House of Representatives
28 April 1908

3^rd Parliament · 2^nd Session

PAPERS
QUESTION
- PAPUA
QUESTION
- VISIT OF THE AMERICAN FLEET
ADVERTISING AUSTRALIA
QUESTION
- COMMONWEALTH YEAR-BOOK
QUESTION
- TENDERS
QUESTION
- TARIFF
QUESTION
- DEFENCE : MEDICAL RESERVE
QUESTION
- POST AND TELEGRAPH DEPARTMENT: SECRETARY
QUESTION
- TELEPHONE TUNNELS
QUESTION
- RIFLE RANGE
QUESTION
- EASTER ENCAMPMENT
QUESTION
- CORN AND FLOUR SACKS
CUSTOMS TARIFF BILL

Mr. Speaker took the chair at 3 p.m., and read prayers.

page 10606

PAPERS

Mr. DEAKIN laid upon the table the following papers -

Advertising the Resources of Australia - Correspondence with the States, 24th December, 1907, to 24th March, 1908.

Immigration and Advertising Australia - Correspondence with State Premiers, 5th February to 10th April, 1908.

Ordered to be printed. .

Further correspondence respecting Papuan land officials.

Papua - Timber Ordinance.

Excise Procedure Act - Provisional Regula tions- Statutory Rules 1908, No. 45.

Military Forces - Military Order No. 68, of 24th March, 1908- Australian Army Medical Corps Reserve.

Defence Acts -

Military Forces - Regulation 56A (Substi tuted - Provisional) - Statutory Rules 1908, No. 44. Military. Cadet Corps - Regulation 2 of Section I. Amended (Provisional) - Statutory Rules 1908, No. 49.

Naval Forces - Financial and Allowance Regulations - No. 49A Amended (Provisional) - Statutory Rules1908, No. 43.

page 10606

QUESTION

PAPUA

“Massacres “ of Natives - Land Settlement.

Mr BOWDEN:
NEPEAN, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I wish to know if the Prime Minister hasread the paragraph in this morning’s Age, headed “ Papuan Natives’ Outbreak,” wherein it is stated that the outbreak is “ regarded as an unpleasant sign of the times.” There is also published” a letter from a resident of Port Moresby, the writer of which says - .

In the vicinity of Cloudy Bay, a district that has been settled for seventeen years, and the natives informed that the Government would protect them if they gave up their arms, . no fewer than forty natives have, during the last twelve months, been massacred in cold blood in twos and threes. These massacres have occurred upon the track between Port Moresby and Kokoda, and others again at Kerema, not five miles from the residency. I am also informed that the natives at. Cape Nelson arc absolutely out of hand, and massacres may occur at any time.

Can the honorable and learned gentleman say whether there is serious unrest amongst native tribes, and, if so, whether it has been caused, as alleged, by the present condition of dissension and unrest in the Government service of Papua?

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

– On the 21st March, the Papuan Government was asked to supply information with respect to the rumoured murders of natives at different times during the last six months at Cloudy Bay, on the south coast of Papua, of murders of natives on the Gulf of Papua, and on the’ track from Port Moresby to Kokoda. A telegram was . received on the 24th inst. as follows -

Reply despatch eight two five eight three, March twenty-third. - No knowledge massacres referred to. Patrol under Strong and Bell left Samarai March twenty-third, inquire alleged native murders west of Eastern Division. Strong returned April eleventh; four prisoners. Bel) and patrol still in field. Report yesterday received from Resident Magistrate, Gulf ; Buchanan and Charpentier were attacked Kaipani River, . Port Romilly, March twenty-fifth, twenty-sixth; both escaped unhurt, otherwise all quiet. I leave for Gulf Monday twentieth.

The word “massacre” has been improperly used. Murders of natives by natives are continually taking place all over Papua, and occasionally even in the most settled districts. They are due to the causes to which I alluded when the subject was being debated in connexion with the Estimates, such as charges or countercharges of witchcraft, or other conflicts of native rights or beliefs. The Government has no information as to any increase in the average number of these acts of vio-. lence; The complaints, so far as one is able to trace them, . appear, as a rule, to have emanated from three or four persons no longer in the Government service.

Mr McWILLIAMS:
FRANKLIN, TASMANIA

– I should like to know -

If the land settled on by. Messrs. Buchanan and Charpentier had been leased by the settlers from the Government? or,
If the land in question belongs to the natives? ‘
If the Prime Minister will postpone the operations of. the punitive party now organized until the ownership of the land has been ascertained ?

If the Prime Minister cannot answer the questions now, I shall put themon the notice-paper for to-morrow. .

Mr DEAKIN:

– I hope to give the honorable . member further information tomorrow, but may say now that the two settlers mentioned seem to have pressed on into country not yet even under general supervision, and consequently can only be surveying land with aview to settlement. Technically, “ native land “ within the settled districts is taken to mean the lands which the natives have used, or are in the way of using; the areas between the lands of one village and those of its neighbour have always been considered open. Judge Murray has set out to inquire into the matter.

Mr KELLY:
WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES

– The Prime Minister says that statements such as that read by the honorable member for Nepean have usually emanated from three or four persons no longer in the Government service.

Mr Deakin:

– That has been evident in several cases.

Mr KELLY:

– I would ask the Prime Minister whether, in saying that about the statements as to the dissension existing in the Papuan service, he had in his mind the very important remarks on the subject made by the Bishop of New Guinea, who, of course, never was in the Government service?

Mr DEAKIN:

– The dissension alluded to by the Bishop of New Guinea arose in connexion with the land case in regard to which I have laid the papers on the table. That dissension has terminated. I am not aware of any other.

– This Government will communicate with that of New South Wales, and the Premier of the State will, no doubt, communicate with the Mayor of Sydney.

Mr REID:
EAST SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

– The Prime Minister mentioned the Premier of New South Wales. I assume that he is also in communication with the Premier of Victoria! on the subject?

Mr DEAKIN:

– Yes, and with all other Premiers in a general way.

page 10607

ADVERTISING AUSTRALIA

Mr LIDDELL:
HUNTER, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I should be obliged if the Prime Minister could explain a paragraph appearing in the Sydney Morning Herald, which is a distinct reflection upon his business acumen. The paragraph is as follows -

Notification appears in the Commonwealth Gazette of the expenditure of£570 for 1,000 copies of Australia To-day for 1907. Why a bulk purchase has cost more than the retail price would amount to is not. explained.

