House of Representatives
5 September 1906

2^nd Parliament · 3^rd Session

QUESTION
- PAYMENT OF ACCOUNTS: DEPARTMENT OF DEFENCE
QUESTION
- PRICE OF TIMBER
QUESTION
- IMPERIAL DEFENCE COMMITTEE’S REPORT
QUESTION
- POSTAL OFFICIALS’ OVERTIME
QUESTION
- ROYAL VICTORIAN AGRICULTURAL SHOW
QUESTION
- CASE OF CAPTAIN CROUCH
QUESTION
- PERTH-FREMANTLE CABLES
QUESTION
- HOLIDAYS, POSTAL DEPARTMENT
QUESTION
- METHYLATED SPIRIT
VALUES OF IMPORTS
STRIPPER HARVESTERS
PAPERS
TARIFF
CONSTITUTION ALTERATION (STATES DEBTS) BILL
AUSTRALIAN INDUSTRIES PRESERVATION BILL
ADJOURNMENT
- Order of Business

– Yes. The answers to the honorable member’s questions are these -

The Acting Deputy Postmaster-General, Sydney, has furnished the following information : - “1. Officers of the Postmaster-General’s Department in New South Wales are not compelled to work overtime till 9 p.m. and 10 p.m. doing ‘ special ‘ work, and only receive tea money ; when officers are so engaged on ordinary work, they are allowed tea money.

It is not known here what is the ‘ special ‘ work referred to, or officers concerned ; (a) under the Commonwealth Public Service regulations the . Commissioner may grant payment for overtime which from its character or special circumstances cannot be performed during prescribed hours, but no payment shall be made for overtime to officers employed bringing up arrears of work properly coming within the scope of their ordinary duties; (b) the regulations also prescribe that tea money may be allowed where an officer has been specially directed to attend after ordinary hours, and works for at least two hours after the usual hours, but tea money shall not be allowed when overtime pay is given, and where it is practicable, equivalent time off must be granted in lieu of overtime payment.”

See No. 1 and 2. The instance referred to is not known. I may add that the Acting Deputy Postmaster-General, Sydney, has been informed that tea money and time off may both be given in cases where overtime is not paid.

QUESTION

HOLIDAYS, POSTAL DEPARTMENT

Mr BROWN:
CANOBOLAS, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the PostmasterGeneral, upon notice -

Has it been the practice of his Department to allow its officers certain holidays, and, in cases when it was not convenient to allow officers off duty on those clays, then to permit them to take other time off in lieu thereof, and, if desired, to permit such time off to accumulate and to form an addition to annual leave?
Is it a fact that officers are now being charged the cost of relief for days taken from duty in lieu of holidays worked?
What is the objection to allowing days off in lieu of holidays worked to accumulate and be taken with annual leave, especially in the case of back-country officials?

Mr AUSTIN CHAPMAN:
Protectionist

– The following information has been furnished by the Acting Deputy Postmaster-General, Sydney, in answer to questions 1 and 2 : -

It has always been the practice of the Department in this State for as many officers as possible to be allowed off duty on public holidays. In cases where they are compelled to work on such days, time off in lieu of holiday attendance is permitted. Prior to 1906 officials were allowed to accumulate days in lieu of public holidays worked, and add them to the statutory annual leave.
It is not a fact that officers are being charged with the cost of relief for days in lieu of public holidays ; but some officials who have asked to be allowed to employ casual assistance at their own expense during their absence from duty in lieu of certain holidays worked before the present rules came into force, have had their applications acceded to.

The reply to question 3 is -

The practice now is to require officers to take leave in lieu of holidays during the year when the public requirements and the convenience of the Department permit. To add to the statutory leave days for holidays worked would largely increase the cost of the service, encourage unnecessary work on holidays, and,, where there is a large number of officers, make it difficult, if not impossible, to arrange for relief if an indefinite number of days were added to statutory leave. Officers in remote districts are allowed an extra week’s leave per annum, and can accumulate leave for two, and, in special crises, three years.

page 3966

QUESTION

METHYLATED SPIRIT

Mr PAGE:
MARANOA, QUEENSLAND

asked the Minister of Trade and Customs, upon notice -

On what date did his Department cease to collect Excise duty of 6d. per gallon on methylated spirits?
How many distillers of methylated spirits are there in New South Wales?
Are. the users of methylated spirits receiving any benefit from the removal of the Excise duty?
Is it true that the Colonial Sugar Refining Company are now charging as much for methylated spirits as they were before the duty was removed ?

Mr.DEAKIN. - The answers to the honorable member’s questions are as follow : -

The duty of 6d. per gallon is still being collected pending passing of the Bill.
Spirits are first distilled as spirits, and the methylation subsequently effected. This is done only by one distiller in New South Wales, so far as is known at present.
The Department is not aware that any reduction has been made in the price to the consumer, and such is not likely till the reduction becomes law (but see reply to next question).
The general manager of the company distilling in New South Wales has informed the Department that the price to the consumer will be reduced as soon as the reduction becomes law to the entire extent of the duty taken off.

page 3966

VALUES OF IMPORTS

Motion (by Mr. Kelly) agreed to -

That there be laid upon the table of the House a Return showing -

The values each year for the past three years of each line of imported articles -

From the United Kingdom,

from elsewhere, on which a preference is proposed to be granted to the products of the United Kingdom.

The values each year for the past three years of each line of imported articles -

From the United Kingdom,

from elsewhere, on which no such preference is proposed to be granted.

page 3966

STRIPPER HARVESTERS

Motion (by Mr. Kelly) agreed to -

That there be laid upon the table of the House a Return showing -

The number of stripper harvesters imported -

From Canada (whether via other countries or direct),

from elsewhere, during each of the last two years.

The number of Australian stripper harves ters produced in Australia during each of the last two years.

The number of Australianstripper harvesters exported from Australia during each of the last two years.

The countries to which Australian stripper harvesters have been exported during each of the last two years.

page 3966

PAPERS

Mr. DEAKIN laid upon the table the following paper: -

Provisional Immigration Restriction’ regulation, Statutory Rules 1906, No. 70.

The Clerk laid upon the table:

Return to an order of the House, dated this day, showing the imports, manufactures, and exports of stripper harvesters.

Ordered to be printed.

page 3967

TARIFF

Agricultural Machinery and Implements

In Committee of Ways and Means:

Consideration resumed from 28th August (vide page 3446) on motion by Sir William Lyne -

That in lieu of the duties of Customs imposed by the Customs Tariff 1902 on the items shown in the attached schedule, duties of Customs shall from the 28th day of August, 1906, at 4.30 p.m., Victorian time, be imposed as follows : -

Schedule.

Fixed Rates.

Stripper harvesters, each, ?16.

Strippers, each, ?8.

Metal parts of stripper harvesters and strippers, per lb., 2?d.

Ad Valorem Rates.

Stump jump ploughs; disc cultivators; winnowers, horse and other power ; combined corn sheller, husker, and bagger; combined corn sheller and husker, ad valorem, 25 per cent.

Ploughs, other; plough shares; harrows; chaff cutters and horse gear; cultivators other than disc; scarifiers; plough mould boards; corn shelters; corn huskers, ad valorem, 20 per cent.

The following goods shall be free of Customs duty : -

Manufactures of Metal, viz. : -

Hand-worked rakes and ploughs combined ; hay tedders; maize harvesters; maize binders; maize planters; mould board plates, in the rough, and not cut into shape ; potato sorters ; potato raisers or diggers.

