ironore deposits of Australia developed, but at the same time there are many difficulties in the way of converting that ore into pig-iron. We know very well that Great Britain was not content to rely upon her own deposits, but imported very largely from Spain, Sweden, and other parts of the world. Similarly Canada imported a larger quantity of crude ore from the adjacent colony of Newfoundland than was raised within her own borders. It is well known that in New Caledonia there are very valuable deposits of iron ore. This Bill, however, excludes all who may use those ores for mixing purposes, and also the deposits to be found in New Zealand. It appears to me that in establishing this industry it would be just as well, from the point of view of the employment of labour, if we accorded the same treatment to iron manufactured from ore necessary for mixing purposes, which is native to New Caledonia or elsewhere, that we give to that produced from ore which is native to New South Wales or other portions of the Commonwealth. Of course those places in which the iron industry is established must be in close proximity to extensive coal-fields, such as exist at Newcastle, in the Illawarra district, and at Lithgow. At Dapto, in the south coast district, and also at Newcastle, large quantities of ore, which are imported from New Caledonia, are smelted. Why should our manufacturers not have an opportunity of getting that iron ore smelted at our furnaces, in close proximity to the large coalfields of Illawarra and Newcastle, just as they do other ores at present? Another argument which was advanced by the honorable member for New England had reference to the desirableness of preserving the home market to our own people. In dealing with that aspect of the question the Minister for Trade and Customs quoted from Sir Charles Tupper, who stated -

Two dollars per ton costs the country something. They all contribute, lt will bo taken out of the general Treasury.

– Why is the feeling so prevalent ?

Mr V L SOLOMON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · FT

– Because the expenditure of the Federal Parliament is placing upon the numerically weaker States a financial burden which they are ill able to bear. The feeling expressed in South Australia is echoed in New South Wales, Victoria, and Tasmania, and is due chiefly to the financial strain which is being put upon the States by the expenditure of the Federal Government, which is going up by leaps and bounds. In my opinion, the consideration of this measure might well have been deferred for a time, because of the financial position of the States, and of the difficulties of our pastoralists, miners, and farmers, which are felt again in turn by the mercantile community, and then again by the working classes, until they affect the whole population, from those on the lowest rung of thesocial ladder to those on the topmost rung. Like a great deal of the legislation which has been forced upon us this session, it might well have been left over for a while. Surely a thirteen months’ session should be long enough for any Government.

Mr Kingston:

– What measures does the honorable member condemn as unnecessary ?

Mr.V. L. SOLOMON.- Many Bills were hastily passed in this House which might well have been postponed. The Pacific Island Labourers Bill, and the Immigration Restriction Bill are two in point. The Government, too, might well have postponed the taking over of some of the departments, such as the Post and Telegraph department. Furthermore, the question of giving bonuses for the establishment of the iron industry is connected with the Tariff which we have passed, and which is now under consideration in the other branch of the Legislature. In that Tariff we have provided that upon the establishment of the iron industry, protective duties ranging from 10 to 15 per cent. should be imposed. You have ruled, Mr. Speaker, and your ruling is in accordance with the Standing Orders, that we may not refer to the Tariff because it is now under considerationby the other House ; but that ruling very much restricts our powers of dealing with the Bill now before us. In addition to the duties I have mentioned, we are now asked to give direct bonuses. When addressing myself to my constituents, I expressed myself as more favorable to the granting of bonuses for the encouragement of national industries than to protective duties, the revenue from which very often goes into the pockets of the wrong people, and is lost to the coffers of the Commonwealth. That being so, I am in a difficulty now in having to refuse to vote for this Bill. But I cannot vote for it while the imposition of the protective duties to which I have alluded is, so to speak, sub judice. The proper time for the introduction of the Bill will be when the Tariff has been returned by the Senate, finally agreed to by both branches of the Legislature, and assented to by His Majesty’s representative. Until then it is premature and unfair to ask us to consider the matter. For those reasons, I shall vote against the second reading, and for reasons which I am about to give, I shall oppose the amendment of the honorable member for Bland. In the first place I cannot see how an amendment worded as it is can be moved upon the motion for the second reading of the Bill. Standing Orders 162,163, and 164 provide that amendments to the question “ that this Bill be now read a second time,” may be moved by omitting “now,” and adding “ this day six months,” or by moving the previous question ; but no other amendment may be moved - except in the form of a resolution strictly relevant to the Bill.

Mr Batchelor:

– I have already given notice that it is intended to alter the wording of the amendment.

Mr V L SOLOMON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · FT

– I can deal only with the amendment as it appears upon the notice-paper. On the 30th April last, Message No. 40 was received from His Excellency the Governor-General, in these terms -

In accordance with the requirements of Section 56 of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia, the Governor-General recommends to the House of Representatives that an appropriation of revenue or moneys be made for the purposes of a Bill for an Act relating to Bonuses for the Encouragement of Manufactures.

– There is nothing to prevent us from holding an inquiry whether there is a man in the moon or whether the moon is made of green cheese, but surely the House will not sanction an inquiry which will involve an expenditure of hundreds or thousands of pounds in regard to a question with which we have no constitutional right to deal. I have studied the Constitution very carefully, and I find nothing in it that would for one moment justify us in establishing Commonwealth iron works. Section 51 of the Constitution gives a great many powers to Parliament. Sub-section 3 provides that the Parliament shall have power to make laws with respect to -

Bounties on the production or export of. goods, but so that such bounties shall be uniform throughout the Commonwealth.

– It shows that the leading members of the party at the time of the federal elections, or just before, were in favour of a proposal of the kind.

Mr Fowler:

– Did they discuss the question of nationalizing the industry?

Mr MAUGER:

– They discussed the question of the payment of bonuses, and supported the following resolution passed at the united conference of protectionists held in Sydney last year : -

That in view of the enormous benefits which may reasonably be expected to accrue to the Australian Commonwealth from the establishment of the iron and steel industry within its borders, this conference recommends that such industry be encouraged by bonuses from the Federal Government, for a stated period to be fixed thereby, of 12s.6d. per ton for every ton of pigiron or steel ingots, and bars, rods and sheets (whether of iron or steel, produced from native ores and fluxes).

And also make regulations requiring any person who has received the bonus under this Act to enter into a bond for the sale of the undertaking to the State in which the undertaking is carrying on, and also for prescribing for all matters incidental to such sale.

Mr MAUGER:

– If the honorable member means stifling aggrandizement of wealth he is right. I am pledged and prepared to support such a proposal as is incorporated in this Bill; but I would safeguard it in every possible way. I am not prepared to support any amendment which has for its object, or at any rate, will have the effect, of shelving a question of the utmost importance to the highest and best interests of the Commonwealth.

Mr KIRWAN:
Kalgoorlie

– The speech of the honorable member for Melbourne Ports was most remarkable, and certainly characteristic. He commenced by impressing upon the House how much he was in favour of the nationalization of the iron industry ; but he followed that with the rather contradictory statement that he could not see his way to support the proposal of the honorable member for Bland - that a select committee be appointed to inquire if this nationalizationcan be carried out. Then he told us that he intended to move an amendment which would provide that any works which might be established under the Bill might, within a certain period, be resumed by the Government of the State in which they were situated. If such an amendment were agreed to, neither the proposals of the Government nor that of the honorable member for Bland would be effective, and the time we have spent in discussing this measure would be absolutely wasted, because the resumption of the property of any private company established under the Bill would require a huge expenditure. Furthermore, the honorable member spoke of the amendment of the honorable member for Bland as having for its effect the shelving of this question indefinitely. He did not, however, bi;ing forward any argument to support that statement. He did not show that the committee would not inquire thoroughly into the matter,

Or that the honorable members of whom it is proposed it shall consist would not carry Out their duties to the best of their ability, or that they are not sincere. If the Bill is passed as it stands, the £324,000 which it proposes to give away in bonuses will probably find its way into the pockets of some sharp company promoter. What will probably happen, if the Bill is passed, will be that some small syndicate here will see in it a splendid opportunity to float a huge commercial speculation in London. They will send a representative Home, and he will at once issue prospectuses, pointing out that these bonuses have been promised by the Government. People will, no doubt, subscribe to shares, chiefly upon that inducement, and the industry may be established to an extent sufficient to secure these bonuses. But the original promoters of the company, having obtained their profit, will, no doubt, step out, and at the end of a few years the shareholders will find it necessary to come to the Government again and say - “ Unless you continue to give us bonuses, we must close our works.” When that happens, the honorable member for Melbourne Ports will tell us- “We have spent £324,000 in establishing this industry, and we must continue the expenditure, so that the good done with the money already spent may not be entirely lost.”