Mr DEAKIN:
Protectionist

– The explanation of newspaper misprints would come more fittingly from the newspapers than from me. I believe the number of copies should be 10,000.

page 10607

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH YEAR-BOOK

Mr BAMFORD:
HERBERT, QUEENSLAND

– Can the Minister’ representing the Minister of Home Affairs state when Mr. Knibbs’ Australian statistics are likely to be published under one cover ? Is there a prospect of getting them in that form within a rasonable time?

Mr HUME COOK:
BOURKE, VICTORIA · PROT

– I will make inquiries, and let the honorable member know to-morrow.

page 10607

QUESTION

TENDERS

Mr STORRER:
BASS, TASMANIA

– Some time ago I asked the Minister of Defence a question with regard to tenders for boots for the Defence -Department in Tasmania, two respectable firms having tendered and a higher tender than that of either of them being accepted. Does the Minister intend to deduct the extra payment out of the salaries of the officers concerned, and will he take action to prevent such a thing occurring again ?

Mr EWING:
Minister for Defence · RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · Protectionist

– I remember the case perfectly well. Under the regulations, a commanding officer, with the approval of the Commandant of the State, is entitled to accept any tender for the supply of articles for the use of his company, f informed the honorable member previously that the commanding officer, with the approval of the Commandant, had accepted a higher tender. The reason given was that it was believed that the article supplied by one firm would.be better than that supplied by another. It appeared to me to have been rather a serious matter, and I caused instructions to be issued to every Commandant that, if the higher tender in any case appeared more acceptable to them, it must not be accepted before the Minister was informed. That seemed to be the only course open for me to take. I could not interfere with the. tender in the case under review, as the contract had been let. However, it will not happen again.

Mr Thomas:

– Not even if the article is better for the money ?

Mr EWING:

– I did not say that a better article would be obtained. I said the only reason given was that it was thought they would get a better article from one tenderer than from the other. It appears to me that when tenders are called for, and samples are displayed, the lower tender ought to be accepted, unless there be some very good reason indeed - and that reason the Minister ought to know - for not doing so. That course will be followed in the future.

Mr DUGALD THOMSON:
NORTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906

– I should like to ask the Prime Minister a question in connexion with the matter of tendering. The Minister of Defence has just stated that the lowest tender ought to be accepted if the goods are of equal quality. I am informed that it is not an uncommon thing in the case of imported goods to accept the higher tender, and this is done on the plea of preference. Has not the Prime Minister himself fin ‘ this Chamber fixed the preference which should be given to one country over others by means of the Tariff? Does he think that it is fair to people who tender upon that presumption to find that some other and additional preference is given, of which they know nothing, and as to which they cannot judge the amount when they tender? I know there is great discontent amongst tenderers. The Prime Minister has, in common with other members of this House, had an opportunity of fixing what he considers the proper_preference. Does he think that that ought to be departed from?

Mr DEAKIN:
Protectionist

– As the honorable mem,ber for North Sydney puts the matter, it sounds rather serious, but what I am informed is that it has been the practice of all Governments since the Commonwealth was inaugurated, and is the practice of most if not all the State Governments at present, to discriminate between tenders which are received for goods to be supplied.

Mr DUGALD THOMSON:
NORTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906

– Not with a preference already deliberately fixed ?

Mr DEAKIN:

– In one case the object may be to give preference; in another, it may be the same suggestion that was made in the case referred to by my colleague in answer to the honorable member for Bass. That is, it may be thought that the Department is obtaining a superior article. The cases are so diversified that it is difficult to lay down a hard and fast rule. I know from my political experience in the State and in the Commonwealth that the Departments, and sometimes the Government, if the. matter is sufficiently important, have always reserved to themselves a perfectly free hand in dealing with tenders.

Mr DUGALD THOMSON:
NORTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906

– Will the Prime Minister cause inquiry to be made into the question of tenders, and take some opportunity of informing the House whether the preference fixed by Parliament, as be tween one country and another - between Great Britain and America, for instance - : is to be the (preference recognised by the Departments, or whether there is to be given beyond that some secret preference for one reason or another, excepting the reason of difference in quality?

Mr DEAKIN:

– Certainly, if the honorable member wishes, I shall make inquiries into the practice with regard to the acceptance of tenders.

page 10608

QUESTION

TARIFF

Effect on Employment.

Mr JOHNSON:

– Has the attention of the Minister of Trade .and Customs been called to the following paragraph, which appears in this morning’s newspapers -

Some remarkable figures have been published in regard to the unemployed difficulty in the United States, which for some months past has been acute. According to the New York correspondent of the Daily Telegraph, a moderate estimate of the number of unemployed in the United States is 3,000,000. The socialist leaders, however, state that there are 4,000,000 workless men in the country, and this, despite the fact that 6,000,000 people have left the United States since October last.

asked; the Minister of Trade and Customs, upon notice -

Whether he considers it practically certain thatthe number of corn and flour sacks in the Commonwealth will be sufficient to meet the necessities of the next harvest ?
Upon what evidence is his opinion based?
Is there any substantial reason why the anxiety in this matter expressed by farmers and others should not be removed by postponing for some months, as requested by them, the date on which importation of sacks not of the prescribed size shall cease?

Mr AUSTIN CHAPMAN:
Protectionist

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

Yes.
Information obtained . from the trade. 1 am informed that a large stock, amounting probably to about 300,000 dozens, was carried over after the late harvest. There have also been importations to the extent of about 260,000 dozens since the 1st January this year, and a vessel expected to arrive before 15th May (date when Proclamation begins to operate) is bringing a large number. Apart from the large stock of old standard bags that will be available, Iam assured that there will be no difficulty in obtaining abundant supplies of the new standard sacks. They. are. quoted in the market every day and orders are being taken.
As I am convinced there is no need for any anxiety on the part of farmers as to an adequate supply of sacks being obtainable before the next harvest, and as an alteration of the date uponwhich the Proclamation becomes operative, would cause uncertainty and would inflict loss upon those who have entered into contracts for the supply of sackscon forming to the’ new standard, I think any postponement would be very undesirable.

page 10610

CUSTOMS TARIFF BILL

In Committee (Consideration of Senate’s requests resumed from 24th April, vide page 10605)

Item 121. Hats, Caps, and Bonnets : -

Request. - Insert the following new paragraph : - . “(e) Caps and Sewn Hats, n.e.i (General Tariff), 7s. per dozen, or 35 per, cent, ad val., whichever rate returns the higher duty ; (United Kingdom), 6s. per dozen, or 30 per cent. ad val., whichever rate returns the higher duty.”