Mr DEAKIN:
Minister of External Affairs · Ballarat · Protectionist

.- I hope to be able within a few minutes to distribute amongst honorable members the information in regard to the importation of stripperharvesters moved for by the honorable member for Wentworth; but, in the meantime, will read a tabulated statement containing figures which had been prepared before notice was given of the intention to move for a return. These figures are as follow : -

– This is probably the proper time at which to repeat to honorable members the conditions which we propose to attach to the imposition of these duties. In the first place -

With regard to stripper harvesters, the Bill will provide that the cash price of the 5 ft. harvester must be reduced by the end of 1906 to £70, and of the 5 ft. 6 in. harvester to £75, with a further reduction by the end of 1907 10 £f>$ and £l° respectively. Failing such reductions, power will be taken to reduce the import duties by Proclamation or Resolution of the House to an amount to be determined by such Proclamation or Resolution not to be less than one-half of the new duties imposed.

These are very extreme reductions indeed, bringing down the price of the local harvester to the value which has been put upon the imported harvesters. This condition should place it beyond all question that the same treatment - and, indeed, if allowance be made for the selling cost, more severe treatment - is being meted out to the Australian manufacturer as to the importer.

Provision will also be made that additional protection shall be suspended if, after one year from the passing of the Act, fair wages are not being paid.

V. McKay. That gentleman gives the following figures relating to the sale of locally-made harvesters: - 1901, 1,500; 1902, 500. Honorable members, will recollect that 1902 was the year in which the great drought occurred, when orders for these machines were cancelled right and left. Mr. McKay asserts that in 1903 there were 2,000 machines of Australian manufacture sold, in 1904 3,500, and in 1905 4,000. These figures evidence a steady, growth in the sale of Australian harvesters, and show that since 1901 the sale of the machines made by Mr. McKay and his compeers in the trade has increased threefold.

The Bill, which I shall not prepare until the motion has been dealt with, will provide that the cash price of 5- feet stripper-harvesters must be reduced by the end of1906 to £70. I wish to emphasize the point that the Tariff Commission recommended that the price should not exceed £81. That, to my mind, would be an outrageous charge.

Mr Lonsdale:

– Then the honorable gentleman does not think that£65 is a fair price for the imported machines ?

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:
Minister for Trade and Customs · HUME, NEW SOUTH WALES · Protectionist

– I have heard that statement so often that it is unnecessary for the honorable member to repeatit.

Mr Lonsdale:

– But the two things do not fit.

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:

– I have no wish to listen again to a tirade of abuse such as that to which I have been subjected. The Bill will also provide that the price of the 5 ft. 6 in. harvester shall be reduced by the end of 1906 to £75.

Mr Robinson:

– They can be bought for £71.

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:

– Exactly. . Whether we agree with these proposals or not, we must bear testimony to the great skill and ingenuity which the gentlemen to whom I have referred have displayed in putting their case before the public. They have never lost an opportunity of reviling their trade competitors, of vilifying them, of stabbing them in the back; and they have drawn a “poor mouth” from the very commencement of the agitation. They have consistently claimed that the industry is languishing when all” the evidence goes to show that the profits which are being made in it are enormous, and that it is a growing and progressive industry. The Minister of Trade and Customs in submitting these resolutions of the 28th August said practically nothing in support of the proposal to levy an increased duty upon harvesters. The additional measure of protection which the “Government wish to extend to the manufacturers of these machines will simply be in the nature of a free ‘gift. I believe that there are industries which require an increased measure of protection if thev are to be preserved. Thai was notably the position of the distilling industry. But I say positively that this particular industry would yield the manufacturers a very big profit if no duty whatever was levied upon harvesters. For these reasons I hope that the Committee will not countenance the resolution, but will restore the old duty of ^5 4s. ?d. per machine, which was levied upon these machines prior to the arbitrary and very extraordinary action which was taken by the Minister of Trade and Customs in increasing their valuation for Customs purposes.

Sir JOHN QUICK:
Bendigo

– In the first place, I desire to compliment the Prime Minister upon the very moderate and business-like manner in which he initiated this discussion. I am sure that the cause will not suffer through being in his hands. It is not my intention to make such a long and elaborate speech as that which was delivered by the honorable and learned member who has just resumed his seat. Everything which fan be urged in favour of the recommendations submitted by the protectionist members of the Tariff Commission are fully set forth in their report, and I certainly could not improve the statement which is there presented by any speech which I might make here. It is naturally my determination and that of my colleagues who signed that report to stand by it, and to defend it in every legitimate manner. I would point out that’ the report in favour of levying an increased duty on harvesters was signed by myself as Chairman of the Commission representing Victoria, by Mr. Frank Clarke representing New South Wales, by Senator Higgs representing Queensland, and by Senator McGregor representing South Australia. We are the four protectionist members of the Commission. I ‘ would point out that our recommendations commenced with the paragraph in which we suggest -

That in trade between- the States and with other countries combines and agreements between importers, manufacturers, and dealers in machinery and implements in restraint of trade, and fixing or regulating selling prices, be declared illegal, and made a criminal offence.

The reason underlying that recommendation is that in the course of our investigations we found that during 1904-5 there was, an agreement signed by the, leading manufacturing firms in Australia, and also by the International Harvester Company and the Massey-Harris Company under which the selling price of harvesters was fixed at £81. The effect of that agreement was to raise the price of harvesters in some cases from £70 to £81, and in one case to lower it from ^85 to £83 or £82. Mr. McKay had the option of selling his machines at a little higher price than the standard fixed by the combine. We found that that agreement was calculated to be prejudicial to the interests of the public, and the recommendation which I ‘ have read was written long before *he initiation of the Australian In dustries Preservation Bill by the Ministry. As honorable members will recollect, I strongly supported a clause in that Bill which makes the establishment, of combines in restraint of trade an illegal act. Our second recommendation was - (#) That the duty on stripper-harvesters be as follows : - .

Stripper-harvester, existing duty to remain unaltered, ad valorem, I24 per cent.

Additional duty per machine, subject to conditions hereinafter provided, ad valorem, 12% per cent.

That was arrived at by a consideration of the protective duty which was levied under the Victorian Tariff at the time of the establishment of the Federation. Speaking upon my own behalf, I say emphatically that I am not prepared to support a higher duty 0than 25 per cent. ad. valorem upon the ^38 machine. This proposed increase of duty was to be accompanied not only by the prohibition of combine agreements, but also by other conditions which read as follows: -

Provided that if, within two years after the passing of the Act, the retail price of stripperharvesters made in Australia has been raised above £81 ; or if, after the expiration of twoyears from the passing of the Act, the retail price of stripper-harvesters made in Australia has not been reduced to £70; or if, after the expiration of one year from the passing of the Act, the manufacturers of stripper-harvesters in Australia are not paying their workmen a fair and reasonable rate of wages, the GovernorGeneral ma)’, upon the receipt of a joint Address fi om the Senate and the House of Representatives, certifying to the foregoing effect, by Proclamation, suspend the collection of such additional duty of 12^ per cent, for such per 1,) 1 as ni iv be deemed advisable.

In the first place there is a condition that there shall be no increase at any time above the price mentioned in the combine agreement, namely, £81

Mr McLean:

– Is that combine still in existence ?

Sir JOHN QUICK:

– No, it was dissolved towards the end of 1905. But I would point out that, under our recommendations, if the manufacturers at any time proposed to increase the price of these machines above ,£81 Parliament: could intervene to prevent it. But in addition to the prohibition against an increase in the price, a distinct condition isimposed that there must be a reduction inthe selling price of these machines withintwo years after the passing of the Act - a reduction from £8.1 to £70. Originally £70 was the price at which someof the lower class machines were sold..

– I assume that Parliament would not agree to continue the collection of the additional duties if it found that fair wages were not being paid to their employe’s by the bulk of the manufacturers. If Parliament, upon inquiry, found that the majority of those engaged in the trade were not being paid a fair and reasonable rate of wage, and that the duty was being pocketed bv the manufacturers, it would pass the joint address to which I have referred. I assume that we should take a common sense view of the matter. I now wish to draw attention to a few. paragraphs in the report, in which the reason underlying the recommendations of the protectionist members of the Commission are summarized. The first reason will be found in paragraph 8 of our conclusions, which reads -

That both the Canadian and American companies have imitated and copied Australian-made stripper-harvesters; thai, in so doing, we cannot find any evidence that they have violated any patent rights.