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– The experience of other countries has always been that bonuses are continually being raised rather than reduced.

Mr KIRWAN:

– Yes. The people of Victoria had a similar experience under the protective policy which was so much favoured by the honorable member for Melbourne Ports. If the Bill were passed in its present form, it would do harm rather than achieve the good which the Minister has in view. But I think there can be no reasonable objection to the appointment of a select committee to inquire into the whole matter. Although some may have doubts as to the advisability of nationalizing the iron industry, there is no reason why we should not obtain full information upon the subject. While there might be some justification for the payment of bonuses for the establishment of an entirely new industry, we know in connexion with the iron industry that pig-iron has been already manufactured in New South Wales, and that both wire netting and galvanized iron are manufactured within the Commonwealth. Galvanized iron was made in New South Wales under free-trade.

Mr Wilkinson:

– Not from native ore.

Mr KIRWAN:

– That does not matter. Pig-iron at any rate has been manufactured in New South Wales from native ore. Galvanized iron was manufactured there under free-trade. When federation came, the manufacturers whose market was formerly limited to the State of New South Wales had opened to them the markets of the Commonwealth, and in addition to that advantage this Parliament has imposed upon galvanized iron an import duty of 15s. per ton. to keep out the goods of the foreign manufacturer. Now the Government come along and propose to subsidize the industry by a bonus of 10 per cent, upon the total value of the galvanized iron produced. That seems to me an utterly absurd proposal. Why should this one industry be singled out for special consideration 1 Why indeed should £324,000 be distributed amongst a few individuals engaged in* the iron industry? People do not embark in these undertakings from motives of patriotism ; they are purely commercial speculations. The iron industry is, of course, a very valuable one to any country, and worthy of encouragement and support, but the industries which provide the community with food, clothing, tools, and other requisites are equally worthy of support. Why should the iron industry alone be supported by public contributions ? I shall vote against the Bill, but in favour of the amendment of the honorable member for Bland.

Mr HUME COOK:
BOURKE, VICTORIA · PROT

– I agree with the honorable member for Kalgoorlie as to the importance of the iron industry, but. I do not agree with him that the industries which supply us with food and clothing equally require support. In one sense they may be even more important than the iron industry, but they require much less capital for their development. It is because of the immense capital required for the development of the iron industry that the Government have brought forward these proposals. There are before the House at the present time practically four propositions. We have first the proposals of the Government ; thenwe have those proposals plus the suggestion of the honorable member for Melbourne Ports ; thirdly, we have the proposal of the honorable and learned member for Bland for the appointment of a select committee; and, lastly, we have the proposition of the honorable and learned member for Darling Downs, that the Bill be amended to allow the States or any one of them to engage in the iron industry and receive bonuses from the Commonwealth.

Mr Kingston:

– They can do that now.

Mr HUME COOK:
BOURKE, VICTORIA · PROT

– It was at first my intention to support the honorable member for Bland, but, having since heard the speech of the honorable and learned member for Northern Melbourne, and having consulted with other legal men upon whom I can place reliance, I am persuaded that it would be utterly unconstitutional for the Commonwealth to engage in any manufacturing business. That being so, it would be useless to appoint a Select Committee to inquire into the subject.

Mr Thomas:

– But lawyers differ on the question.

Mr HUME COOK:
BOURKE, VICTORIA · PROT

– I think that the honorable member for Bland himself admitted that he has grave doubt as to whether the Commonwealth can engage in manufacturing. I believe that he went so far as to say that the Constitution may have to be altered to enable the Commonwealth to establish the iron industry as a national undertaking.

Mr Thomas:

– The Select Committee will be able to determine those questions.

Mr HUME COOK:
BOURKE, VICTORIA · PROT

– All that the committee could do would be to recommend an alteration of the Constitution. I should like to support the proposal of the honorable member for Bland, but it would be idle to agree to something which would have no practical effect. The Government propose to expend £324,000 in developing the iron industry. I think it would be better to spend the money in establishing works of our own than in providing profit for capitalists, who may conduct their operations in a way of which we would not approve, or who, after receiving the promised bonuses, might throw up the sponge and not go any further. It would be better for the Government to establish their own works, but, unfortunately, that appears to be impossible.

Mr Watson:

– It would not be possible for us to subsidize the States.

Mr HUME COOK:
BOURKE, VICTORIA · PROT

– Provision might be made in the Bill whereby the States, as States, could establish ironworks.

Mr Kingston:

– They can do that now, and they can draw the bonus.

Mr HUME COOK:
BOURKE, VICTORIA · PROT

– My purpose would be accomplished if the States were to take up this industry. If a large amount of Government money is to be expended, it should, if possible, be invested in State workshops. If we could give effect to the proposal of the honorable member for Bland, I should vote for his amendment ; but I am satisfied that we cannot do as he desires. I shall, therefore, vote for the Bill on the understanding that provision will be made for the States to take up the industry.

Mr Thomson:

– No, permission is necessary.

Mr HUME COOK:
BOURKE, VICTORIA · PROT

– I do not say that the States require any permission, but I wish them to derive benefit from the bonus.

Mr Thomson:

– Are the States so poor that they need assistance?

Mr HUME COOK:
BOURKE, VICTORIA · PROT

– I do not suppose they are ; but the industry is so important that it might be greatly to the advantage of the Commonwealth to assist any State in establishing it. I do not know that the State of Tasmania, for instance, would be very well able to establish the iron industry, and develop her large iron deposits, and it might be greatly to the advantage of the Commonwealth if the industry were established there.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– Surely New South Wales would be able to start ironworks of her own ?

Mr HUME COOK:
BOURKE, VICTORIA · PROT

– That is no reason why other States which are not in so fortunate a position should be debarred from receiving assistance.

Mr Kingston:

– We should not refuse to the States the encouragement we are willing to give to an individual.