Upon which Sir William Lyne had moved - .

That the requested amendment be made.

And Mr. McWilliams -

That the requested amendment be modified by leavingout,the words”7S. per dozenor.”

– I trust that we shall have the support of the right honorable gentleman, and of many other members of the Opposition, to proposals for giving the workers their fair share of protection.

Mr Reid:

– I am with the honorable member heart and soul in that.

Mr TUDOR:

– That can be done if the industry is properly protected; but it will be impossible if the importation of caps is not prevented.

Question - That the words, “ 7s. per dozen or,” proposed to be left out, stand part of the requested amendment (item 121, requested new paragraph e) (Mr. McWilliams’ modification) - put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 24

NOES: 18

Majority … 6

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Modification negatived.

Requested amendment made.

Item 122. Parasols, Sunshades, and Umbrellas, ad val, 20 per cent.

.- We have had the pleasure to-day, for the first time, of. having the Minister who controls the Department of Trade and Customs, in charge of the Tariff schedule. I am very glad that he is now in charge of what is really his proper work. But, like most chairmen, when he gives a reason he gets into trouble. My experience as chairman is that when one gives a reason the trouble starts. The Minister has given a reason for the increase of this duty, and on that ground, and not on the question of the amount of the duty, I intend to quarrel with him. He said that the Government would agree to the 25 per cent, so as to give a margin between the’ duty on the article from which the umbrella or- parasol was made, and that on the finished article itself. He forgot to state that already his kind friends in the Senate whom he allows to juggle with the Tariff as they like, have, decreased the duty on silk piece-goods by 5 and 10 per cent., according to the country, of origin. He now wants to spring another 5 per cent, on the completed umbrella, and so in a roundabout manner he is getting on behalf pf the umbrella and parasol makers 10 per cent, greater protection than they had when the schedule left this Chamber. The duty on this article was then 20 per cent., and that on silk piece goods was 20 per cent. The duty on the latter is to be reduced to 15 per cent. (General Tariff), whilst the duty on the umbrellas is to be raised to 25 per cent. On a previous item the Minister made a most pathetic appeal to the Committee to prevent shoddy articles from coming into Australia. But he is making no provision in this case against the importation of the shoddy umbrella, or “to protect the Australian manufacturer of umbrellas or parasolsagainst the sweated parasol makers of Germany: or elsewhere. If his argument on the previous item was a strong one, why does he, not propose in this case the alternative duty which he is so fond of? The reasons which the Minister gave for supporting this increase are not sound. As an Australian,. I, equally with the honorable member, want to see these articles manufactured here. I said months ago that I would support the new protection, and that if it became law one of my strongest objections to the policy of protection would cease. I never did want to be a buyer of foreign articles ; but desire those who make the articles, and not only the owners of factories, to get the benefit of a protective policy. The Minister of Trade and Customs in his appeal to the Committee said that the materials of which umbrellas are made are imported. Why does he as a protectionist ask Australian parasol manufacturers to use imported piece goods? Why does he not ask them to use materials made in Australia? If it is right to encourage the Australian umbrella or parasol maker, I cannot understand the honorable gentleman, as a protectionist, turning round and pleading that the reason why he wants a duty of 25 per cent, is to allow something for the duty he has on the piece goods. . I ask him to tell me why it is not possible to make here the piece goods out of which umbrellas are made, and thus give further employment. The ordinary parasol, or sunshade, or umbrella is not made from silk, but from, a mixture. I cannot understand the attitude of the Minister on this matter. If I am compelled to swallow a duty of 120 per cent. on the caps and hats of the masses, I can well afford to swallow a duty of 25 per cent. on parasols, sunshades, and umbrellas. But, in my opinion, the reasons given by the Minister in favour of this motion are absurd.

Mr JOHNSON:
Lang

Sir JOHN FORREST:

– That will make the protection 10 per cent. , but when the Government introduced the Tariff they did not allow any margin. I hope that the Government will not press the motion, as, in my opinion, they have not made out a case for agreeing with the Senate’s request.

Question - That the requested amendment,makingthe duty on Parasols,&c, (item 122) 25 per cent., be made - put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 26

NOES: 19

Majority … … 7

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Requested amendment made

Item 123. Piece Goods, viz. : -

Request. - Leave out “ and rubbered waterproof cloth of any material.”

Mr AUSTIN CHAPMAN:
Minister of Trade and Customs · EdenMoniaro · Protectionist

.- In this case the Senate has requested the omission of certain words with aview to the insertion of a new paragraph dealing with rubbered waterproof cloth. If honorable members win refer to the requestednew paragraphs on page 13 of the scheduletheywill see that a better arrangement of the duties can be made in that way. The suggestion is a good one, and the reasons for its adoption must be very evident to honorable members. I move -

That the requested amendment be made.

Motion agreed to.

Requested amendment made.

Item 123. Piece Goods, viz. : -

Piece goods, woollen or containing wool, viz., women’s and children’s dress goods not weighing over 5 ounces per square yard, ad val. (General Tariff), 35 per cent. ; and on and after 13th November, 1907, 15 per cent. ; (United Kingdom), 30 per cent., and on and after 13th November, 1907, 10 per cent.

Request. - Leave out the words “viz., women’s and children’s dress goods, line 3.”

Mr AUSTIN CHAPMAN:
Minister of Trade and Customs · EdenMonaro · Protectionist

.- I move-

That the requested amendment be not made.

Flannelette is made of a cotton warp and a woollen weft.