It is proved conclusively that the stripperharvester was invented in Australia - that it was evolved as the result of experience of, and the expenditure of money by, Australian agriculturists and inventors, and that it was copied by the representatives of American and Canadian manufacturers. We found that, as a matter of fact, these foreign firms did nothing illegal in copying these machines, and that there had been no violation of patent rights; but that, since they had taken this action, the Legislature might be fairly recommended to discriminate in the imposition of Customs duties in favour of the local manufacturers of machines that were invented and brought up-to-date here. The next reason for our recommendation will be found in paragraph 18, which reads as follows : -

That notwithstanding the heavy importing expenses, in addition to the duty which the Massey-Harris and the International Harvester Companies have had to pay in order to place their machines on the Australian market, it is quite evident they have been able to enter the field of Australian competition. That they have competed successfully with the Australian stripperharvester makers, that they are gradually gaining ground, and increasing their hold on the Australian market, are shown by the heavy increase in their imports of stripper-harvesters, which in 1900 were nil, while in 1905 they were 1,730. That the explanation of such successful competition is the more favorable industrial conditions in the United States and Canada than in Australia; that in those countries labour, although in some instances more highly paid, is in reality cheaper, being based upon a system of piece-work, or payment by results -

We then go on to show that the raw materials are also cheaper in Canada and America than they are in Australia. The next reason for our recommendation appears in paragraph 20 -

That we are of opinion that the MasseyHarris and the International Harvester Companies make stripper-harvesters at a cheaper rate than the manufacturers in Australia, and that they are able, notwithstanding the natural protection of distance and shipping charges, as well as the duty, to go on increasing their imports to swamp, and eventually capture, the whole of the Australian trade in stripperharvesters; that such a result would be a great calamity to Australian trade, commerce, and industry, and would in its ultimate consequences be most injurious and disastrous to .farmers, who would thereby be placed at the mercy of foreign organizations for their supplies; that such organizations, after having effaced local factories and industries, would be able to dictate terms and to name their own prices without the health) check of local competition ; that we are, therefore, of opinion that the existing duty of I2, per cent, not having proved sufficient to shut out or limit the growing volume of importer! implements and machinery, it is desirable thai there should be an increase in the present duty : at the same time such increased duty should bf accompanied by safeguards and securities foi the protecting of the interest of farmers as well as for the protection of workmen engaged in the manufacture of implements and machinery in Australia.

The last reason is as follows: -

That we are of opinion that .the result of the proposed increased duty will be to reduce importations and to augment local production and output; that the greater the local production and output the less will be the prime factory cost; that therefore the selling price of stripperharvesters will not necessarily, and certainly ought not to, be raised by local manufacturers by reason of such increased duty. They say they do not hope or desire to take advantage of the increased duty, or to raise the price of the stripper-harvesters to consumers.

– The honorable and learned member could not have been following me. The net cash equivalent at factory of this f.o.b. price of £46 4s. 8d. was £38 13s., or almost the same as the price of the machine sold in Italy. I have given two instances of the way in which the Minister’s estimate was arrived at, whilst another relates to the price at which machines were sold and delivered to Messrs. Clutterbuck and Co., of Adelaide. It was stated that they had bought machines for £40 15s., and that was represented as the value in the country of origin. It transpired, however, that the cash equivalent was only £39 14s. 2d., and that the difference between that amount and the £38 standard represented the profit of the Melbourne agency. Therefore, it appears that in these three cases, in respect of which the Minister had probably been misled by the affidavit made by Mr. S. McKay, the factory value of the machine amounted approximately to £38. The next important piece of evidence submitted to the Commission was a declaration, or statement, made by Mr. F. W. McMichael, chief inspector of the Customs Department, at Ottawa, Canada. An application for a valuation was made to the Canadian* Commissioner of Customs, to whom Mr. McMichael reported in a letter dated 20th October, 1904 -

In respect to the values shown in the invoice attached to the file, viz., 183 dollars, with 2 dollars extra for poles and adjustments, it appears that such values represent the price at which the machines in question are sold at wholesale by the Massey-Harris Company to such countries as require machines of this character, and that this wholesale price has been arrived at on a basis- of similar percentage of advance over factory cost as in the case of other machines manufactured and sold by the Massey-Harris Company to Great Britain and other European countries, South Africa, South America, Manitoba, and the Canadian and Western territories. Upon careful investigation and examination of the books of the Massey-Harris Company, I am satisfied that the invoice price for stripper harvesters, viz., 183 dollars, with 2 dollars extra for poles and adjustments, represents a fair wholesale market value of these machines.

In British coinage, $183 represents £38 2s. 6d. The statement which I have just read seems to supply prima facie evidence that the valuation of harvesters for duty here should not exceed £38 plus 10 per cent., and therefore the members of the Commission are unable to acquiesce in the Minister’s valuation of £65, which is evidently based on inaccurate information. He may be legally justified in what he has done, and may have acted in accordance with his lights. I believe that1 he has invited the -companies affected to take action against the Department with a view to testing the accuracy of his valuation, and that the, High Court or the Supreme Court of Victoria has ordered a commission to be issued directing an examination into the subject in Canada.- It is obvious that unless on cross-examination the information which I have placed before the Committee is upset, the valuation of £38 must be accepted. A duty of 25 per cent, would be equivalent on that valuation to a fixed duty of about £10 a machine. The Tariff Commission say in paragraph 22 of their conclusions that - if the duty be raised from 12^ to 25 per cent. ad valorem on the invoice value of stripper harvesters, then an invoice value of ,£38 odd will yield a duty of £10 gs. 2d. ; but if the present valuation for duty fixed by the Minister of Customs at £65 be sustained, which now yields a duty of £& 28. 6d., this, at 25 per cent., will give £16 5s. per machine.

A fixed duty of £16 per machine is equivalent to an ad valorem duty of 40 per cent, on a valuation of £38, which is practically the Minister’s proposal. I, for my part, decline to follow his lead in this matter. With all respect to him, I say ‘ that the protectionist members of the Tariff Commission whose conclusion I have read have investigated the subject even more closely than he has done. We heard a great deal of evidence, and formed the opinion that, whilst fair and substantial protection .should be given to allow local manufacturers to keep the Australian market, the duty should not be. made excessive. I see no justification for imposing a fixed duty of more than £10 each on machines whose invoiced value is only ^,38.

Mr Thomas:

– What are these machines sold for?

Sir JOHN QUICK:

– Before the Tariff Commission commenced its inquiries there was an agreement between the importers and the local manufacturers to sell at £8r. That agreement ceased shortly after the Tariff Commission commenced its investigations, when the Internationa] Harvester Company reduced its price to £70. the local makers continuing to sell, at from £80 to £81. I have been told, that since these proposals have been before Parliament the manufacturers have acquiesced in the conditions provided for securing a: reduction in price. I read with a considerable amount of uneasiness a letter which appeared in the Argus recently, in which it was stated that the proposed extra dutv of 12½ per cent. on harvesters had already resulted in an increase of prices, and that some of the leading manufacturers had raised the price of their machines contrary to the promises made to the Commission. That letter is dated Wangaratta, 21st August, and is signed “ Farmer.” I have, however, evidence which I think is of more value than an anonymous communication sent to a newspaper, in the shape of a letter received from one of my constituents. It is dated Raywood, 30th August, and is as follows : -

Sir, - I notice in the speech of Sir William Lyne in the Argus of yesterday he states that the price of harvesters must be reducedto£70 and£75 by the end of this year, and, in reply to Mr. Robinson, he doubted that Colonial machines could be obtained at £70. I beg to inform you that I have been offered the ordinary sized harvester by one of the leading Colonial makers’ agents a new machine for the sum of £68, payable March, 1907, so therefore I should think that is the true value of same. As you are aware, I am a farmer on a fairly large scale, and, although not a protectionist, think it only fair that the Colonial makers should have fair protection to makeharvesters on the condition that they pay a fair wage to both men and boys. You are at liberty to make whatever use you like of this letter.