Mr HUME COOK:
BOURKE, VICTORIA · PROT

– Quite so. I hope the result of passing the Bill will be that ironworks will be started as a State enterprise, because it is apparent that the Commonwealth itself cannot enter upon such an undertaking.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– This question is, perhaps, of more immediate importance to me than to any other honorable member in this Chamber. If the Government proposal is carried, my electorate will be the first to benefit by it. Lithgow would be the scene of the first operations connected with the production of pig-iron. Therefore I am about to speak in opposition to a proposal which would immediately benefit my electorate. That is not a matter for joy or pleasure to me, but, on the other hand, I feel some regret at the position in which I find myself. Some of my best political friends have urged me to give my vote in favour of this proposal ; but, looking at the matter from the standpoint of the Commonwealth as a whole, I feel that my political principles will not allow me to do what I might personally like. The main purpose of the Bill is to encourage the production of pig-iron. Other kinds of iron can and will be made under the encouragement of the duties which are now imposed, and which may be varied from time to time. A great deal has been said regarding the importance of this industry, and as to the intimate relation which it bears to other industrial occupations throughout the Commonwealth. Iron is the basis of nearly every kind of manufacturing handicraft. The finished article of the industry immediately under discussion is the raw material and the basis of a hundred other occupations, and here we are at once brought face to face with one of the anomalies of the protective system. It is often difficult to know where the raw material of industry begins and ends. In this case the finished article, which passes through two stages of manufacture, immediately becomes the raw material used in a hundred other handicrafts. The Minister for Trade- and Customs told us that this was his reason for proposing to encourage the production of pig iron by means of a bonus, rather than by imposing a duty. No country has ever attained any eminence among the nations, without developing the iron industry in its midst, and making it the basis of its manufacturing enterprises. The question now arises, whether Australia’ is suited by nature and by the aptitude of her people for the production of iron ? This question may be answered at once by a recital of some simple facts in the history of New South Wales. It is in that State that the bonuses would first operate if the House agreed to offer them. The Blyth River Company’s scheme may be developed later on. We know that in New South Wales the iron industry is already organized, and tests have been made which prove conclusively that iron of commercial value can be produced in that State. As far back as 1874 a blast furnace was in operation at Lithgow, and I believe that about 30,000 tons of pig iron have been produced in New South Wales from native ores. Works were established at Mittagong and at Lithgow, but in both instances they failed. I do not wish to go into the reasons for these failures, but after having investigated the matter, I am satisfied that the failures were in no way to be attributed to fiscal conditions. Pig iron has been shipped from New South Wales to San Francisco, and a report satisfactory in the extreme has been received regarding it. A letter from Messrs. McCondray and Co., of San Francisco, reads as follows : -

The parcels of your pig iron received here have given great satisfaction! We can safely say that we can dispose of 200 to 300 tons per month, and that it would command from 2 to 4 dollars per ton more than any other iron imported into California.

That was in 1S68, and the iron came from the Fitzroy mine. Afterwards the industry was developed in Lithgow. The honorable and learned member for Illawarra stated that there were large deposits of iron in many parts of New South Wales awaiting development. The report of Mr. Jacquet sets that matter at rest at once. I. was impelled to despatch this gentleman to make a thorough investigation of the iron deposits of New South Wales, because statements were constantly being made about mountains of iron in different parts of that State. The result of his investigation has been to show that in many cases where mountains of iron were alleged to exist, the deposits were merely pockets of ore. Where iron ores did exist in large quantities, the3’ contained some deleterious substance which prevented them from being worked commercially. That remark is applicable to the large deposits which exist at Port Macquarie, to the North of Newcastle.

Mr Ewing:

– And at Mittagong and Lithgow.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– I beg the honorable member’s pardon. I will read what Mr. Jacquet says in reference to Lithgow iron. That gentleman states -

The oxidized ore is of excellent quality, and on account of the low percentage of phosphorus could be used for steel manufacture in the cheaper acid processes. The unoxidized ore contains objectionable quantities of both sulphur and copper. The presence of these elements will certainly depreciate the ore in value, but need not necessarily preclude it from being used in the manufacture of steel, more particularly if it be smelted with ores from Carcoar and other localities.

Mr Ewing:

– How much ore is avail able?

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– At Cadia alone, near Canobolas, there are 36,000,000 tons in sight, whilst at the Iron Duke mine there are 3,000,000 tons. According to Mr. Jacquet, the treatment of this ore presents no chemical difficulties, and good, serviceable iron can be manufactured from it. Concerning the economic value of the Mittagong deposits, about which much has been said, the same officer reports -

I regret being obliged to comment unfavorably upon them. Much of the ore is of excellent quality, but in no place does it occur in sufficient quantity to warrant the erection of a modern ironworks. Even in the aggregate, I do not estimate the deposits as containing more than 1,500,000 tons.

Speaking of the Northern deposit, he says -

The ores, upon the whole, do not contain a very high percentage of iron, the silica and phosphorus contents are excessive, and the cost of exploiting such narrow erratic beds would be, relatively speaking, high. So, apart altogether from any other consideration, I am unable to speak favorably of the deposits.

From this report it is clear that the only payable deposits known to exist in New South Wales occur in the Western district, in the vicinity of Orange, where I humbly hope the Federal capital will be ultimately located. Of course it is well known that, throughout Australia, there are deposits of exceedingly good quality. Speaking of the Cloncurry district in Queensland, Mr. Jack, the late Government Geologist of that State, than whom there is no better authority, says -

The most striking features of the country are mountains of pure specular and magnetic iron ore. One of those - Mount Leviathan - is about 200 feet high, and a quarter of a mile in diameter at its base. It is singular to reflect that these deposits, which, if they were located in England, would be colossal fortunes for their owners, are at present absolutely valueless, owing to their geographical position.

– Are the wages highest in protectionist countries ?

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr Thomson:

– The Minister is not asking for enough, according to his own argument.

Mr KINGSTON:

– We desire to have the iron industry established here, and if we can produce iron at a less cost than is estimated by Mr. Jacquet it will be so much the better for us. It is amusing to hear honorable members quoting Mr. Jacquet as an authority at one time, and discounting his statements at another. His report is a very valuable one, especially with regard to the geological features of our mineral deposits. Perhaps it does not possess the same value with regard to matters upon which Mr. Jacquet does not speak with authority, but from research amongst authorities. The report, however, is that of a man of high intelligence, who has exercised due care in the collection of his information, and has reported the results as they appeared to him. Some honorable members seem to object to the scantiness of the Bill, but its appearance does not convey any idea of the amount of trouble involved in its preparation. We have proceeded to a very great extent on Canadian lines, and the Canadian Act of 1894 - of course, there have been others - is a very short and simple document. The Canadian regulations also are very simple. They provide for certain proof of compliance with the provisions of the Act with regard to the earning of the bonuses. Honorable members will not desire unnecessary provisions to be introduced into the Bill, but we shall be happy to afford the fullest opportunities for bringing forward any suggestions, and will cheerfully adopt any alterations which will have the effect of improving the measure. With regard to the suggestion of the honorable and learned member for Northern Melbourne that the regulations should prescribe the hours of labour and the wages of the workmen employed in the proposed iron works, we know that there is already some provision on the subject. We hope that conciliation and arbitration boards may do a great deal in that direction. We believe that manufactures should not be conducted in the interests of the manufacturers only, but that they should confer benefits upon the vast number of workers engaged in them. We shall discuss the suggestion of the . honorable and learned member for Northern Melbourne from that stand-point, and if we cannot conceive of any better way of dealing with the matter, we shall adopt it. Honorable members will find that, as regards the form of the Bill and the nature of the regulations, we shall be disposed to meet their wishes as fully as possible. Now, what has been established by this debate? It has been shown beyond the shadow of a doubt that it is highly desirable that iron works should be established within the Commonwealth, and that, equally in view of the figures I have quoted as to the cost of production, it is necessary to afford encouragement and assistance to them. The iron industry is valuable, not only in itself, but on account of its relation to other industries, and its establishment would be a good thing for the manufacturers and their employes, and also the manufacturers and employes in various other incidental industries, and the Commonwealth generally. There is no room for doubt that in Australia we have abundant deposits of iron and flux of the necessary quality, so that if we can overcome the difficulty presented by outside competition, there is a fair promise of the enterprise being successfully established. It has been urged that we do not possess very much information upon this subject. I venture to consider that we have all the information which it is possible to gather in connexion with such a matter. There are two ways, I take it, in which the iron industry can be assisted, namely, by the imposition of a protective duty, or by the payment of a bonus. We do not propose to levy a protective duty at the present moment, because we think that, owing to the production of iron in Australia being short of Commonwealth requirements such a course would result in its price being unduly raised to chose who have occasion to use it. Our idea is that at the outset no duty should be imposed, but that we should simply hold out a promise of reward upon the successful establishment of the industry, limiting the amount, and also the time during which such reward is to operate. Moreover, power is given to both Houses to call into existence a protective duty of 10 percent, for the maintenance of the enterprise when, in their opinion, it shall have been successfully established. The very smallness of the duty, and the fact of it being imposed only after the industry has become established, should banish the fear of results which might otherwise attend the initial stages if we attempted encouragement by imposing a duty before there was a sufficient local production. In this connexion we can only point to the teachings of history. I do not intend to deal with the various instances ‘which have been stated by honorable members at different times. Much of what I might have ha’d to say upon certain figures for the purpose of removing any misconception has been rendered unnecessary by the explanation of the honorable and learned member for Illawarra. Of course, a difference between dollars and tons or pounds is of very grave consequence, although the mistake into which the honorable and learned member fell is very excusable. It is not necessary for me to analyze his figures, which made it appear that the Canadian local production was a very small matter compared with the total consumption of that country. That is not the case, but entirely the reverse. The simple facts are that between 18S3, when no bonus was operative, and 1900 the manufacture of iron from Canadian ore increased from 29,000 tons to 34,000 tons. Of almost equal importance was the increase of iron manufactured in Canada from ore brought from Newfoundland. In 1883 there was no iron manufactured from Newfoundland ore, but in 1900 the quantity so produced represented 67,000 tons. There has been a total increase from 1SS3 to 1900 of about 72,000 tons annually in the iron manufactured in Canada. I ask honorable members what an increase of that sort means? Let us look at the matter from the point of view of whether Canada has become more self-supporting in regard to her total iron manufactures. What are the figures?