Later both the weft and the warp were made of cotton only. In Bartholomew’s Atlas of the World’s Commerce, I find the following definition of flannel -

Flannel is a kind of woollen fabric composed of carded fibres lightly fulled. Ordinary flannel. is woven of loosely-spun yarn.

The only other definition, of the word that I have been able to obtain is frorm the British Encyclopaedia for 1898, which contains the following -

Flannel (French flanelle, German flanel), an open woollen stuff of various degrees of fineness, from patent flannel, which does not shrink in washing, to baize, which is a coarse woollen stuff, or flannel with a long nap, first introduced into England, together with serge, by the Flemings. Domett is another variety of flannel, the warp of which is made of cotton, and the woof of wool. . . . The manufacture of flannel is almost the same as that of Other woollen goods, though there are certain wools which are more used for flannel than for any other textiles. For instance, a short staple wool of fine quality from a Southdown variety of the Sussex breed is principally in favour with the flannelmakers at Rochdale, as also the wool from the Norfolk breed, a cross between. the Southdown and Norfolk sheep. In Wales the short-staple wool of the mountain sheep is used, and in Ireland that of the Wicklow variety of the Cottagh breed. Nearly 2,000 persons are employed in this section of woollen manufactures, the chief seat of the industry being Rochdale, in Lancashire ; while blankets, a special branch of the flannel trade, are extensively woven at Dewsbury, in Yorkshire.

These quotations will serve to show that the definition of flannel is almost as wide as the world. Any material made of wool loosely woven may come under that designation. Of course, nobody would dream of calling delicate tissues such as flannel merino, flannel serge, amazonia, superior cashmere, crepe mikado, and crepe stella, flannels. These have their differentiations, and are well known.

Mr Reid:

– In the form in which the Tariff left this Chamber, under what classification would they come?

Mr MALONEY:

– They would be classified as “women’s and children’s dress goods not weighing over 5 oz. per square yard.” In order to make the position perfectly clear, however, I move -

That the following modification be added : - “ But that, after the word ‘ yard ‘ the words including women’s and children’s dress flannels’ “ be inserted.

Modification amended accordingly, and agreed to.

Requested amendment not made.

Requested amendments in item 123, paragraph c and paragraph d (Piece Goods), made.

Item 123. Piece Goods, viz. : -

Piece goods, n.e.i., other than of wool or silk, suitable for human apparel or to be worn in connexion with the human body, having on one or both sides a teased, treated, combed, fluffed or raised nap or surface in imitation of or resembling flannel in feel or appearance, ad val. (General Tariff), 25 per cent., and on and after 14th November, 1907, 10 per cent. ; (United Kingdom); 20 per cent., and on and after 14th November, 1907, 5 per cent.

Request. - Make the duty (General Tariff), 5 per cent. ; (United Kingdom), free.

Mr AUSTIN CHAPMAN:
Minister of Trade and Customs · EdenMonaro · Protectionist

.- I move-

That the requested amendment be not made.

This item refers to flannelette, which the Senate desires shall be dutiable at the same rate as are other piece goods in the schedule as passed by this House. The making of such an amendment would involve a loss of £11,000 per annum, and I consequently ask the Committee to reject it.

Mr REID:
East Sydney

.- This is a convenient stage at which to obtain some information from the Minister as to what will be the effect upon the general revenue of the Senate’s requested amendments. I am inclined to think that they will lead to the revenue from, the Tariff being greatly increased. If that be so, the argument raised as to what would be the effect of this requested amendment is of scarcely any force. I understand that the total increases proposed by the Senate will mean an enormous expansion of the revenue from the Tariff, which is already greatly in excess of the Treasurer’s anticipations. In such circumstances, we might reasonably agree to an incidental reduction of a revenue duty. This proposal will not affect protection. The woollen industry of Australia is protected under a different item. This item relates to cheap kinds of apparel, in the manufacture of which wool is not used. I should think that the protectionists would be disposed to encourage the introduction of raw material which is not produced here.

Mr Mathews:

– But flannelette might come into competition with goods that we do produce.

Mr REID:

– We must not forget that the effect of the Senate’s amendment would be to encourage the manufacture in Australia of articles made of flannelette. If we allow a raw material which we do not produce to come in free, we shall encourage the manufacture of the finished article here. There is no fiscal question involved in this case, and I should think it would be the desire of honorable members generally to provide for the freest entrance into Australia of raw materials that are not made here. The amount of duty involved is only about £11,000., and as that cannot be regarded as a serious loss, in view of the fact that the revenue has increased by this Tariff to the extent of about £2,000,000, the Committee might well agree to accept the reduction proposed.

Mr STORRER:
Bass

.- I hope the Committee will not agree to the requested amendment. If I had my way I would prohibit the sale of flannelette. Every day we hear of cases of children being burnt to death as a result of the use of clothing made from this material. The honorable member for Melbourne has pointed out that when first introduced there was some wool used in the manufacture of flannelette, but it is now manufactured entirely from cotton. Many people who use it are not aware of that fact. It is more inflammable than calico, and its use is a dangerto the whole community. I should like to see its importation prohibited, and, at any rate, as some check upon the importation of flannelette we should adhere to our former decision as to the duty to be imposed upon it.

Mr Poynton:

– Ought we to encourage the distribution of matches ?

Mr STORRER:

– They should be distributed with very great care. If I had my way I would increase the price of matches in order that people might be induced to be more careful in their use.

Mr Poynton:

– Ought we to go back to the old flint and tinder ?

Mr STORRER:

– The honorable member for Grey, who, as a free-trader, is as hard as flint, might be excused for doing so. I hope that the Committee will adhere to its former decision in this matter as affording some protection against the use of flannelette, and also because it comes into competition with the genuine woollen article which is made in Australia.

Mr HUTCHISON:
Hindmarsh

– If the honorable member for Bass had proposed a modification of the requested amendment fixing the duty at 500 per cent. I should have been prepared to support him, but in the circumstances in which we are placed, I agree entirely with the right honorable member for East Sydney, that we should make this item free. It is simply a farce to go on imposing duties of 10 and 5 per cent. on articles which are universally used. As people will use flannelette, they should be allowed to get it as cheaply as possible.

Mr Mathews:

– We might as well give a preference to the Old Country.