Yours truly,

Wm. Gunn.

– And by manufacturers in South Australia and New South Wales. The evidence in favour of an increased duty was obtained in three of the States.

Mr GLYNN:

– I quite accept the statement of the honorable and learned member. I read the evidence given by Mr. Moore, and a portion of that tendered by Mr. McKay. Mr. Moore, of Messrs. Robinson and Company was put forward as the representative of the manufacturers of Victoria, if not of the Commonwealth. His evidence justifies the following summary of the position of the Victorian implement makers, which will be found upon page 11 of the Fifth Progress Report of the Tariff Commission.

Victorian implement and machinery makers have derived a great benefit and advantage by the establishment of Inter-State free-trade. Since 1901 the transfer of manufactures of this kind, of Victorian origin, from Victoria into the States of the Commonwealth, has increased by leaps and bounds, and has largely exceeded transfers into Victoria of similar goods from other States.

There is an array of figures given in proof of that statement which I do not intend to quote. They show that in 1899 the value of the Inter-State transfers of agricultural implements into Victoria was £3.301, whereas the value of the transfers from this State to others was £92,861. They further show that though the value of the Inter-State transfers into Victoria in 1905 had increased to £23,563, those from Victoria were valued at £157,689. These figures show a rapidly increasing prosperity in the manufacture of agricultural implements. The report which I have quoted deals with harvesters, but I have been supplied with some figures which ‘are not contained in that report. They were submitted to me by a person upon whose accuracy I think I can rely. The figures show that if the South Australian manufacturers entertain any fear of competition it is not the competition of the importer that they need apprehend, but that of the manufacturers in the other States. The South ^Australian manufacturers, it seems to me, need not fear Inter-State competition, because whilst it is true that a great many machines are sent into their State from Victoria they in turn also export to the other States, and, for enterprise and efficiency, are able to hold them own under conditions of InterState free-trade. The total number of stripper-harvesters sold in South Australia during the years 1900 to 1905 inclusive was 2,972. Of these the South Australian manufacturers supplied 540, the importers 969, and the Victorian manufacturers 1,463. In those years the Massey-Harris Company sold in South Australia 844 machines, the International Harvester Company 125, and the McKay Brothers 975. We are constantly hearing of the competition of the International Harvester Company, which supplied only 125 machines. In view of the proposals which we shall shortly be called upon to consider regarding preferential trade, the circumstance to which I have referred is a very curious one, because we must recollect that duties of this character will strike at the MasseyHarris Company rather than at the International Harvester Company. I will leave it to the Government to reconcile their policy with the figures which I have quoted. What really does handicap some of the exporters of these machines, as between State and State, and particularly the South Australian manufacturers, are the heavy shipping freights between the various ports. For instance, the freight which is levied, say, between Fremantle and Melbourne is actually more than that charged between New York and Melbourne. I know from inquiry which I made about a year ago that the South Australian manufacturers are subjected to a very severe handicap by reason of the stiff freights which are charged by the shipping companies engaged in our coastal trade. If, under a duty of 12½ per cent., which represents£5 4s. 7d. upon a£38 valuation of these machines, conditions of prosperity have been realized by the manufacturers of agricultural implements during the last five or six years, and if those conditions have been maintained even though the imports were slightly checked under the operation of a similar duty upon a £65 valuation, which is equivalent to a charge of £8 2s. 6d., it seems to me that we do not require to levy a specific duty of £16 upon them. We ought, I think, to compliment the chairman of the Tariff Commission upon the fairness of his views as a protectionist. I do not say that his proposal represents the proper deduction from the evidence as to the duty that should be levied; the honorable and learned member for Illawarra has had something to say on that point. But we must compliment the honorable and learned member for Bendigo upon the reasonableness of his suggestion that, even from the point of view of the protectionists, the duty ought not to exceed £10 per machine. Since, on a. valuation of£38, 1 2½ per cent. - the duty prevailing prior to the introduction of these proposals - wouldamount to £5 4s. 6d. ; and, on a valuation of £65, would amount to £8 2 s. 6d., surely the members of the protectionist party will not object to the proposal that a specific duty of £10 shall be imposed. I cannot understand on what ground any reasonable protectionist could object to the amendment suggested by the honorable and learned member forBendigo, although, as a free-trader, I should prefer a duty approximating more nearly to free-trade views of what the evidence suggested. The Prime Minister said to-day that the Minister was forced to propose a specific duty, owing to difficulties experienced in arriving at a true valuation. Those difficulties have been removed by the Chairman of the Tariff Commission who points out that, according to the evidence, the valuation of£38, which was challenged by the Minister of Trade and Customs, ought to be adopted. If the difficulty experienced in arriving at a true valuation is responsible for the action of the Government in proposing a specific rather than an ad valorem duty, why do they not say that they will take the local cost of production as an approximate indication of the cost at the American or Canadian port of exportation ? They could do so if they secured the co-operation of the local manufacturers. Why should not these manufacturers - some of whom are very anxious to supply the Minister with what we are now told was mistaken testimony when their personal interests are strongly involved - in the interests of the Commonwealth, afford some guidance to the Government? We are led to understand that one of the McKay Brothers supplied the Minister with an affidavit suggesting that the value of these imported machines in the country of origin is £65, less the 10 per cent. Let him give the Prime Minister evidence as to the local cost of production. According to the reports now under consideration, the conditions of production here are not so different from those prevailing in Canada or the United States that they cannot be taken as an approximate guide. We are not ‘driven’from sheer necessity’ to adopt the Government proposal. By taking the cost of local production, we can arrive at an approximately correct basis of valuation, and if that were done we should also have the advantage of knowing something of what wasgoing on locally. I am afraid, however, that we shall not obtain this information. I would again remind the Committee of the fact that if we strike an average of the duties prevailing prior to the imposition of the Commonwealth Tariff of 1 901, we arrive at a rate much lower than the specific duty of £10 which has been suggested. I need only refer to the evidence upon that point supplied by the two reports now under consideration. In South Australia the duty was only 15 per cent. ad valorem, whilst in America and Canada the rate was 20 per cent. It would be unfair, however, to refer, for the purposes of comparison, to the duty prevailing in the last-named country, since these machines are not used there, and there is no importation for local purposes. Evidence was given showing that if the duty of £25 were accepted, it would mean prohibition. If the cost of landing these machines in Australia from the ports of exportation on the American Continent is £14 12s. 6d., then a duty of£25,plus that cost, would give a protection of practically £40 in respect of machines which, according to the best evidence before us, can be manufactured locally for less than £40 each. That is a class of protection which, if we were willing to impose it, the it was admitted that some of the specific duties asked for would be very high ; that on a harvester invoiced at ^38 would be nearly 65 per cent, ad valorem, and that on a stripper of the same value would be about the same percentage duty.