– Without in the slightest degree reflecting on the high judicial ability and impartiality of the State courts, I am inclined to think, in view of the relations between the States and the Commonwealth, that it would be just as well to have a tribunal of our own of the highest character, not attached to any particular State, but a High Court of Australia, which would be the guardian of the interests of the States and of the Commonwealth. It would be a pity to delay constituting that court, because, as soon as possible, we require interpretations which are fair and full, turning neither to the right nor to the left, and such as can be expected only from a court able to give its whole time and attention to the consideration of federal laws. As to our position with regard to taking up the business of Government iron manufacturers, honorable members will agree with me that we cannot expect to obtain much information from a committee. If honorable members will only give a hint as to what further information they require, and it is possible to obtain it, I shall be only be too glad to comply with their request ; but we cannot get the definition we desire until we have a competent court constituted. If it is proposed to inquire as to the effect of the Bill on the States, there is not a shadow of doubt that every provision is made for the enjoyment by any State of the full benefit of the bonus ; there is nothing to prevent the bonus going to any State which undertakes the industry. The bonus is payable on production, just as under the Customs Act duties are payable on importation. So long as there is no exemption in favour of the States in the Customs Act or the Tariff, so long can we collect duties on goods imported by the States. And with regard to a Bonus Bill, so long as there is no exclusion of the States from its benefits, so long are the States equally entitled with the general public. There is no doubt whatever that some exemption is required to place the States on any other basis than that applicable to the community generally. It has been suggested that the word “ person “ in the clause which declares that there shall be a return laid on the table of the House every year showing the number of persons who havereceived a bonus, shows that the States were not intended to be included. That is not so, seeing that the word “ person “ is used in the sense given in the Interpretation Act, section 22 of which provides - “Person” and “party “shall include a body politic or corporate as well as an individual.

– I arn not prepared to enter into any comparisons, but I contend that it will be much better, anyway in the first instance, to limit the operation of the bounty to iron made from Australian ore, and, from all I hear, I am very sanguine that there will be no occasion for us to go outside. Tasmania may be considered as occupying the same geographical relation to the Australian continent that Newfoundland occupies in regard to the Canadian federation, and inquiries made by competent men establish the fact that in Tasmania there are magnificent deposits of ore of the very best quality. Therefore, I think it would be a great mistake for us to provide for the introduction of foreign ores, to the possible discouragement of Tasmanian mining operations. Let us try, in the first instance, to avoid the in? traduction of foreign ores. From all I have heard regarding the Blyth River iron deposits, they are possibly unequalled for quality and quantity in any other part of the world. A question has been raised as to whether we should have the power to impose duties upon imports belonging to States Governments. I do not propose to dwell upon that point. I believe that we have the power, and I am supported in this belief by the provisions of the Canadian Constitution. Section 1 25 of the Canadian Act provides that no land or property belonging to the Dominion Government or to the government of any province shall be liable to taxation. This almost corresponds with the provision in our own Constitution, which declares that the States shall not impose taxation upon property of any kind belonging to the Commonwealth, and that the Commonwealth shall not impose taxation upon property of any kind belonging to the States. It is held that the provision in the Canadian Constitution does not prevent the imposition of duties on imports, and the wording of the Dominion Constitution is so very similar to our own that a corresponding interpretation would be probably given in our case. However, this is one of the questions which can be determined only by the High Court. It is only fair to point out in this connexion that, duty or no duty, so long as the bookkeeping system prevails it will not matter very much to any State Government whether or not it pays duty upon its imports. It might be important so far as departmental bookkeeping is concerned, but not as it affects the final result in hard cash, because every penny of duty collected is paid back to the States after deducting a lump sum to defray expenses which are properly debited to the States. The matter will become of more importance after the bookkeeping period has elapsed, but until then it will make very little difference whether we refrain from collecting duties on State goods, or collect them and pay them back to the States. Some people have, said that the encouragement which we propose to give is too small. My answer to that objection is that it is better for us to be on the safe side as regards the cost of our little venture, rather than that we should be too lavish. It cannot be seriously contended that our proposal is too lavish, particularly after the figures quoted to-night in regard to the expenses of production. I am not disposed to attach very much importance to the estimate given by Mr. Jacquet as the result of the best information he could obtain, but there is no room for doubt that we cannot produce iron so cheaply as they do in America.

– If you give them the trade they will do without the bonus.

Mr.KINGSTON.- In view of the magnitude of the iron and steel enterprises elsewhere they would be running a considerable risk if they set to work without a bonus, and the assurance of a duty afterwards. I was only recently looking at Bradstreet’s Journal, which is recognised as a high authority, and I found it there stated that the net earnings of the American steel trust amount to 111,000,000 dollars per annum. The trust declared in dividends 55,000,000 dollars, equal to £11,000,000, and carried 24,000,000 dollars to reserve account. If we can find in Australia any persons who are willing to compete against such gigantic concerns as the American Steel Trust we should encourage them in every fair way. The terms we offer are in no way exorbitant as against the Commonwealth. I know that, to some extent, our position has already occupied the attention of the Americans. In a matter of this sort I have deemed it right and proper to endeavour to ascertain the probabilities of the successful establishment of the industry, and of course those who are interested in the project have not concealed their light under a bushel. We all know that there are two companies likely to engage in the enterprise - one, the Blyth River Company, of which Mr. Jamieson - who is well known to every one as a man of responsibility, being connected with the Broken Hill mines - is the chairman ; and the Lithgow or Eskbank Company, with which Mr. Sandford is associated. Of course, every word that I have said in reference to Mr. Jamieson will apply equally to Mr. Sandford. These gentlemen inform me that, with the encouragement which the Government propose, they believe they can carry on operations. I have not hesitated to question them plainly upon the subject. I have deemed it my duty to do so. I have their assurance that with the encouragement which this Bill proposes to give, an attempt will be made to establish the iron industry. In this connexion I hold in my hand a letter from Mr. Jamieson, dated 11th June, in which he says -

Referring to some of the speeches made last night in the House of Representatives, doubt seemed to be cast upon the likelihood or possibility of the large sum required to successfully create extensive iron works being found by any company. On behalf of the Blythe River Iron Mines Limited, I can confidentially state that should the proposed Bonus Bill and duties as already passed be made law, a company will be at once formed with sufficient cash capital to erect large works of the most modern character, and that this company is willing to prove its bonafides in any way you may deem most desirable. At the same time I may also state that unless the above-mentioned Bill and Tariff become law, there is no likelihood of any company being formed, as the risk would be too great without such an inducement.