Mr HUTCHISON:

– I should prefer to prohibit the importation of this material altogether, but as that cannot be done, and as I believe that the right honorable member for East Sydney has stated the position correctly, I am prepared to support the amendment requested by the Senate.

Question - That the requested amendments, making the duty on item 123 (Piece

Goods), paragraph f (General Tariff), 5 per cent., (United Kingdom), free, be not made - put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 25

NOES: 16

M ajority … … 9

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Requested amendments not made.

Item 123. Piece Goods, viz. : -

Request. - Insert following new paragraph - “ (g) Rubbered waterproof cloth -

Requested amendment inserting new paragraph g (i) made.

Motion (by Mr. Austin Chapman) agreed to -

That the requested amendment inserting new paragraphG (2) be made, with a modification altering the duties to (General Tariff), 25 per cent. : (United Kingdom), 20 per cent.

Motion (by Mr. Austin Chapman) proposed -

That the requested amendment inserting new paragraph g (3) be made.

Mr THOMAS BROWN:
CALARE, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I wish to ask the Minister whether celluloid goods would be included under the proposed new paragraph. I understand that the Minister intends to prohibit the importation of celluloid goods. Before any action is taken in that direction, we should be given some reasons for the course proposed. If celluloid goods are not covered by this paragraph, information cannot be given at this stage, but I should like to know what action the Government . pro- . pose to take in this matter.

Mr AUSTIN CHAPMAN:
Minister of Trade and Customs · EdenMonaro · Protectionist

– Celluloid goods would not be covered by the proposed new paragraph. The honorable member for Calare is mistaken in saying that I propose to prohibit the importation of all such goods. They are of a very inflammable character, and I am seriously considering the desirability of preventing the introduction of celluloid eye shadesand other articles of that. kind.

Motion agreed to

Requested amendment made.

Item 124: Waddings and Cotton Wool, ad val. (General Tariff), 20 per cent., and on and after 14th November, 1907, free; (United Kingdom), 15 . per cent., and on and after 14th November, 1907, free.

Request. - Insert “n.e.i.” after . the word “ Wool,” and make the duty (General Tariff), 20 per cent. ; (United Kingdom), 15 per cent.

Motion (by Mr. Austin Chapman) proposed -

That the requested amendments, be made.

Sir John Forrest:

– We shall have to levy aduty on the raw material for some years.

Mr HUTCHISON:

– There is no reason why we should, as cotton is being produced here. The moment that there is a good market, it will be produced in larger quantities.

Sir John Forrest:

– How much do they grow in Queensland?

Mr HUTCHISON:

– It is easy for the right honorable member for East Sydney to talk about slavishly following the Senate, but he has not taken objection to our proposals when we have asked the Committee to make requested reductions, for which he seems to have a mania. We do right in listening to the requests of the Senate, and have already, to-night, mademany requested reductions which we thought reasonable and fair.

Mr JOHNSON:
Lang

Mr PAGE:
Maranoa

.- After listening to the remarks of the honorable member for Kooyong, I perceive that he is giving effect to his statement on the hustings, that he would not ruin any Australian industry, especially a Victorian one. This appears to be a South Melbourne industry, although the firm has a branch in Queensland. The honorable member for Wentworth has referred to the firm in question as being a ‘mysterious one. I- do not think that it is very mysterious. Certainly the firm is doing trade to the extent of £40,000 or £60,000 per annum in the Commonwealth. In a letter which the. firm has issued, they say -

We did not increase our price when the duty was imposed and have no intention whatever of doing so, because all we desire is the larger market, which will mean, increased output, and consequently reduced cost of manufacture, and we hope reduced price.

That is a fine show for the shop front. All they want is protection, and if they get the necessary protection they will not only reduce the cost of manufacture, but they hope - life is only hope when all is said and done ! - to reduce the price. The honorable member for Kooyong, having some interest in Queensland, is particularly anxious to see that State go ahead.

Mr Knox:

– I should think so.

Mr PAGE:

– This is what the firm say on that subject -

We might mention that we have, been and are using Queensland grown cotton, and can use very much larger quantities if the above duties are imposed; and therefore such will mean the securing of a home . market for. Australian cotton, which on sworn evidence was proved could’ be successfully grown in Queensland, Western Australia, Northern Territory and northern New South Wales.

Sir John Forrest:

– Where is- cotton grown in Western Australia?

Mr PAGE:

– 1 saw. ‘some cotton bush in the right honorable member’s own garden in Perth. ‘The firm also say in their letter-

We have invested a considerable sum of money in it, and endeavoured to carry it on without the advantage of protection, but we are unable to successfully compete against the imported- article, and were it not that it is only a. portion of our business we would have had to close it up long ago.

– Yes. The Tariff, as introduced, provided for duties of 20 and 15 per cent., but immediately the item was called on the Treasurer, on his own initiative, and not. as suggested by the Minister of Trade and Customs, at the request of the Opposition, asked the Committee to agree to an amendment providing that on and after 14th November, 1907,. it should be free. The Minister was asked whether he would not, consider the interests of firms engaged in the manufacture of wadding and cotton wool, and he replied that he preferred to rely on the reports of his officers rather than upon the recommendations of any interested firm. At page 5928 of Hansard, the Treasurer, in alluding to a speech made’ by the honorable member for Denison, is reported to have said-

I do not know to what Minister the honorable member for Denison has referred ; but my experience is that a Minister, in dealing with such matters, always acts on the recommendation of his officers.

Sir Philip Fysh:

– The. decision to which I have referred was contrary to the recommendation of the officers of the Department.

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:
Treasurer · HUME, NEW SOUTH WALES · Protectionist

Question - That the modification making the duties on “ Waddings and Cotton Wool,” ad. val. (General Tariff), 15 per cent. (United Kingdom), 10 per cent. (Mr. Dugald Thomson’s modification) be made - put. TheCommittee divided.

Ayes … … 14

Noes … … … 22

Mnioritv … 8 .

Question so resolved in the negative.

Modification negatived.

Requested amendments made.

Requested amendment in item 131 (Fringes), made.

Item 132. Socks and Stockings of all kinds for human attire, ad -val. (General Tariff), on and after 14th November,1907, 25 per cent. (United Kingdom), on and after 14th November, 1907, 20 per cent.