It seems, also, that if we impose too high a duty - and I am again viewing this matter from a general stand-point - we might affect the efficiency of the machinery. By the imposition of a duty of ^25 we should remove one of the guarantees of the manufacture of machines of the best class, which is supplied by reasonable competition from all parts of the world. That would not be beneficial to the farmers. Then, again, a severe duty might induce some of the American or Canadian manufacturers to manufacture here. I should like to know what would be the position of some of the smaller manufacturers here who are now asking for a duty of £’25, if, for instance, the International Harvester Company established a branch manufactory in Victoria or in any other State of the Union. That was the result of some of the high’ duties on other articles imposed under the Victorian Tariff. Under cover of those duties manufacturers from abroad came in, established branches here, and successfully competed against’ the local men, with the result that a demand was made for still more protection. As to the general condition of the industry, I would refer honorable members to a summary of the position given at page 36 of the report of the Commission on Agricultural Machinery and Implements. It is stated in paragraph 10 -

That notwithstanding the loss of trade in these directions, the agricultural implement industry in Victoria is not in a languishing condition ; that the representatives of the two largest firms admitted that they have, on the whole, suffered no loss through the Commonwealth Tariff ; that what they have lost in ploughs and other implements they have made up in making harvesters and drills, and in selling other goods; that they have gained by InterState trade; that their principal grievance and cause of anxiety is that they have not extended their business as they ought to have done; that the opposition and competition of foreign trusts and corporations is growing, and year by year is becoming more formidable and dangerous ; that they will before long be overwhelmed, and will go down in the struggle, unless they receive more substantial protection at the Custom House.

– I am satisfied that the Government .proposal would not have been submitted to us had it not been for the action of the Minister of Trade and Customs in increasing, the valuation of the imported machines from £38 to £65. I do not think that those who have read the evidence will find that the imported machines cost anything like £65 in the country of origin. If they did, and our manufacturers could make! equally good machines for £41-

Sir John Quick:

– Selling them at £65.

Mr McLEAN:

– If the honorable member will turn to page 8 of the Tariff Commission’s Progress Report, No. 5, he will find these particulars -

– That is not the point As a matter of fact, the number of hands engaged in the industry is constantly increasing. The plea was put forward that an increased duty upon agricultural im- plements was required because the industry was languishing, whereas the figures which I have quoted prove that it is making amazing * progress. Instead of increasing the Tariff, we should endeavour to reduce it. As a matter of fact, it has been shown conclusively that Mr. McKay - on whose behalf chiefly these proposals have been submitted by the Government - is now making a clear annual profit of about £30,000. It is an absolute outrage that we should be asked by a Ministry which has not a straight-out following strong enough to .give it an independent majority, to impose these duties, on the eve of a general election, in order to bolster up this industry. Not the slightest reason has been shown by the Government for legislation of this kind, and the electors may well be afforded an opportunity of saying whether they are prepared to still further bolster up an industry which is at present in such a flourishing condition. I propose to show by reference to the evidence, given very unwillingly by the manufacturers themselves, and first of all to that given by Mr. H. V. McKay. that they are doing a satisfactory business. At- page 1624 of the Minutes of Evidence, Vol. 4, we have the following report of Mr. McKay’s examination : -

Can you tell me what was your output of machines prior to 1901 ? - It has “been increasing ever since we began business. If I had received notice, I could have brought the figures.

Perhaps that statement will satisfy the honorable member for Melbourne Ports -

Prior to 1901, was the output more than 200 machines ? - Yes.

Was it much more? - I should say so.

Was it more than a fifth of last year’s output? - Going back, we were doing about seventyfive machines in 1897 - the industry was then working under the high Victorian Tariff - about 150 machines in 1898; and about 301 in 1899.

What was your output last year, in proportion to your output in 1901 ? - I have not given you the figures for 1901.

As that is rather too close to the present time, will you give me, in your own way, some fair comparison of the increase in your output between any year between 1901 and 1896 and last year? - I can admit frankly that the business has increased substantially. It would be a reasonable thing to say tha’t the business in harvesters is three times what it was in 1901. We fully expected all that, because the machine is an exceptionally fine one for the users.

This evidence, given grudgingly by Mr. McKay himself, shows that his business has been on the up grade from the date of its establishment. This is the evidence of the man on whose behalf, above that of all others, we are asked to impose these duties, and he declares that at no time has the industry been languishing. His own evidence is sufficient to condemn the Government proposal.” There is ample evidence from other sources to support that view. Mr. McKay’s manager, Mr. George Bult, in answer to questions 66566-7, pointed out that the output of “ Sunshine “ harvesters in 1905 - a year of comparatively small sales - was 1,930, and was nearly as great in 1904. Mr. James Moore’s evidence on this point was given in reply to questions 15895 to 15901 a, and was to the effect that the average number of hands employed by him under the existing Tariff was greater than under the previous Victorian Tariff ; that this was largely due to his increased Inter-State trade; and that this trade had been profitable. The same witness, in answer to questions 16172-5, stated that the’ general condition of the agricultural implement business in 1905 was considerably better than it was prior ito 1901 - when the Federal Tariff was imposed - and that the profit was also larger. Mr. John Mitchell’s evidence dealing with the improved condition of the industry since the imposition of the Federal Tariff, is to be found in reply to queries 17443-9. It s to the effect that since the introduction of the Federal Tariff his trade has expanded. Then, again, Mr. John A. Bagshaw, of South Australia, gave evidence in reply to queries 48540-2, to the effect that the agricultural implement-making trade is not a languishing industry, but is “very far from it.” Mr. David Shearer, also of South Australia, gave evidence in reply to queries 47069-72, to the effect that his business had generally been increasing during the last three or four years, and that he had been making more profit, and had done a larger turnover. Mr. James B. Garde, representing the Australian Implement Manufacturing Association, gave evidence on the same point. In answer to questions 65896-9,’ he made statements to the effect that in some lines there had been since 1899 a great increase of trade. If honorable ‘ members turn to questions 4791 1-1 2 they will see that Mr. Rees Rees gave similar evidence. This expansion of trade is also admitted in the reports of the Commissioners. On page 36 of report No. 5, paragraph 4, it is stated that during the first two years under the Commonwealth Tariff the number of hands employed in the manufacture of agricultural implements in Victoria fell from 1,151 in 1900, to 789 in 1902 *; that they increased to 1,114 in 1903, 1,496 in 1904, and 1,624 in1 905 ; that in, South Australia there was an increase from 242 in 1899 to 723 in 1905; and that the decline in Victoria in 1901 and 1902 may be attributable in some measure to the prevailing drought and consequent dulness in trade in those years. The expansion of trade referred to has been due to the removal of the Inter-State duties, which has given these firms a. largely increased trade all over Australia. It is as the result of freetrade between the States, and not because of any protective Tariff that this industry has made such rapid strides.

This evidence is supposed to have been contradicted by Mr. Bult, and also by Mr. Porteous, but if their carefully-prepared statements are examined, it will be found that the main charges levelled against Mr. McKay are left untouched. Mr. Weickhardt continues: -

The tools and the plant are up-to-date in all respects at the Sunshine Works. Ideas are seized on, no matter what source derived from, and no thanks or recompense to the inventors, so far as my experience goes. For instance, four men employed making cups or buckets for lifting grain at 8s. per day; one boy placing on belts, 10s. per week. I invent a machine to make same on - dispense with the services of three men and the boy, and make the man accept 20s. per week. His name is Francis, sole support of widowed mother. Tom Hale’s case - doing eight screens in eight hours - put him on piece-work, he uses his brains, invents a way of cutting the screws - can make 20s. a day, and better work. Take his idea - sack him, and get them done by a boy, young George Lamprell, at 6s. a week, and a man has to solder them in, and do his own work also. I also had the cups cutout by the bull-dozer, which did more in one day than a man could do in a month. This machine is also the result of another man’s brains - Mr. Moule, who was head pattern maker for Mr. H. V. McKay, attends to all classes of labour-saving appliances and ideas conveyed to him. The Massey-Harris grain box, now in use on the Sunshine harvesters, I made by copying from MasseyHarris machine, at the instigation of H. V. McKay himself, and Mr. Moule assisting me.

Yet this is the man who has the audacity to accuse others of piracy. The statement proceeds : -

Re the men and boys employed, a finer body does not exist. They are smart, active, and intelligent, and the system at McKay’s is equal to any American factory. It is not exactly a wages system or a piece-work one - but the cruellest and most daring robbery of human life that could be devised, and shows the need that exists for factory legislation.