I think that is a simple business letter, which, coming from the source that it does, will carry due weight. Honorable members must also recollect that Mr. Jamieson was connected with proposals which were submitted to the New South Wales Government, and was able, without the slightest difficulty, to give proof of his stability and responsibility by cash deposit, which left no room for doubt upon the subject. I received a similar letter upon the 27th May from Messrs. Sandford and Co. Limited as follows . -

We beg to confirm the following telegrams that passed between us yesterday : - Received - “Have you any further information to convey re bonus on iron.” Replied - “Re your telegram; presume new company formed, as per cable, on understanding that proposed Bonus Bill and iron duties pass into law.” We have no doubt whatever that the new company has been formed on the strength of the proposed Bonus Bill and iron duties ;but, pending the full details, we are unable to give any more information. Mr. Sandford will arrive in Sydney in about three weeks’ time, when the fullest particulars will be available.”

These are business letters from business men who have given considerable attention to this matter, and who have already exhibited a keen interest in, and a practical knowledge of, the industry. The success of this industry depends upon what is our attitude with reference to the enterprises for its establishment. That is a point of the greatest importance at any time, and of supreme importance at this time. What shall we do? Shall we sit idly by and refuse to do anything? Let us look at the golden opportunities of to-day - the opening, as it were, of our federal industrial life. History teaches us that the iron industry - the most important of all industries which can possibly be established - has never been established in any country without the fostering care and interest of the Government, exhibited by fiscal aid. In the very nature of things it is impossible that it should be otherwise. Let honorable members consider the large outlay and the risk that is involved in the undertaking. Here we stand to-day. Shall we do nothing? Can we afford to let an opportunity of this sort slip ? There are but two alternatives, one the imposition of a protective duty, the other the payment of a bonus, so often advocated by free-traders, but when attempted to be put into practical use for the benefit of the community, so frequently sought to be set at naught, sneered at and derided by its previous advocates. We cannot adopt a protective duty at the present moment. It would be too big a price to pay in the early stages of our history. Our product is so small that our local wants would be bound to be dependent to some extent on importation, and when importation is necessary, there is the risk- nay, under existing conditions, the certainty - of an addition to the price. Under the circumstances, there is one course only which is open to us, namely, that which we propose. The Government take no risk. Let private enterprise do that. All. that the manufacturers ask for is encouragement, such as few would have the hardihood to refuse if they appreciated the position as keenly as we do, and recognised the necessities of the case. It is a question of granting a bonus for the production of iron or of doing nothing whatever, and, believing that it is of supreme importance that we should do what we can to encourage and establish an industry which will be of permanent benefit to the community, we ask honorable members not to be led away by any specious plea for further inquiry, but to vote for the Bill, and thus place on record their determination to do what theycan for the welfare of the Commonwealth.

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

Ayes … … … 20

Noes … … … 20

Mr SPEAKER:

– As there will be an immediate opportunity for taking another vote, I vote with the “ Ayes.”

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Amendment negatived.

Question - That the Bill be now read a second time - put. The House divided -

Ayes … … … 24

Noes … … … 18

Majority … … 6

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee :

Clause 1. - This Act may be cited as the “Manufacturers Encouragement Act 1902.”

Mr McDONALD:

– The real vote was on the amendment moved by the honorable member for Bland.

– I did not adopt Mr. Jacquet’s figures. ,

Mr WATSON:

– The whole trend of the right honorable gentleman’s argument was that the honorable member for Parramatta was not justified in criticising those figures as he did, and that they showed a need for a bonus. If his figures are correct, and he offered a bonus of 50 per cent., he might get some one to take the matter up ; but, with a certain loss of 30 per cent, on every ton of iron put upon the market,

I do not see that that is possible. We may be able to amend the Bill so as to make it fairly satisfactory, but I am rather doubtful upon that point, and the measure should not be proceeded with for the present.

Mr. BATCHELOR (South Australia).I think the Government will see the reasonableness of acceding to the- proposal of the honorable member for North Sydney. The Minister has succeeded in carrying the second reading of the Bill upon the casting vote of the Speaker, and he should be satisfied with what he has achieved until some decision is arrived at regarding the provisions of Division VIa. in the Tariff. If those provisions are not agreed to, we may find that we have been wasting time in considering this matter. We might more profitably devote our attention to considering the financial necessities of the Commonwealth, or in discussing the Electoral Bill. In view of the opinions which have been expressed by a majority of honorable members, I do not think the Minister is treating the committee fairly in insisting upon proceeding with the Bill further at present. I am sure that the position of the Ministry ^ will not be strengthened either in- this Chamber, or in the eyes of the community, if they remain obdurate. There is no reason why we should consider this Bill in opposition to the wishes of a majority of honorable members simply because it happens that a syndicate is ready to start operations upon terms’ such as those now proposed.

Mr WILKS:
Dalley

Mr HUGHES:
West Sydney

– I ask any reasonable man how much progress we can expect to make with this Bill to-night? Presumably, if we get on well now, we shall have another “go” to-morrow morning; and, if we do not get on well, the Bill will be thrown under the table.

Mr Kingston:

– No, no.

Mr Deakin:

– We have to deal with Supply to-morrow.

Mr HUGHES:

– Then it appears that if we get on well to-night, we may deal with Supply to-morrow, and then resume the consideration of this Bill. It is not fair to make such a request to an Opposition which would have been where the Government now are had it not been for an unkind stroke from a non-combatant - from one of the ambulance corps, so to speak. The Government ought to help honorable members and the country by getting on with the Electoral Bill, and allow us to go home. It is unreasonable, in the absence of 35 members, to ask honorable members to deal with a Bill of this nature, especially as we know very well that when it reaches another place, there will be found against it a majority which will send it flying. In the whole history of bonus Bills, nothing more extraordinary has been introduced, and to allow it to leave this Chamber in its present form would be a reflection on the intelligence of honorable members.

Motion negatived.

Mr. THOMSON (North Sydney).- According to Division VIa. in the Tariff Bill, a proclamation is to issue when it is certified by the Minister that the manufacture has been sufficiently established in the Commonwealth “ according to the provisions of any law relating to bonuses.” I should say that that means the insertion in the Bill of some provisions to indicate what will be considered a sufficient establishment of the industry. I should like an expression of opinion from the Minister as to whether he deems the Bill as it stands sufficient to meet the conditions laid down in Division VIa. of the Tariff.

Mr KINGSTON:

– I think the provisions in the Bill are quite sufficient ; in fact, I do not entertain any doubt on the point. If necessary, any further provisions could be inserted in the regulations, or in some portion of the Bill.

Mr. FOWLER (Perth).- I suggest to the Government that a more correct title would be the “Manufactures Discouragement Act,” in view of the fact that if the price of iron is to be anything like that which the Minister anticipates, the measure will prove one of the greatest discouragements imaginable to the manufacturers who have to use the raw material.

Mr. HUGHES (West Sydney).- I regard “Manufactures Encouragement Act” as a very inappropriate short title. The Bill is ill-adapted to encourage manufactures, though well adapted for the encouragement of monopolies. The Bill is certainly not calculated to encourage manufactures, and I intend to test the opinion of the committee upon the question whether it should not be labelled with its true title, as a Bill to encourage a direct monopoly. We on this side wish to establish the iron industry as a monopoly under the control of either the States or the Commonwealth ; and, although the Minister told us that he had in South Australia supported State enterprise, and found it good, we must judge him, not by what he says, but by what he does. We find that he has on this occasion deliberately turned his back upon the establishment of the iron industry as a State or Commonwealth monopoly. And a monopoly it must be in any case. It is practically impossible unless they can get completecontrol of the Australian market to get any body of men to embark as much money in this enterprise as will lead to the production of a sufficiently large quantity of iron or steel to entitle them to receive the promised bonus. There is not room in. Australia for two enterprises of the kind. We must always have a large volume of imports, and as the keen competition of older countries is continually increasing the productivity of their machinery and work-shops, those imports will be cheaper than our own productions. Thus, even without a competitor in Australia, any company starting here will have all it can do to stand against foreign manufacturers. The honorable member for Melbourne Ports must support my proposal, because he wishes to give the Commonwealth power to resume these works if they pay. But I have shown that they can pay only under one set of circumstances - if they are a monopoly. Therefore, with that native consistency which marks all the representatives of this State, he will have to cast his vote with those on this side of the Chamber. It will be a change for him, but it will teach the Government the frailty of human support. If lam asked by my constituents - “Did you vote against a Bill for the encouragement of manufactures VI wish to be able to answer - “ No ; but I voted against a Bill to encourage monopolies.” Therefore, that the true title of the Bill may be set out on its face, so that all may read it, I move -

That the word “ manufactures “ be omitted, with a view to the insertion of the word “ monopolies.”

The CHAIRMAN:

– I cannot accept the amendment, because both the GovernorGeneral’s message and the order of leave provide for the introduction of a Bill relating to bonuses -for the encouragement of manufactures, and contain no mention of monopolies.

Mr. BATCHELOR (South Australia).No doubt the ruling of the Chairman is the right one; but I suggest - with no intention of stone- walling - that, in order that honorable members may not have cast upon them the obloquy of voting against a Bill to give encouragement to manufactures, we should adopt a title which will set forth its real effect. It is not a measure to encourage manufactures generally ; it is a Bill having for its object the offering of inducements for the establishment of a certain industry. To some extent it isa Bill to discourage manufactures, inasmuch as it holds out to investors the inducement to hang back until they can obtain from the Government bonuses for the establishment of their enterprises. I therefore move -

That the word “encouragement” be omitted, with a view to insert in lieu thereof the word “ bonus.” 3S t 2

Mr. WILKS (Dalley).- I am actuated by motives similar to those which actuated the last speaker. Now that the Minister has determined to proceed with the Bill, I desire to assist him. It is a remarkable thing, however, that the two last speakers, who are well known and trusted representatives of labour, both consider the Bill, not a measure for the encouragement of manufactures, but a measure for the encouragement of monopolies. In point of fact it cannot becalled a “ Manufactures EncouragementBill,” because its effect will undoubtedly be to cause all intending manufacturers to hang back until they can obtain bonuses. Noticehas already been given of amendments forapplying the provisions of the Bill to otherindustries besides the iron industry. For the Minister to expect to establish the iron industry by the offer of a bonus of £250,000, which is to be doled out over a period of five years, is absurd. Do honorable gentlemen know the extent of the iron industry in America ? According to Bothwell, the total production of pig-iron there in 1900 was 14,000,000 tons, and of steel 10,250,000 tons; while the capital invested in the industry amounts to £2,000,000,000. The Age, in an issue of the 11th June, 1891, speaking upon the bonus system, says -

The object of protection is to protect the native producer in the home market, and not to give him an advantage abroad. All attempts to give him this advantage have failed, because it is found that in practice the bonus is appropriated, by the exporter or his agent, and never reaches the actual producer at all. This is, perhaps, why the bonus system is so much approved by the foreign trade party, and disliked by protectionists.

I shall support the amendment, because I consider that the Bill is wrongly named, and that it is really a measure to make a free gift on behalf of the Commonwealth to mere speculators.

Mr. HUGHES (West Sydney).- I am sorry that I did not quite catch the Chairman’s ruling that my amendment was out of order. The best thing I can do now is to support the amendment proposed by the honorable member for South Australia, Mr. Batchelor. I wish to explain why his, amendment is not only in order, but is admirably descriptive of the object of the measure. This is a Bill to give bonuses to manufacturers. If it is not intended to give bonuses to manufacturers, to whom are the bonuses to be paid? If A were a manufacturer, it would not be proposed under this Bill to pay a bonus to B because he happened to be a half-brother, or uncle, or some other relative of A’s. Myamendmentexpressed ina few blunt words what I thought to be the objectof themeasure, and although theChairman was doubtless right within the narrow limits of parliamentary practice, the truth will prevail outside, and the world will know what the real object of the Bill is. I do not see why the Government should oppose the amendment of the honorable member for South Australia, Mr. Batchelor, which is a very proper one.

Mr. McDONALD (Kennedy ).- The exact object of this measure should be expressed in its title. The title which now appears in the Bill was framed in order to lead people outside to believe that the Government were making every effort to encourage various forms of industry, but if an industry does not prove successful, it will receive no encouragement whatever under the provisions of the Bill. I think the amendment proposed by the honorable member for South Australia is a good one. If the Bill is passed in its present form it must create a monopoly. We are told that one large company has been formed, with a capital of £700,000, to carry on the iron industry, and it cannot be seriously contended that any other company is likely to enter the field. It would be better for the whole community if any profits derived from carrying on the industry were appropriated for the benefit of the community as a whole, instead of being passed into the pockets of a few individuals. Does the Minister for Trade and Customs expect that a bonus of £250,000 will afford local manufacturers sufficient protection against the huge steel trust in America, which has a capital of £260,000,000? The competition of such a combination is not to be “ snuffed out “ by means of a paltry £250,000. The only way in which we can successfully maintain the iron industry within the Commonwealth is by making it a State monopoly.

Mr Salmon:

– How would the honorable member overcome outside competition ?

Mr McDONALD:

– If the iron industry werea State monopoly, I should be prepared to support measures which would have the effect of excluding all iron manufactures from foreign countries, which would come into competition with our own products. I should be sufficiently a protectionist , to adopt that course. The amendment, should be agreed to, so that people outside may have a proper idea of the scope and purpose of the Bill. It is undesirable that we should proceed with a detailed discussion of the provisions of the measure at present. Several honorable members desire to propose amendments, and these should be printed and circulated, so that we may have an opportunity of considering them.

Mr. FOWLER (Perth).- The present title of the Bill is far too general to indicate exactly what is intended. If this measure should prove successful, I have no doubt that the Government will propose to offer bonuses for the encouragement of other industries, and in that event, they will have some difficulty in fixing upon a title for any new measure. Would they call it - “ Manufactures Encouragement Bill, No. 21” The title of the Bill should specifically state the form of encouragement that is to be given and the industries to which it is to be extended - iron and zinc. Other manufacturers will then know exactly where they are, and may possibly be encouraged to apply to the Government for a proportionate share of the taxation imposed upon this unfortunate community.

Mr. BATCHELOR (South Australia).Does the Minister agree to change the title of the measure to that of “ The Manufactures Bonus Act “ ‘?

Mr Kingston:

– I do not think so.

Mr BATCHELOR:

– I do not wish to have such a bumptious title as the present one, which suggests a sort of spreadeagleism to which the Minister is not usually addicted. The existing title is absurd and inaccurate. It would be very much better to call the measure “The Manufactures Bonus Act.”

Question - That the word “Encouragement “ proposed to be omitted stand part of the clause - put. The committee divided

Ayes … … … 22

Noes……… 16

Majority .. …. … 6

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 2 -

This Act shall commence on the1stday of July, one thousand nine hundred and two.

Mr. BATCHELOR (South Australia).I move -

That the word ‘ ‘ two “ be omitted with a view to insert in lieu thereof the word “ four.”

I hold that there is no urgency in connexion with this Bill. Certainly it cannot become operative on 1st J uly of the present year, because the other branch of the Legislature will, not have a chance of dealing with it until after that date. One advantage to be derived from deferring the date upon which the measure shall come into force is that an opportunity will thus be given to the people to express their opinions upon it at the next general elections. But there is another reasonwhy the period prescribed in the clause should be extended. The Minister for Trade and Customs has assured us that it is intended that the States shall have an opportunity of participating in the benefits conferred by this Bill if they choose to undertake the nationalization of the iron industry. But honorable members will recognise that it is quite impossible for any State to be prepared to embark upon such an enterprise by the 1st July next. Obviously if the Bill is to come into operation immediately, the syndicate which has a capital of £750,000 ready to plank down will be able to commence operations immediately. None of the States will be in that happy position, and if they subsequently desire to engage in the industry they will be compelled to purchase, at the public expense, works which have been built up with the money of the taxpayers. I am desirous of giving the States a chance to engage in this work.

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– What about the Iron Knob? Is not that in South Australia?

Mr BATCHELOR:

-Yes ; and that State could do very well just now with an expenditure of £250,000. If South Australia possesses suitable iron deposits in sufficient quantity to warrant her in embarking upon an enterprise towards the development of which the Federal Government is prepared to spend £250,000, its State Parliament might seriously consider whether it is not good enough to attempt to establish a national industry there. I do not think it is particularly likely South Australia would enter upon this manufacture as a State industry; but, although the capital required has been variously estimated at from £500,000 to £750,000, and we may place it safely at £600,000, the offer of £250,000 in the shapeof a bonus spread over five years might form a strong inducement. [Committee counted.] I contend that there is no urgency for this Bill. Why should we be in a hurry to hand over a quarter of a million of Commonwealth funds at a time when money is badly needed by the States ? As to South Australia, I know that that State cannot afford £5,000 a year for five years just now. If the whole people of one of the States, or the whole people of the Commonwealth were to benefit, all would gladly pay their share ; but this bonus will go to some syndicate or company, and as, in the usual course, the shares get into one or two hands, we may create an Australian Carnegie.

Mr Kingston:

– I hope he will spend his money as liberally as the present Carnegie.

Mr BATCHELOR:

– Notwithstanding the undoubted liberality of Andrew Carnegie, it would have been a great deal better if the working men who created his wealth had participated to a much larger extent in its benefits.

Mr.Watson. - Andrew Carnegie did not become liberal until after the great Pittsburg strike against sweating wages.

Mr BATCHELOR:

– The strike at Pittsburg is said to have been one of the most heartrending on record. Armed men were lying on opposite banks of the river prepared to shoot each other, so bitter did they feel in regard to the introduction of men from all parts of the world in order to reduce the rate of wages. [Committee counted.] I am very much afraid the bonus proposed may lead to a condition of things similar to that which exists in America, seeing that we are going to give a monopoly which will soon be absorbed by a very small number of individuals. There is a strong desire, which is shared by the Minister, that this iron industry should be a State enterprise, and, if that be so, it is necessary that the States should have the opportunity which would be afforded by an extended time.

Mr KINGSTON:
Protectionist

– We desire the Bill to come into operation as soon as possible, but at the same time there is no desire to play into the hands of any particular persons. A number of honorable members are strongly in favour of the States having some opportunity to earn the bonus, and we should be delighted if that could be brought about. On the other hand, there must be a limit, and as different terms would be applicable to different cases, the best plan would be to add to the schedule a column showing when the bonus in regard to each particular class shall commence and terminate. I am willing to provide that the provisions of the Bill generally shall come into operation on the 30th September next, and to amend the schedule in the way I have suggested, which will enable us to deal with each class of manufactures in the most effective way.

Mr WATSON:
Bland

– The Minister has hardly met the point. The right honorable gentleman professes sympathy with States who desire to enter upon this industry, but he suggests that the time at which the measure shall commence to operate shall be extended only to 30th September.

Mr Kingston:

– No; I propose that as regards the general provisions of the Bill the date shall be the 30th September, but that there shall be a special column in the schedule showing when the bonus commences in each industry.

Mr WATSON:

– A few weeks ago, when we were discussing the Tariff, the Minister for Trade and Customs and the Treasurer made most pathetic appeals on behalf of the smaller States. The Minister told us then that every effort must be made to help South Australia by imposing a duty upon tea, and by increasing the taxation in other ways. Now, however, he wants us to increase the expenditure of the States, and thus make it stillmore difficult for some of them to meet their engagements. If the amendment were adopted, it would be of advantage to the smaller States in postponing the time when they will be called upon to make this contribution. Furthermore, if the States are to undertake the enterprise, the matter must be considered, first by the various State Cabinets, and then by the States Parliaments, and if any of the States finally decide to undertake the work, still further time will be occupied in making preparations for the carrying on of the industry. Therefore, it is unlikely that any of the States Governments can enter upon this enterprise before 1904, and it is important that they should not in the meantime be forestalled by companies which have pre-empted two or three of the most likely lodes of iron ore within the Commonwealth. If the figures . given by the Minister in regard to the cost of producing iron are correct, it seems to me that those whom the Bill will most benefit will simply use it to obtain profits by floating a large company. In view of all these circumstances, I do not think the Bill should come into operation earlier than the date suggested by the honorable member for South Australia, Mr. Batchelor.

Mr WILKS:
Dalley

– I wish to add to the reasons already given in favour of the amendment, the fact that no reference was made to the Bill, either in the enunciation of the policy of the Government at Maitland, or in the Governor-General’s speech. It is only fair, therefore, that before it is carried into law the people should have an opportunity to express their opinion upon it, and they will have an opportunity to do so at the next general election if its provisions do not come into force in 1902. Furthermore, by that time we may well expect the drought to be over, though I do not know that our circumstances will really be any better, because I hear upon all sides that the operation of the Tariff is making things worse and worse.

Motion (by Mr. Kingston) proposed -

That the Chairman do now leave the chair, report progress, and ask leave to sit again.

Mr CROUCH:
Corio

– In view of the small amount of progress which we have made to-night, I think it would be just as well to make 1904 the date upon which the Bill is to come into operation. We have had this evening a repetition of the scenes which occurred during the all-night sittings. Honorable members have had to witness tonight a most disgraceful and outrageous exhibition of stonewalling by some of the Opposition members.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The honorable and learned member must withdraw that expression.

Mr CROUCH:

-I withdraw it. When next certain members from Sydney ask the House to convenience them, I should like them to remember how shockingly time has been wasted to-nightt hree hours have been spent over mere trifles.

Mr. BATCHELOR (South Australia).As I have moved the only amendments which have been dealt with to-night, I take the honorable and learned member’s remarks as a reflection upon my conduct. I am not in the habit of wasting time, and I shall not permit any one to accuse me of doing so without replying to the accusation. I am opposed to this measure, and I intend to bring its provisions as nearly into conformity with my views as I can. For the honorable and - politically speaking, at any rate - somewhat youthful member for Corio to characterize my action, and that of other honorable members, as a deliberate waste of time is impertinent.

Mr Crouch:

– I would have the honorable member called to order if I thought his remarksworthy of notice.

Mr BATCHELOR:

– I am sure that my constituents will indorse my action to-night in trying to make the provisions of the Bill harmonize with what I believe to be the opinions of the public.

Mr HUGHES:
West Sydney

– I was astonished to hear the honorable and learned member for Corio speak in the manner he did. I do not take up much of the time of the committee, but I shall endeavour to follow the admirable precept laid down by the honorable member for South Australia, and exercise the inalienable right which every honorable member possesses to mould a particular measure, so that it may as far as possible accord with his own views. The party to which I belong can never be accused of departing from its principles. We believe in a certain line of policy, and we shall as far as may be practicable, carry it into effect in connexion with this and other measures.

Mr. WILKS (Dalley). - If the remarks of the honorable and learned member for Corio are intended to convey to the public that our proceedings are not quite what they should be, let me remind him that if it had not been for the members of the Opposition, the Bill would have been lost. The disgraceful and foolish conduct to which he has referred has practically saved the Bill, because if it had not been for the presence of honorable members on this side of the Chamber, the committee would have been counted out.

Mr McDONALD:
Kennedy

– The remarks mode by the honorable and learned member for Corio come with very bad grace from him, and I desire to enter my protest against them. If honorable members on this side of the Chamber had desired to do so, they could have counted out the committee. The Bill has been practically saved by honorable members who are most constant in their attendance here, and particularly by those who have fallen under the accusation made by the honorable and learned member. No doubt, he is very anxious to have the Bill passed, because I understand that there are one or two enterprises in his electorate that are likely to be benefited by its provisions. At the same time, the honorable and learned member cannot claim that he has assisted the committee in any way.

Mr THOMSON:
North Sydney

– In view of the fact that the supporters and opponents of the Bill were so evenly balanced, it was the clear duty of the Government to keep a strong House in order to help them to carry the measure through. If it had not been, however, for forbearance on the part of the Opposition, the Government would not have been able to maintain a quorum. Therefore, the honorable and learned member for Corio had no right to cast any aspersions upon honorable members on this side of the Chamber.

Mr KINGSTON:

– No one can complain of the way in which the acting leader of the Opposition has conducted the business, but there have been episodes suggestive of a little restiveness on the part of his party, of which I am sure he would have difficulty in approving. We may now, however, very well allow the matter to pass, and go to our homes.

Motion agreed to ; progress reported.

House adjourned at 10.38 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 12 June 1902, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1902/19020612_reps_1_10/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant

House of Representatives12 June 1902

QUESTION

UNIVERSAL PENNY POSTAGE

Mr CROUCH:CORIO, VICTORIA

Mr DEAKIN:Attorney-General · BALLAARAT, VICTORIA · Protectionist

SUSPENSION OF FODDER DUTIES

Mr FULLER:ILLAWARRA, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr DEAKIN:Protectionist

Mr JOSEPH COOK:PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr DEAKIN:

Mr JOSEPH COOK:PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

COMMONWEALTH FRANCHISE BILL

QUESTION

TENDERS FOR MILITARY SUPPLIES

Mr POYNTON:SOUTH AUSTRALIA, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:Minister for Home Affairs · HUME, NEW SOUTH WALES · Protectionist

Mr POYNTON:

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:

QUESTION

FEDERAL PRINTING

Sir JOHN QUICK:BENDIGO, VICTORIA

Mr DEAKIN:Protectionist

BONUSES FOR MANUFACTURES BILL

Second Reading

Mr FULLER:Illawarra

Mr Kingston:

Mr FULLER:

Mr Kennedy:

Mr FULLER:

Mr A McLEAN:GIPPSLAND, VICTORIA · PROT

Mr FULLER:

Mr Salmon:

Mr FULLER:

Mr A McLEAN:GIPPSLAND, VICTORIA · PROT

Mr FULLER:

Mr Kennedy:

Mr FULLER:

Sir William Lyne:

Mr FULLER:

Sir William Lyne:

Mr FULLER:

Mr V L SOLOMON:SOUTH AUSTRALIA, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · FT

Sir William Lyne:

Mr V L SOLOMON:SOUTH AUSTRALIA, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · FT

Sir William Lyne:

Mr V L SOLOMON:SOUTH AUSTRALIA, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · FT

Mr Mauger:

Mr V L SOLOMON:SOUTH AUSTRALIA, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · FT

Mr Batchelor:

Mr V L SOLOMON:SOUTH AUSTRALIA, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · FT

Mr JOSEPH COOK:PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr V L SOLOMON:SOUTH AUSTRALIA, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · FT

Mr Kingston:

Mr Batchelor:

Mr V L SOLOMON:SOUTH AUSTRALIA, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · FT

Mr Watson:

Mr SPEAKER:

Mr V L SOLOMON:SOUTH AUSTRALIA, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · FT

Mr SPEAKER:

Mr V L SOLOMON:SOUTH AUSTRALIA, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · FT

Mr SPEAKER:

Mr V L SOLOMON:SOUTH AUSTRALIA, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · FT

Mr SPEAKER:

Mr V L SOLOMON:SOUTH AUSTRALIA, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · FT

Mr JOSEPH COOK:PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr V L SOLOMON:SOUTH AUSTRALIA, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · FT

Mr SPEAKER:

Mr V L SOLOMON:SOUTH AUSTRALIA, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · FT

Mr Batchelor:

Mr V L SOLOMON:SOUTH AUSTRALIA, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · FT

Sir George Turner:

Mr V L SOLOMON:SOUTH AUSTRALIA, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · FT

Mr MAUGER:Melbourne Ports

Mr JOSEPH COOK:PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr MAUGER:

Mr Spence:

Mr MAUGER:

Mr Watson:

Mr MAUGER:

Mr Batchelor:

House of Representatives
12 June 1902

Mr CROUCH:
CORIO, VICTORIA

Mr DEAKIN:
Attorney-General · BALLAARAT, VICTORIA · Protectionist

Mr FULLER:
ILLAWARRA, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr DEAKIN:
Protectionist

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr POYNTON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:
Minister for Home Affairs · HUME, NEW SOUTH WALES · Protectionist

Sir JOHN QUICK:
BENDIGO, VICTORIA

Mr DEAKIN:
Protectionist

Mr FULLER:
Illawarra

Mr A McLEAN:
GIPPSLAND, VICTORIA · PROT

Mr A McLEAN:
GIPPSLAND, VICTORIA · PROT

Mr V L SOLOMON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · FT

Mr V L SOLOMON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · FT

Mr V L SOLOMON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · FT

Mr V L SOLOMON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · FT

Mr V L SOLOMON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · FT

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr V L SOLOMON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · FT

Mr V L SOLOMON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · FT

Mr V L SOLOMON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · FT

Mr V L SOLOMON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · FT

Mr V L SOLOMON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · FT

Mr V L SOLOMON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · FT

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr V L SOLOMON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · FT

Mr V L SOLOMON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · FT

Mr V L SOLOMON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · FT

Mr V L SOLOMON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · FT

Mr MAUGER:
Melbourne Ports

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr KIRWAN:
Kalgoorlie

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr HUME COOK:
BOURKE, VICTORIA · PROT

Mr HUME COOK:
BOURKE, VICTORIA · PROT

Mr HUME COOK:
BOURKE, VICTORIA · PROT

Mr HUME COOK:
BOURKE, VICTORIA · PROT

Mr HUME COOK:
BOURKE, VICTORIA · PROT

Mr HUME COOK:
BOURKE, VICTORIA · PROT

Mr HUME COOK:
BOURKE, VICTORIA · PROT

Mr HUME COOK:
BOURKE, VICTORIA · PROT

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr HUME COOK:
BOURKE, VICTORIA · PROT

Mr HUME COOK:
BOURKE, VICTORIA · PROT

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917