Requests. - Leave out the words “of all kinds,” insert “viz.” after the word “attire,” and add the following paragraphs - “(a) Woollen or containing wool, ad val. (General Tariff), 25 per cent. ; (United Kingdom), 20 per cent.

Cotton, free.
Silk orcontaining silk, but not containing wool, and n.e.i., ad val. (General Tariff), 25 per cent. ; (United Kingdom), 20 per cent.”

Mr PAGE:

– Every one knows that is. per pair is quite enough for working men to have to pay for socks, and the honorable member for Melbourne has produced samples which show how the quality ‘ of the articles imported has been reduced to enable the importer to pay duty, and still sell at low prices. The Government, which claims to be the friend of the working people, is dipping its hand into their; pockets. I hope that when the Minister sees that we have the numbers, he will allow the ‘ requested amendment of the Senate to be made.

Mr MALONEY:
Melbourne

.- Mr. Frederick :Robinson, of the firm of Thomas Murray and Company, hosiery manufacturers, Richmond, when examined on oath before the Tariff Commission, gave this evidence -

What types of socks and stockings do you admit you cannot produce ? - We do not profess to make embroidered socks and stockings;

Those are fancy goods? - Lisle thread, or cotton socks, cannot be made here. The Tariff on cotton socles and stockings is only 10 per cent., and that trade is in the hands of Germany. Even America buys most of her cotton productions from Germany; it is a German trade alone. The socks and stockings we mainly produce are for people who are not living in luxury - ordinary working men.

Do you make any complaint about cotton socks and stockings, which are not mentioned in your letter? - We have not mentioned them, because we did not think there would be any use bringing them before the Commission.’

There is no spinning machine in Australia which can make an article such as that which I now hold in my hand. This article cannot be produced in England or in America, notwithstanding the high Tariff of that country. It is made in, Germany, where there is a secret- process which is carefully guarded. The capital,ists of America have established a factory in Germany, to which they send stockings to be dyed with what is called the fast diamond dye, by means of the Hermsdorf process, which is a trade secret. According -to Kelly’s Customs Tariffs of the World. 1904, page 467, the duties in the United States on cotton stockings are these -

– The honorable member is pitching into those on his own side.

Mr HENRY WILLIS:

– The remark applies to the honorable member for Barrier also. He is one of the most inconsistent men in this Parliament. Re-‘ presenting a constituency in which there is one of the richest mines in. Australia, he voted to take the duties off timber used in those mines, while clapping increased burdens upon the miners. What for ? Only to curry favour with the mine-owners.

The CHAIRMAN:

-The honorable member must not pursue that line of argument.

Mr Austin Chapman:

– I believe that the mine-owners are great supporters of the honorable member for Barrier !

Mr HENRY WILLIS:

– He paid them well for supporting him. I hope we shall soon go- to a vote, and shall show that we have some intelligence in reference to cotton socks and stockings. They are imported, and evidently they are worn by some one. The people who wear them do so because they cost less than socks and stocking’s made of superior material. If we place a duty upon them we shall be taxing the poor people. If honorable members opposite represent the poor as well as the rich, as they profess to do, they will vote to put cotton socks and stockings upon the free list.

Mr. KELLY (Wentworth [10.20]. - I hesitated to rise, because I was sure- that the Labour Party would rise unitedly to defend itself from the charges made in the very able speech delivered by the honorable member for Robertson.

Mr Webster:

– No one takes any notice of him.

Mr KELLY:

– The honorable member for Balaclava said that there were fixed retail prices for cotton socks and stockings in Australia, and that if the duty were removed the only result would be that the importers would make a larger profit at the expense of the general ‘ consumer. My information is’ that the duty which the honorable member would have imposed will not put up the prices, but will put down the quality. I have before me two pairs of cotton stockings, one pair having been imported ,under the old Tariff, and the other imported under the present Tariff. Both are sold at is. per pair. The quality of the pair imported under the present duty is infinitely inferior to the quality of that imported prior to this Tariff coming into force. It is invoiced at 5s. 3d. per dozen as against the invoiced price of - 6s. per dozen’ in respect of stockings imported under the old Tariff, and both are sold at is. per pair. That shows clearly that this duty will not prevent people from wearing cotton socks and stockings, but that it will lead to their being supplied with an article of much poorer quality. I wish to put it strongly that if honorable members have any thought for the poorest people in this community they will not endeavour to compel them to wear hosiery inferior to that which they now use, which, Heaven knows, is poor enough.

Mr THOMAS BROWN:
CALARE, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– The debate on the Tariff has disclosed the fact that in this House there are protectionists and protectionists. There are those who strongly advocate protective duties to encourage industries that givepromise of being established on a selfsupporting basis ; there are others who are prepared to advocate taxation through the Customs, and to so allocate it that whilst being a powerful means of raising revenue it will also have a protective incidence. Those who support protective duties* to establish local industries are not in favour of purely revenue duties, and I understand that the honorable member for Melbourne, who has so ably placed this question before the Committee, comes within that category. He desires to establish industries by. means of protective duties ; but he is not in favour of Customs taxation merely for the purpose of raising revenue. The ‘ Minister of Trade and Custom’s has urged that we should accept this request for the reason, amongst others, that if the honorable member for Melbourne’s proposition were agreed to we should lose a good deal of revenue. I think that he was justified in placing that phase of the question before the Committee, but I. would ask those who do not believe in Customs duties for’ merely revenue purposes to keep that fact in mind. Many people must necessarily wear cotton socks or stockings. Climatic conditions throughput a large part of the Commonwealth render the use of such hosiery almost imperative, and it is absurd for the sake of encouraging a local industry to endeavour to compel those residing’ in the warmer parts of Australia to use woollen hosiery. If this duty be imposed, they will be .compelled either, to purchase these goods at a greatly enhanced price and thereby to add materially to the revenue from Customs taxation, or to do without such wear. It has also been urged with much force that cotton hosiery is used largely by the poorer classes, and that this tax will fall heavily upon the worker - upon the miner and even the factory hand engaged in other industries. It will press very heavily upon the working man with a family, who has to provide his children with hosiery, and it will be still another charge upon his slender income. I do not think that it is the desire of the protectionists of the Labour Party to’ impose burdens upon the poor in this connexion. It has been admitted by the Minister of Trade and Customs that one strong reason for asking the Committee to agree to this increase is that it is necessary’ to .make good a loss of revenue in other directions..