This employer, who wants increased protec tion, according to Mr. Weickhardt, carries on a system of the cruellest and most daring robbery of human life that could be devised. The statement continues : -

The principle is this : Rush the men at top speed, no time to breathe or straighten your back. If you do you are marked ; you get back in your work, the task is set, and must be completed, otherwise you keep the next man waiting. The order is given, six machines per day; they must be done - even if half-finished, they are rushed out of the factory to make room for the next six. When the men get that expert that they manage it, the order comes, try them with eight.

McKay is one of the Prime Minister’s constituents, and, therefore, has ready access to him, and is, no doubt, able to pour tales of distress into his ears. He is able to convince the honorable and learned gentleman that he is being injured by foreign competition.

Mr Deakin:

– I do not know that MrMcKay has spoken to me twice on this; subject during the last year or two. He has been out of the country for some time.

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

– I presume that he did net require more than a couple of interviews to pump, as it were, all these stories into the mind of +he Prime Minister. If he had any sense, after he had given the honorable and learned gentleman the facts on which he relied, he would keep as far away from him as possible.

Mr Deakin:

– I do not remember a single fact that he ever communicated to me.

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

- Mr. McKay’s position illustrates the advantage which those living in the cities enjoy in being able to approach the Government. The man on the plains of Australia - thousands of miles away from the capital - is not able to approach the Government as the manufacturers in the towns are able to do. Consequently, his view cannot be poured directly into the ears of Ministers in the same effective way as are the views of those who dwell in the large centres of population. And so it comes about that this proposal had its genesis in Ballarat - the Prime Minister’s own constituency - and was initiated - I was going to say “ engineered,” but I do not wish to use that word - by one of the Prime Minister’s own constituents. I do not think that any one will dispute the cleverness of the McKay Brothers. I have only one feeling concerning them ; I wish to see them succeed to the extent of their hearts’ desire. Nothing would give me greater pleasure than to see them hunt every foreign rival out of the Australian market if they are able to do it fairly; but I do not think it is our duty, as an Australian Parliament, to help them to do that at the cost of the primary producers of Australia. A motion for a duty of 42 per cent, upon an article which is of vital importance to the primary industries of Australia is neither more nor less than an indecent political proposal. That is my opinion, expressed very emphatically I admit, but offered because I believe that it is more in accord with the facts than any mealymouthed or finessing statement would be. May I refer, in passing, to the way in which we have dealt with tools of trade. When the Tariff was under consideration, we made it a rule to exempt, as far as possible, all such tools. It will be found that a. very large number of tools of trade connected with industrial enterprises are on the free list. The House decided almost uanimously that they should not be taxed. I should like to inquire what is! a harvester but a. tool of trade to the farmer ? Does the size of such a tool make a radical difference in the principle to be applied? If small men are to have their tools of trade exempt because they are small, the farmer has a still stronger claim to have his tool of trade, which is large and expensive, and to procure which involves much trouble, free of duty. I wish to revert to another preliminary inquiry : What were the terms of this Commission which was sent upon its duty something like two years ago? It was charged to inquire into the effect of the Commonwealth Tariff on Australian industries and the working of the Tariff generally. That was the inquiry which it was specially appointed to make. I should like to hear some of the members of the Commission deal with this point. One wonders why, among the first of their reports is one concerning an industry which, at the outset, was obviously neither strangled nor laguishing

Mr Fuller:

– It was represented in Victoria to be languishing.

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

– I dare say it was. That is where the trouble begins. It seems to me that one has only to cry loud enough here, and to be backed up by a certain Victorian newspaper, to force any claim, no matter how unfair at may be, upon the attention of the Government of Australia to the exclusion of the consideration of the general interests and welfare’ of the Commonwealth. One of the very first reports submitted by the Commission relates, not to a strangled industry, but to one which the Commissioners declare to be prospering, and which, therefore, does not come within the category of those into the conditions of which it was appointed specially to inquire. All the evidence available is to the effect that the industry is in a most flourishing condition.

Mr Fuller:

– Mr. McKay is the most prosperous looking man in Australia.

Mr Kennedy:

– Is it a crime that an Australian should be prosperous?

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

– No one grumbles at Mr. McKay’s prosperity. My hope is that he may enjoy still greater success. The question before us, however, is not whether we object to a man prospering, but whether we are going to ask the farmers of Australia, in vulgar parlance, to “ grease the fat pig.” Let Mr. McKay prosper under healthy rivalry and in competition with other Australian producers ; let him go ahead if ‘he can, but when he is prospering and building up a large business - enriching himself, as he has every right to do under fair and free competition - let him not come tq the Federal Parliament with . the story that he is not prospering, but that, on the contrary, his industry is strangled and languishing. The facts show that nothing of the kind is taking place. On the contrary, all the evidence we have is to the effect that McKay’s business is in a very flourishing state, and that he is doing exceedingly well. I believe that, according to his own sworn statement, he, in 1897, manufactured 75 machines; in 1898, 150; and in 1.899, 301. Then came Federation, and, in 1904, his output was 1,500, and, in 1905, 1,930. Those figures do not show that his industry is being strangled. In fact, he seems to be outstripping his competitors. Why, on these facts, the Tariff Commission has recommended that the existing duty be doubled passes my comprehension, and I think that of any reasonable man.

Mr Fuller:

– The Commission has not made that recommendation ; it came from only a section of the Commission.

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

– I meant the protectionist section of the Commission.

Mr Poynton:

– According to- the Commission’s report, the output for 1905 means a profit of over ^30,000.

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

– That is a very pleasant way of languishing.

Mr Hutchison:

– Is McKay the only manufacturer of whom the members of the Opposition have heard?

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

– He is the largest manufacturer of harvesters, and is at the head and front of this movement. That is why he has been singled out ; it is because he represents the others. There are makers in South Australia, but I do not think that they would have asked for a larger duty had not McKay led the way.

Mr Kennedy:

– The most sensible protectionists in Australia are in South Australia.

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

– The most sensible protectionists are those who are satisfied with moderate duties. I do not call those who asked for the present duties sensible, and it is my firm conviction that, although this moribund Parliament may impose a rate equivalent to an ad valorem duty of 42 per cent., a more sensible Parliament will subsequently reduce it. According to Mr. John Mitchell’s evidence, McKay’s business has expanded since the imposition of the Federal Tariff. Mr. John A. Bagshaw, ofSouth Australia, gave evidence to the effect that the agricultural implement making business is not a languishing industry, “but very far from it,” to use his own words. Mr. David Shearer, of South Australia, gave evidence to the effect that his business generally has been increasing during the last three or four years, his profits having been greater, and his turnover larger.

Mr Hutchison:

– By adopting new lines and patenting a plough of his own.

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

– Is that a reason why he should ask for higher duties? If he is doing well, he may be let alone.

Mr Hutchison:

– He could not manufacture plough-shares until he got a duty, and then he reduced his price from 12s. 6d. to 3s.

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

– I cannot believe that that is so.

Mr HUME COOK:
BOURKE, VICTORIA · PROT

– Protection always works out in that way.

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

– That is an old gag, but it works out only in Parliament ; it does not work out when one goes into a protected market to purchase. Mr. James B. Garde, representing the Australian Implement Manufacturing Association, showed that upon some lines there has been a great increase since 1899, and Mr. Rees Rees gave similar evidence. Indeed, the members of the Commission had to admit that there has been a great expansion of trade. The facts are so clear of doubt that they were compelled to do so. However much the protectionist members of the Commission might have wished to make out a case for protection, they were compelled to recognise that this business has expanded and is successful. When the Commission was appointed its investigations were intended to discover what in dustries were languishing and being strangled, with a view to their relief, but their inquiries proved that the agricultural implement industry is prospering almost beyond the dreams of avarice. Any fluctuations in trade have corresponded with fluctuations of season. When times have been prosperous the demand has increased, and the falling off in output has been due to bad seasons. Increase and decrease have corresponded with the prosperity or adversity of the primary industries, which shows that the Tariff has not injured this business. On the contrary, there has been a continuous expansion of trade. Mr. J. Moore said that there have been more hands employed, more work to do, and more profit obtained since the Federal duties began to operate than ever before. Mr. John Mitchell admitted that his trade, taken as a whole, has expanded greatly under Inter-State free-trade. Figures have already been quoted to-night to show that the increase of hands in this industry has been considerable. In 1899 there were 1,580 employed, and in 1905 2,799,an increase of 1,219. However this question is viewed, whether in regard to the value of imports, or in reference to the statements of those engaged in the industry as to their output, and the value of their production, it is seen that there is no warrant for interfering with the present duties on agricultural machinery. Mr. McKay, who has so strenuously advocated the increase of duties, apparently with success, has the largest output, charges the highest prices, and pays the lowest wages. The evidence was given on oath, by, I presume, reliable witnesses.

Mr Kennedy:

– Whose evidence was it?

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

– Several witnesses have testified to those facts. Mr. Weickhardt was one of them.

Mr Mauger:

– An ex-employe.

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

– Does it therefore follow that what he says is untrue?

Mr Mauger:

– No one would take the evidence of a discharged employe

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

– Is a man who has had the misfortune to lose his employment to be branded as a liar? Because he is unfortunate enough to be discharged must he therefore be regarded as having lost his honesty and integrity?

Mr Mauger:

– His statements were ex parte, and have been contradicted over and over again, as the honorable member knows.

Mr Poynton:

– Not in the evidence before us.

Mr Mauger:

– They have been contradicted by men who are working at the factory.

Mr Fuller:

– Can the honorable member quote evidence to that effect?

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

– There are in the -evidence much stronger statements than I have quoted, but, inasmuch as they reflect upon Mr. McKay as an employer, I have refrained from alluding to them. I am, however, justified in pointing out that it is stated in the evidence that the man who charges the highest price for his machines, and has the largest output, pays the lowest wages. These facts show that there is no justification for increasing the duty on harvesters. I wonder why there should be such a general desire to impose a fixed duty instead of an ad valorem impost.

Mr Watson:

– There will be much less prevarication, and perhaps less perjury, with a fixed duty than with an ad valorem duty. That has Been the experience everywhere. I do not refer to this particular case.

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

– I do not know about that. All that has been urged is that it will be more difficult to collect an ad valorem duty. But I have yet to learn that in order to get over a small difficulty such as that indicated, any Government is justified in perpetrating an1 obvious injustice.

Mr Watson:

– Most traders prefer fixed duties, because thev then know the exact terms upon which they are competing.

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

– I should think that those whose goods were of the greatest value would prefer a fixed duty, but that those whose goods were of low value would prefer an ad valorem charge In spite of the fact that there is a wide difference between the values of the harvesters imported, thev are all deemed to be of equal value for the purposes of the dutv. Why should a machine valued at £20 be subjected to the same fixed dutv as one valued at £30?

Sir John Quick:

– They are nearly all of the standard value.

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

– I do not think that the evidence bears out that statement. It would appear that the Massey-Harris machine is of much higher value than that made by the International Harvester Company. It certainly costs verv much more to make than do some of the other machines. Therefore, this proposal to rough all the machines up, and charge the same duty, irrespective of values, is a species of socialization that I regard , as veryunjust.

Mr Watson:

– The honorable member has got Socialism on the brain.

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

– I have it on the brain to this extent : that the expression that I have used seems to be an apt one. Since the honorable member does not seem to like the reference to Socialism, I shall withdraw the term I used.

Mr Watson:

– I am very much amused.

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

– The nearer we approach the general elections the more restive the honorable member becomes under any mention of Socialism. It was not so twelve months ago. However, I do not wish to lacerate the honorable member’s feelings. This is a proposal to make equal those things which are unequal. Machines of different value are to be regarded as of the same value for the purposes of levying the duty. The trouble with all fixed duties is that however the price may decrease, the duty remains a fixed quantity. It may seem paradoxical, but a fixed duty is a constantly increasing duty. As the prices of goods decrease, the fixed duties Increase ad valorem. That, of course, is an argument against all fixed duties. When we were discussing the Tariff, we abolished fixed duties as far as we could, and adopted percentage duties which would rise and fall in keeping with the fluctuations in value. Now it is proposed to again resort to the vicious method of adopting fixed duties - duties which in Victoria were the means of fleecing the people of thousands of pounds of their hard-earned money.

Mr Mauger:

– Whom did they fleece, and when?

Mr Fuller:

– The Victorian farmer.

Mr Mauger:

– Give us. a case in point?

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

– I cannot be bothered with the honorable member; he is not open to conviction. I have a very strong objection to fixed duties of any kind, because thev are vicious, and operate entirely against those who have to pay them. They are not in keeping with the principle which would guide Parliament in imposing a fair duty, because they tend to increase as values are reduced. Two systems of valuation have been adopted in connexion with stripperharvesters - one by the Tariff Commission, and one bv the Minister of Trade and Customs. The Minister says that the ma- chines should be valued at £65, whereas the Commission say that £41 is the true valuation. Notwithstanding that the protectionist and free-trade members of the Commission agree that£41 is the proper valuation, the Government sail airily along and propose to impose a duty of £16 upon a machine which they say is valued at £65. They claim that they are imposing a duty equivalent to an ad valorem impost of 25 per cent. ; but the Chairman of the Commission points out that the proposed fixed duty of £16 amounts to an ad valorem charge of 42 per cent. The Government seem to regard every recommendation of the Commission as radically wrong, and consider it their duty to propose something entirely different. The Government are, in effect, ignoring the work that has occupied the Commission for the last two years, and, of course, they are supreme. They have behind them supporters who do not seem prepared to question anything that they propose. They are quite content to sit tight and permit the Government to take money arbitrarily from the producers and traders of Australia. All the sworn evidence is to the effect that the valuation adopted by the Government is a fictitious one. Neither the Minister of Trade and Customs nor the Prime Minister attempted to explain how he arrives at a valuation of . £65. Their motto is, “ Clap it on, and make them pay,” or, to use the expression of the Minister of Trade and Customs, “ Make them sit up.” It is by such unintelligent methods that unfair taxes are being imposed upon the people. One would have thought that the Government would pay some attention to the sworn evidence given before the Commission with regard to the value of the stripperharvesters. But the Government have absolutely set on one side the report of the Commission, and the evidence which they have gathered so laboriously, and which they have considered on the whole so studiously and so fairly. It is disgraceful that the Commission should have its report thrown back in its teeth in this contemptuous way by a Government which has its own political ends and immediate political purposes to serve. I could understand Ministers questioning interested evidence given by traders, or ignoring testimony furnished in this House or by the press; but they have no justification for setting aside the results of the inquiry so exhaustively conducted by the members of the Commission. Freetrader and protectionist Commissioners alike agree that £41 is a fair value for these harvesters.

Sir John Quick:

Has your output increased or diminished since the operation of the Federal Tariff?

His reply was -

It has increased.

The witness was then asked -

Has it increased in consequence of an expansion of your trade in the Commonwealth, or because you have exported to other countries?

The reply given by Mr. McKay was -

For both reasons. Both the export and InterState trade have increased. At the time the Federal Tariff was enforced we were in the position of having perfected a very good invention. Our machines had made a name for themselves, and the trade had to follow.

I should not think that that was a reason for the imposition of increased duties but rather a reason against the adoption of that course. If the trade has to go to Mr. McKay at a remunerative rate, why does he want an increased measure of protection? He continued -

The reason for our expansion is that the people in other parts of the world were not then prepared to supply the demand for the right article.

There is the deliberate statement of Mr. McKay that he produces a better article than can be produced elsewhere. That is the evidence of a man who, in the same breath, asks for further duties. It is the testimony of one whom the Government allege ought to be protected to the extent of 42 per cent., against the competition of individuals whom he has declared have already been beaten out of the market. Mr. McKay was further asked -

You particularly refer to the Sunshine harvesters ?

His reply was -

Yes

He was then asked -

Can you tell me what was your output of machines prior to 1901 ?

His reply was -

It has been increasing ever since we began business. If I had received notice I could have brought the figures.

These are the sworn statements made by Mr. McKay before the Tariff Commission. I think they should be placed upon record in Hansard, so that the public may be able to see the basis upon which the Government have proceeded in offering him such a huge increase of duty. Later on he was asked -

Can you give me the average proportion of the cost of selling and distributing your machines ?

To that he replied -

I would rather not go too closely into details.

Evidently it might have been a very bad thing for “him to do so. Evidently he had something which he desired to keep back from the Commission. Every other witness who appeared before that body gave the totals of the cost incurred in distributing these machines. Accordingly, Mr. McKay was asked -

Is there any reason why you should be. more reticent than other witnesses have been?

His answer was -

I do not think it is fair that I should expose the whole of my business to this trust which wishes to smother me. ‘

Only a little while previously he had informed the Commission that he had the trust beaten because he produced a better article. To my mind, his statements are not only inconsistent but contradictory. After all this questioning, the Chairman of the Commission inquired of Mr. McKay -

I presume that you will not tell me your prime cost?

His reply was -

I would rather not.

– It was the MasseyHarris Company.

Mr KENNEDY:

– I am not quite sure. The following is the official reply to the Governor-General’s inquiry of the authorities : -

Buenos Ayres, £41 ; agents do not wish values known, and will not give them.

What was the result when we again applied - as we were entitled to do - for official informationfrom the authorities in Canada? The reply which we received reads as follows: -

Ottawa, January 24th, 1905.

The Comptroller-General,

Department of Trade and Customs,

Melbourne, Australia.

Sir,

I have the honourto acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 8th ult., respecting the value for duty of a certainbreakfast food known as “Orange Meat.”

In reply, I am to state that the Department is unable to meet yourwishes in this instance, as the Minister decided some time ago that it was inadvisable for officersof the Customs in Canada to undertake inquiries in respect of such matters for Customs purposes in other countries.

Trusting you may be able to get the information which you desire in the case irrespective of the Canadian Customs,

I have the honour to be, sir,

Your obedient servant, (Signed) John McDougald,

Commissioner of Customs.

Progress reported.

page 4022

CONSTITUTION ALTERATION (STATES DEBTS) BILL

Bill’ presented by Mr. Deakin, and read a first time.

page 4022

AUSTRALIAN INDUSTRIES PRESERVATION BILL

Bill returned from the Senate, with amendments.

page 4022

ADJOURNMENT

Order of Business

Mr. DEAKIN (Ballarat- Minister of

External Affairs) [11.26]. - In moving -

That the House do now adjourn,

I would ask honorable members to assist the Government in closing the discussion upon the whole of the proposals in relation to harvesters and agricultural implements as soon as possible to-morrow.

Mr McCOLL:
Echuca

.-I am sure that honorable members will be very glad to help the Government in the manner suggested, but I would ask the Prime Minister to consent to the House meeting at half-past 3 instead ofhalf-past 2 to-morrow. Honorable members will not be able to get out to the show and meet their friends if the House meets at the usual hour.

Mr. DEAKIN (Ballarat-Minister of External Affairs [11.27]. - I should have been very glad to agree to the suggestion of the honorable member, but I would point out that a number of honorable members do not desire to attend the show, and that it will not be necessary for those who wish to go out to the Agricultural Society’s grounds to attend here before halfpast 4, because a division is not likely to take place before that time.

Mr McCay:

– Will the Prime Minister promise that?

Mr DEAKIN:
Protectionist

– I think that I can safely do so.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

House adjourned at 11.28 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 5 September 1906, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1906/19060905_reps_2_34/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant

House of Representatives 5 September 1906

QUESTION

PAYMENT OF ACCOUNTS: DEPARTMENT OF DEFENCE

Mr CROUCH:CORIO, VICTORIA

Mr EWING:Vice-President of the Executive Council · RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · Protectionist

QUESTION

PRICE OF TIMBER

Mr ROBINSON:WANNON, VICTORIA

Mr DEAKIN:Minister for External Affairs · BALLAARAT, VICTORIA · Protectionist

QUESTION

IMPERIAL DEFENCE COMMITTEE’S REPORT

Mr KELLY:WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr EWING:Protectionist

QUESTION

POSTAL OFFICIALS’ OVERTIME

Mr JOHNSON:LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr AUSTIN CHAPMAN:Postmaster-General · EDEN-MONARO, NEW SOUTH WALES · Protectionist

QUESTION

ROYAL VICTORIAN AGRICULTURAL SHOW

Mr CROUCH:

Mr DEAKIN:Protectionist

QUESTION

CASE OF CAPTAIN CROUCH

Mr JOHNSON:

Mr EWING:Protectionist

QUESTION

PERTH-FREMANTLE CABLES

Mr AUSTIN CHAPMAN:Protectionist

QUESTION

HOLIDAYS, POSTAL DEPARTMENT

Mr BROWN:CANOBOLAS, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr AUSTIN CHAPMAN:Protectionist

QUESTION

METHYLATED SPIRIT

Mr PAGE:MARANOA, QUEENSLAND

VALUES OF IMPORTS

STRIPPER HARVESTERS

PAPERS

TARIFF

Agricultural Machinery and Implements

In Committee of Ways and Means:

Mr DEAKIN:Minister of External Affairs · Ballarat · Protectionist

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

Mr DEAKIN:

Mr Johnson:

Mr DEAKIN:

Mr Robinson:

Mr DEAKIN:

Mr Fuller:

Mr DEAKIN:

Mr McColl:

Mr DEAKIN:

Sir John Quick:

Mr DEAKIN:

Mr McCay:

Mr DEAKIN:

Sir John Quick:

Mr DEAKIN:

Mr McCay:

Mr DEAKIN:

Mr Robinson:

Mr DEAKIN:

Mr Fuller:

Mr DEAKIN:

Mr Fuller:

Mr DEAKIN:

Mr Thomas:

Mr DEAKIN:

Mr Johnson:

Mr DEAKIN:

Mr Robinson:

Mr DEAKIN:

Mr Kennedy:

Mr DEAKIN:

Mr Robinson:

Mr DEAKIN:

Mr Robinson:

Mr DEAKIN:

Mr Robinson:

Mr DEAKIN:

House of Representatives
5 September 1906

Mr CROUCH:
CORIO, VICTORIA

Mr EWING:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · Protectionist

Mr ROBINSON:
WANNON, VICTORIA

Mr DEAKIN:
Minister for External Affairs · BALLAARAT, VICTORIA · Protectionist

Mr KELLY:
WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr EWING:
Protectionist

Mr JOHNSON:
LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr AUSTIN CHAPMAN:
Postmaster-General · EDEN-MONARO, NEW SOUTH WALES · Protectionist

Mr DEAKIN:
Protectionist

Mr EWING:
Protectionist

Mr AUSTIN CHAPMAN:
Protectionist

Mr BROWN:
CANOBOLAS, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr AUSTIN CHAPMAN:
Protectionist

Mr PAGE:
MARANOA, QUEENSLAND

Mr DEAKIN:
Minister of External Affairs · Ballarat · Protectionist

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

Mr ROBINSON:
Wannon

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:
Minister for Trade and Customs · HUME, NEW SOUTH WALES · Protectionist

Mr HUME COOK:
BOURKE, VICTORIA · PROT

Mr HUME COOK:
BOURKE, VICTORIA · PROT