Mr Austin Chapman:

– No.

Mr THOMAS BROWN:
CALARE, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I hope thathonorable members’ will adopt the’ rule laid down by some protectionists at all events, that duties which press heavily upon the poor are unworthy pf support. I feelsure that the observance of that policy will mean that this item of cotton socks and stockings will be placed upon the free. list.

Mr MATHEWS:
Melbourne Ports

– On more than one occasion, I have said that my only object in supporting protective duties is to encourage the manufacture of the dutiable articles in Australia. I have not supported duties merely for the purpose of. raising revenue, because I believe that revenue should be collected in some other way. When the Tariff was previously before the Committee, I did not quote from , reports of either the free- trade or protectionist sections of the Tariff Commission, because I could never discover’ which section told the truth. In every case one or the other must have been- saying what- ‘ was untrue. When one honorable memberquoted in support of a (proposal the report of the protectionist section, another quoted in opposition to it the report of the’ free- trade section, and the result was chaos. Strangely enough, I find that both sections of the Tariff Commission were agreed in this .particular case.

Mr Reid:

– The members of the free-, trade section of the Commission believed in raising revenue through the Customs, whilethe honorable member does not. .

Mr MATHEWS:

– I quote the follow-; ing from the report of the free-trade section of the Commission -

No proposal of a duty on cotton hosiery was made by any of the witnesses who asked for a higher Tariff on woollen goods. On the contrary, a manufacturer deprecated a suggestion by a Commissioner of a duty on cotton socks and stockings.

In a progress report by the protectionist section of the Tariff Commission, I find the following -

Cotton socks and stockings were not at present manufactured in Australia. . There was no immediate prospect of the successful initiation of this branch of hosiery production here, and, therefore, these goods did not require to be. protected by a special duty. ‘

So far the reports by the two sections of the Commission agree. The protectionist section went on to say -

The hosiery manufacturers who appeared before your Commissioners were interested in securing an increased import duty upon- woollen socks and stockings only, but some of them incidentally stated that if the present duty of 16 per cent, on cotton hosiery were increased to 20’ or 25 per cent., and the raw material locally produced, they could compete with imported cotton socks and stockings. The manufacture of this kind of cotton hosiery was confined- to Germany. The Australian manufacturers did not spin cotton yarn.

These reports proved conclusively to my mind that there was no immediate prospect of the establishment of the manufacture of cotton socks and stockings in Australia, and I therefore deemed it my duty as a protectionist to vote against the imposition of any duties upon these articles. I have learned since that Foy and Gibson, of Collingwood, do. manufacture cotton socks, and I have alsobeen told that they are manufactured by a firm in my own electorate. It will be ad mitted that I have always fought hard to get for my constituents what they require. I know the manufacturer, in South Melbourne who has been referred to; and I knew his father beforehim as a manufacturer of excellent woollen goods, but until this evening I never heard that they manufactured cotton socks or stockings.

Mr THOMAS BROWN:
CALARE, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Should not that information have been supplied . to the Tariff Commission?

Mr MATHEWS:

– Yes ; but the Committee sat in 1906 and 1907, and I admit that much might have happened since they took evidence. As a protectionist. I have contended that the imposition of a protective duty does not necessarily increase- the price of the dutiable article where there is local manufacture as well as importation But if we imposed a duty on cotton socks and stockings when these articles are not manufactured here, I am certain that without local competition the result would be. that the importer would raise the price in proportion to the duty. I am aware that when people have been accustomed to pay a certain price for an article, they strongly object if they are asked to pay a higher price. In voting as I intend to do, . to make cotton socks and stockings free of duty, I hold that I shall not be departing from true protectionist principles, as no satisfactory evidence has been adduced that- these articles arebeing commercially manufactured in Australia.

Mr WEBSTER:
Gwydir

..-I must in this matter take the same stand as that indicated by the honorable member for Melbourne Ports.Where there is a prospect that any article will be manufactured in Australia within a reasonable time, it is the duty of protectionists to support a protectionist duty upon that article.

Mr Hutchison:

– Why should it be difficult to make cotton socks and stockings in Australia?

Mr WEBSTER:

– I happen to know that the cotton socks and stockings so largely used by adults and children in Australia are made chiefly in Germany. The reason is .thatthe secret of the dyeing of these articles is not in the possession of the manufacturersof any other country. British manufacturers, have for many yearstried in vain tocutintothetrade,but they have been unable to obtain the secret of the dyeing of the goods. The manufacture of these articles is practically a monopoly in the hands of German manufacturers; There is no possibility of their being manufactured here.

Mr Coon:

– The honorable member is wrong there.

Mr WEBSTER:

– The honorable member for Batman cannot prove that the cotton socks and stockings to which I refer are being made here. As a matter of fact, they cannot be made here. The honorable member for Calare has pointed out that climatic conditions make it a matter of choice with a majority of the people of Australia to wear cotton socks. I know that I prefer cotton to woollen socks for summer wear. As one who professes protectionist principles, Iam unable to vote for a tax upon an article- which is largely used by the community which is not made, and is not likely to be made here, and which, to all intents and (purposes, is a monopoly in the hands of the manufacturers of one country who have not permitted the secret of their manufacture tobe discovered even by the manufacturers of older nations of the world.

Mr TUDOR:
Yarra

– The honorable member for North Sydney and the honorable member for East Sydney both stated that there had been an increase in the duty on woollen hosiery to the extent of 66 per cent.

Mr DUGALD THOMSON:
NORTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906

– I was giving the honorable member’s own figures.

Mr TUDOR:

– The Custom, returns, however, show that about . 95 per cent. of the woollen hosiery comes from Great Britain, and, therefore, the increase has not been 66 per cent., but only about 33 . per cent., the duty being 26 per cent. against Great Britain, whereasin the previous Tariffit was 15 per cent. Theimports of cotton hosiery in 1904 were valued at £128,000, in 1905 at132,000, and in 1906 at £155,000 while the imports of woollen hosiery in the same years were valued at -£265,000, £290,000, and £313,000 respectively. The increase in the duty on woollen hosiery has been -little enough, andI should have preferred, it to remain, at the original figure, namely, 25. per cent. all round, with no preference. It has been suggested thatsomehonorable . membersare voting against the request of the Senate in order that the revenue may be maintained. But the revenue aspect does not appeal to me; I am voting as a’ protectionist, because cotton socks and stockings can be made here as well as can woollen socks and stockings. If the re- quest be granted, there will be a duty on the raw material, while the finished article will be free.

Mr Page:

– Are we not going to make cotton varus here ?

Mr TUDOR:

– Yes; and I suppose every Queensland geographical protectionist will be in favour of a duty. I desire merely to point out that we shall be likely fo cripple the woollen hosiery industry by making it easier for people to obtain cotton socks and stockings if we accede to the request of the Senate.

Progress reported.

House adjourned at 10.47 P-m-

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 28 April 1908, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1908/19080428_reps_3_45/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant

House of Representatives28 April 1908

PAPERS

QUESTION

PAPUA

Mr BOWDEN:NEPEAN, NEW SOUTH WALES

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

Mr McWILLIAMS:FRANKLIN, TASMANIA

Mr DEAKIN:

Mr KELLY:WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr Deakin:

Mr KELLY:

Mr DEAKIN:

QUESTION

VISIT OF THE AMERICAN FLEET

Mr JOHNSON:LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr DEAKIN:Protectionist

Mr Batchelor:

Mr DEAKIN:

Sir John Forrest:

Mr DEAKIN:

Mr Johnson:

Mr DEAKIN:

Mr REID:EAST SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr DEAKIN:

ADVERTISING AUSTRALIA

Mr LIDDELL:HUNTER, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr DEAKIN:Protectionist

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH YEAR-BOOK

Mr BAMFORD:HERBERT, QUEENSLAND

Mr HUME COOK:BOURKE, VICTORIA · PROT

QUESTION

TENDERS

Mr STORRER:BASS, TASMANIA

Mr EWING:Minister for Defence · RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · Protectionist

Mr Thomas:

Mr EWING:

Mr DUGALD THOMSON:NORTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906

Mr DEAKIN:Protectionist

Mr DUGALD THOMSON:NORTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906

Mr DEAKIN:

Mr DUGALD THOMSON:NORTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906

Mr DEAKIN:

QUESTION

TARIFF

Mr JOHNSON:

Mr AUSTIN CHAPMAN:Minister for Trade and Customs · EDEN-MONARO, NEW SOUTH WALES · Protectionist

QUESTION

DEFENCE : MEDICAL RESERVE

Mr SALMON:LAANECOORIE, VICTORIA

Mr EWING:Protectionist

QUESTION

POST AND TELEGRAPH DEPARTMENT: SECRETARY

Mr LIDDELL:

Mr HUME COOK:BOURKE, VICTORIA · PROT

QUESTION

TELEPHONE TUNNELS

Mr SALMON:

Mr HUME COOK:BOURKE, VICTORIA · PROT

QUESTION

RIFLE RANGE

Mr BOWDEN:

Mr EWING:Protectionist

QUESTION

EASTER ENCAMPMENT

Mr CROUCH:CORIO, VICTORIA

Mr EWING:Protectionist

QUESTION

CORN AND FLOUR SACKS

Mr GLYNN:ANGAS, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Mr AUSTIN CHAPMAN:Protectionist

CUSTOMS TARIFF BILL

Mr HUTCHISON:Hindmarsh

Mr Liddell:

Mr HUTCHISON:

Mr Poynton:

Mr HUTCHISON:

Mr HUTCHISON:

Mr HENRY WILLIS:Robertson

Mr Hutchison:

House of Representatives
28 April 1908

Mr BOWDEN:
NEPEAN, NEW SOUTH WALES

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

Mr McWILLIAMS:
FRANKLIN, TASMANIA

Mr KELLY:
WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr JOHNSON:
LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr DEAKIN:
Protectionist

Mr REID:
EAST SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr LIDDELL:
HUNTER, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr DEAKIN:
Protectionist

Mr BAMFORD:
HERBERT, QUEENSLAND

Mr HUME COOK:
BOURKE, VICTORIA · PROT

Mr STORRER:
BASS, TASMANIA

Mr EWING:
Minister for Defence · RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · Protectionist

Mr DUGALD THOMSON:
NORTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906

Mr DEAKIN:
Protectionist

Mr DUGALD THOMSON:
NORTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906

Mr DUGALD THOMSON:
NORTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906

Mr AUSTIN CHAPMAN:
Minister for Trade and Customs · EDEN-MONARO, NEW SOUTH WALES · Protectionist

Mr SALMON:
LAANECOORIE, VICTORIA

Mr EWING:
Protectionist

Mr HUME COOK:
BOURKE, VICTORIA · PROT

Mr HUME COOK:
BOURKE, VICTORIA · PROT

Mr EWING:
Protectionist

Mr CROUCH:
CORIO, VICTORIA

Mr EWING:
Protectionist

Mr GLYNN:
ANGAS, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Mr AUSTIN CHAPMAN:
Protectionist

Mr HUTCHISON:
Hindmarsh

Mr HENRY WILLIS:
Robertson

Mr DUGALD THOMSON:
NORTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906

Mr REID:
EAST SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906

Mr WILKS:
Dalley

Mr DUGALD THOMSON:
NORTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906

Mr DUGALD THOMSON:
NORTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906

Mr DUGALD THOMSON:
NORTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906

Mr DUGALD THOMSON:
NORTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906

Mr HUTCHISON:
Hindmarsh

Mr COON:
Batman

Mr REID:
East Sydney

Mr FOSTER:
NEW ENGLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

Mr FOSTER:
NEW ENGLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

Mr FOSTER:
NEW ENGLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

Mr FOSTER:
NEW ENGLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

Mr FOSTER:
NEW ENGLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

Mr FOSTER:
NEW ENGLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

Mr FOSTER:
NEW ENGLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

Mr FOSTER:
NEW ENGLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

Mr FOSTER:
NEW ENGLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP