View PDF View XML View in Voyant

Senate
19 June 1902

1^st Parliament · 1^st Session

QUESTION
- AUSTRALIAN TROOPSIN LONDON
QUESTION
- MILITARY BREAD CONTRACT
CUSTOMS OFFICERS’ OVERTIME
MAIL SUBSIDY: NEW HEBRIDES
PAIRS
CUSTOMS TARIFF BILL

The President took the chair at 2.30 p.m., and read prayers.

page 13879

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN TROOPSIN LONDON

Senator DE LARGIE:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

asked the VicePresident of the Executive Council upon notice -

Is it a fact that Australian troops are doing sentry duty at the Hotel Cecil, London!
And, if so, will the Government take steps to end, so far us our troops are concerned, this display of militarism ?

Senator O’CONNOR:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · NEW SOUTH WALES · Protectionist

– The Government know nothing of the matter beyond what appears in the. newspapers, and do not think it necessary to take any action.

page 13879

QUESTION

MILITARY BREAD CONTRACT

Senator STEWART:
QUEENSLAND

asked the VicePresident of the Executive Council, upon notice -

Is it the case that the contractor who supplies the garrision at Thursday Islnnd with bread is a Chinaman ?
Were tenders called for such service of bread, either by the Government or by any official representing it ; and, if so, were there no offers from white men ?
Is it the case that the soldiers of the garrison have refused to eat the bread supplied by the Chinaman, and are purchasing bread at their own expense ?

Senator O’CONNOR:
Protectionist

– It is the case, under a tender let by the State Government of Queensland. No complaints have been received, but inquiries are being made.

page 13879

CUSTOMS OFFICERS’ OVERTIME

Ordered (on motion by Senator Clemons) -

That there be laid upon the table of the Senate a return showing -

. The number of days on which officers in the Department of Trade and Customs in the State of Tasmania have worked overtime.

The number of hours of such overtime.

The names of the officers so over-worked.

page 13879

MAIL SUBSIDY: NEW HEBRIDES

Ordered (on motion by Senator Stewart) -

That there be laid upon the table of the Senate copies of all correspondence and other documents having reference to the additional subsidy granted to Burns,Philp, and Co. in connexion with the mail service to the New Hebrides.

page 13879

PAIRS

The PRESIDENT:

– The officers of the Hansard staff inform me that it is impossible for them to get pairs correctly if they have not some official document to refer to, and, therefore, they have asked me to state that in future they will insert in Hansard only the pairs entered in the pair book, A mistake occurred lately in consequence of honorable senators making statements to the reporters, who were busy with other matters.

Senator Higgs:

– It would be a more convenient practice, sir, if the system followed in Queensland were adopted. There the members write on a circular the item on which they pair. Under that system there is no confusion, because a circular records each transaction.

The PRESIDENT:

– I know nothing about the practice in Queensland, but it seems to me that if there is a pair book, and honorable senators wish their pairs to be recorded, they should take the trouble to enter the pairs, or to get others to do it for them.

page 13880

CUSTOMS TARIFF BILL

In Commitee (Consideration resumed from 1 8th June, vide page 13839).

Division 5 - Apparel and textiles.

Item 58 - Apparel and attire and articles n.e.i. - Woollen or silk, or containing wool or silk, partly or wholly made up (not being piece goods) including articles cut into shape, ad valorem 25 per cent.

Not containing wool or silk, partly or wholly mode up (notbeing piece-goods), including articles cat into shape, and dressed feathers, ad valorem, 25 per cent.

Towels and handkerchiefs, mode of cotton or linen, ad valorem, 15 per cent.

Upon which Senator Major Gould had moved -

That the House of Representatives be requested to amend item 58 by adding to the duty, “Apparel and attire and articles n.e.i. . . 25 per cent.,” tho words, ‘‘and on and after 1st July, 1902, 20 per cent.”

Senator PULSFORD:
New South Wales

Senator Sir Josiah Symon:

– No; two women and a girl !

Senator STYLES:

– If I recollect aright, Senator Symon told a newspaper in Tasmania last November, that the clothing and boot manufacturing industries of Victoria were mere exotics, employing only a few people.

Senator Sir Josiah Symon:

– The honorable senator is quoting from memory, surely.

Senator STYLES:

– I quoted the passage from a newspaper in my second-reading speech, and it is on record. The honorable and learned senator now admits that a larger number are employed in the industry than he previously thought. Indeed the number is greater than has been quoted here to-day. Senator O’Connor told us that the number employed is about 25,000, including those engaged in the woollen industry. But, according to the figures of the Victorian Government Statist, there are 18,449 employed in the textile and clothing trades of Victoria alone. That leaves only 6,500 for the rest of Australia. There must be a mistake somewhere. Thenumber of factories in Victoria is 571, showing an average all round of about 30 persons per factory, so that the industry is no trifling one. We hear a great deal about the factories in New South Wales. We are told that they have carried on successfully under freetrade. It has been asserted that the wages paid in New South Wales are as good as those paid in Victoria. No particulars have been given, but I will supply the omission. If wages were higher in New South Wales than in Victoria it is wonderful that the best workmen and workwomen do not gravitate to that State. Ihavehere Coghlan’s Industrial Wages for the 31st of December, 1900. I am going to compare the particulars given therein with details furnished in connexion with the Victorian wages boards. It will be seen that in nearly every case the minimum weekly wage in Victoria is as high as or higher than the average for the same kind of work in New South Wales. The particulars are as follow : - Tailors, males, average weekly wage in New South Wales, £2 3s. 3d. ; minimum in Victoria, £2 5s. Cutters, average wage in New South Wales, £2 1 6s. 6d. : minimum in Victoria, £2 5s. Trimmers, average weekly wage in New South Wales, £1 15s. ; minimum in

Victoria, £2 5s. ; or 10s. more. The average wage of pressers in New South Wales is £2 3s. 6d. per week, while in Victoria the minimum weekly wage is £2 5s. Machinists in New South Wales receive £2 15s. 3d. as an average weekly wage, while here the minimum is £2 5s. Examiners in New South Wales receive an average weekly wage of £2 3s. 6d., while in Victoria the minimum is £2 os. “ Stock “- cutters in New South Wales receive an average weekly wage of £2 16s. 3d. ; here the minimum is £2 10s. Folders in New South Wales are paid an average wage of £1 16s. 9d. per week ; here the minimum wage is £2. The average weekly wage of steam pressers in New South Wales is £1 7s. ; while in Victoria the minimum is £1 10s. Machinists (female) receive an average weekly wage of 19s. in New South Wales; in Victoria the minimum is £1. Finishers (females) in New South Wales receive an average weekly wage of 16s. 3d.; in Victoria the minimum is £1. Tailoresses are paid an average weekly wage of 19s. in New South Wales ; here the minimum is £1. White-workers, that is, women engaged in making shirts, receive an average wage of 15s. 6d. per week in New South Wales ; while here the minimum is 16s. Shirt-front makers in New South Wales receive 15s. 6d. per week on the average ; in Victoria they are paid a minimum wage of 16s. These figures all relate to the clothing trade. In the underclothing trade, finishers (female) receive 1 Os. per week on the average in New South Wales, and. 16s. is the minimum wage in Victoria. Machinists receive 16s. 9d. per week on the average in New South Wales, while here the minimum is 1 6s. Sorters are paid an average weekly wage of 17s. in New South Wales ; in Victoria they receive a minimum wage of 16s. In New South Wales, the average weekly wage of trimmers is 12s. 3d., while here the minimum is 16s. These figures ought to satisfy those who tell us that the wages paid in this trade are higher in New South Wales than in Victoria, that their statement is absolutely incorrect. Some little consideration, should also be given to the money invested in this industry- in Victoria. I find that the value of plant, machinery, and buildings used in the industry here is £652,000, while there are 17,000 persons employed in making clothing, according to the return furnished by the Government.

As we all know, the wages boards fix the hours of labour, and all the persons to whom I have referred work only eight hours a day in the Victorian factories. In New South Wales £995,000 worth of apparel was imported during the year 1899, while the importations into Victoria amounted to £343,000. The difference represents clothing that was made here, the money being circulated amongst our own people instead of being sent out of the country. I am sure we are agreed that if this money is to go out of the country it should go to our own people, but if it does go out of the country it will find its way into continental as well as Asiatic countries. Girls employed in these factories in Japan work for 3d. or 4d. a day. Mr. Sowden, the free-trade writer, from whom I have quoted on several occasions, says in regard to China -

I suppose that the average manual worker in Australia receives at least ten times as much for the same class of labour as is paid to the Chinaman in his own country.

A man may be owner of a little plot of land on which his family depends for ‘subsistence - or what in the East is termed subsistence - but which in Australia would be called worse than starvation.

Surely we do not want to throw our ports open to the goods of these people 1 Mr. Sowden has visited these factories in Japan, and he tells us that it is possible to get a suit of genuine Scotch tweed of the very best quality, made to measure in that country for 30s. I suppose I might as well try to make an impression upon a piece of adamant, but I desire, if I can, to impress upon the committee the desirability of refraining from injuring this industry and throwing a lot of people out of work, more especially at this particular juncture, for I think we are going to have rather bad times. If anything is done to dislocate trade in a way that might be avoided, the responsibility will rest upon those who cause that dislocation. My contention is that the reduction of the duty will not make clothing cheaper. If our woollen mills and clothing establishments are closed up, nearly’ everything we require will be imported, and a combination will be formed amongst the importers. If we were to put the manufacturers into the position occupied by the importers, of course they would do just the same, because people carry on business for their own profit ; but it is the duty of Parliament to prevent either importers or manufacturers from doing anything of the kind. If we close these places, we shall not only throw thousands of people out pf employment, but open the door to the introduction of goods that are unsaleable in the country from which they come. We shall open the door to shoddy material, which will be sold as genuine West of England or Scotch tweeds. We require good material, and let us have it made here from the wool we produce, under the inspection of those who are paid to look after such matters. I should be sorry to see any reduction in the duty, because it has never been shown to me that clothing of good quality was cheaper in New South Wales under free-trade than in Melbourne under protection. I have ascertained from authentic records that the wages paid in the trade in “Victoria are considerably higher than those paid in New South Wales. And I am also told that the persons employed in these factories work longer hours in New South Wales than in Victoria. As Senator Symon pointed out very fairly, if the factories continue and cannot be made to pay, the difference will have to be made up by a reduction in the wages of the employes, and an increase in the number of hours worked by them. I hope the committee will agree to the duty as it stands.

Senator PEARCE:
Western Australia

– I find myself in the position of being able to support the Government proposal on this item, as introduced into the House of Representatives, and that is to give a protection of 5 per cent, to the local manufacturer. Seeing that a protectionist Government have recognised that 5 per cent, is ample protection for this industry, their supporters ma)’ well be excused if they accept that as sufficient. Surely they will not go back upon their own leaders 1 With all the information available through the Custom-house, with the manufacturing firms at their elbows, and with a Protectionist Association backing them up, the Government came to the conclusion that 5 per cent, would be sufficient. Surely free - traders cannot be accused of a desire to destroy the industry, when they are prepared to grant that measure of protection ? I hope the motion will receive that measure of support from the Government side that we have a right to expect. The duty upon piece-goods having been fixed at 15 per cent., which, in my opinion, is too high, we should now fix the duty on apparel at 20 instead of 25 per cent. We have had a protection of 5 per cent, for this industry in Western Australia, and although that State has been chiefly occupied in expanding her primary industries, she has been able to do as much, or more, in this direction than has been done by some of the eastern States, notwithstanding that they had a protection ranging from 15 to 20 per cent. In South Australia the measure of protection ranged from 15 to 20 per cent., and I find that one in every 225 of the total population there was engaged in the manufacture of clothing, while in Western Australia, with a protection of only 5 per cent., against the cheap Victorian goods, the industry expanded to such an extent that one out of every 267 of the population was engaged in it. That shows that 5 per cent, protection is ample against the keen competition of older civilized countries. Senator Styles expressed a wish to have a comparison made between the wages paid in the industry in Victoria and New South Wales.

Senator Styles:

– I have made it.

Senator PEARCE:

– But how has the honorable senator made it 1 I will explain how he has arrived at his figures. In Victoria there is a wages board which fixes a minimum wage, not for Victoria, but only for the metropolitan district. How is the average wage arrived at in New South Wales? I will give an instance which has come under my own notice. In my own trade in Perth wages ranged from Ss. per day to incompetent men to 12s. per day to those who are highly competent. What, in that case, would be the average wage paid to carpenters in Perth ? It would be 10s. per day. But, from an intimate knowledge of the subject, I can guarantee that 90 out of every 100 carpenters in Perth were getting lis. per day. Is it fair, therefore, to say that 10s. per day was the average wage for carpenters in that city ? Yet, that is the way in which the average wage is arrived at b)’ our statisticians where there is no minimum wage fixed by law. When the statistician in New South Wales desires to ascertain the average wage paid in any particular employment, lie finds out the wage paid to the lowest-paid workman or workwoman, and the wage paid to the highest-paid workman or workwoman, and he strikes the average wage half way, as if half the people employed in the industry got the highest wage and the other half the lowest wage.

– It existed in spite of protection, at any rate, and it shows that protection and high duties do not keep up wages. I can give honorable senators a few facts in connexion with sweating in Victoria, from evidence given before the board of inquiry upon the Factories Act in 1895. It is not evidence given by those who were sweated, because they were afraid to go before the board. It is evidence given by manufacturers in many cases, and by persons who made it their business to inquire into the system of sweating existing in Victoria. I find that Miss Longdill, a deaconess iii connexion with the Australian Church, gave this evidence in answer to the chairman of the board -

We have a letter from the Rev. Dr. Strong, suggesting your name, and saying that you might be able to give some information. Part of your duty is to visit poor and distressed persons. Have you noticed any poor persons unduly worked? And have you heard any complaints about their being unduly paid for that work? - I know very well about half-a-dozen women employed in trousers finishing. I have known a good many more, but at present I have been visiting halfadozen. They do that work at prices ranging from 2s. to 3s. 6d. a dozen. Very few can do more than half-a-dozen a day. They earn, on an average, 10s. 6d. a week, and out of that they have to pay ls. 3d. for thread.

The wages are, therefore, cut down to 9s. 3d. per week for working from ten to twelve hours per day. This lady gives a whole host of instances in various departments of the clothing trade in which similar conditions existed.

Senator Stewart:

– Unless the honorable senator can prove that those conditions were due to protection, his statements can avail nothing.

Senator PEARCE:

– I do not say that these conditions were the result of protection, but I do say that protection did not prevent them, and I remind honorable senators that the Federal Parliament has not the power to constitute wages boards.

That power is in the hands ‘of the State Parliaments, and the Government of nearly every State, when asked to hand over their power to the Federal Parliament, have refused to do so. We know that the protectionists of - Victoria have advocated these high duties on the ground that they would protect the people of Victoria from the sweated labour of England, and would result in high wages and plenty of work for the Victorian people. We know that those have been the parrot cries of Victorian protectionists at every election. They have told the people that high duties and a protective Tariff would give employment, and keep money in the country instead of sending it away to purchase clothing made in the sweated factories of the East End of London. Mr. John Wing, secretary of the Tailoresses’ Union, gave a marvellous instance of how a protective policy was encouraging the industry. He said that when he took the office ten years before, there were from 1,S00 to 1,900 employ 6s, but that in that year there were only about 400 employes, showing that the protective policy did not agree with unionism. I shall quote a passage from his evidence -

Have you known about moleskin trousers ? - In Richmond, in finishing the moleskin trousers, a party took the work out to a private house, and she was sub-letting to two other parties. I know they were working from eight to twelve hours, and got 2Jd. a pair for finishing, and all they could make was 188. a week between the two. I think you should summon them ; but the fear of starvation creates a regular reign of terror, and they will not come.

Have you tried to induce any to come ? - Yes, I have tried them all round, and they are afraid to come; in fact, some are afraid to come to the union, for fear that someone may carry the information, and they may be kept waiting for work, or even discharged.

Senator O’Keefe:

– Would not the sameterrorism be possible under free-trade ?

Senator PEARCE:

– The evidence given recently before the Victorian Factories Inquiry Board in Sydney was that under free-trade the workers were not so badly sweated, and that there was a greater proportion of male labour employed.

Senator Barrett:

– And they are going to appeal to the Arbitration Court for better wages.

Senator PEARCE:

– Of course, they are. They are now under a protective system, and, therefore, they find it necessary to appeal for better wages. Asked to express his opinion about the proposed extension of the Factories Act, this witness says -

If yon had the power would you make such a law? -I would, to prevent the great evils at present existing, which require a drastic cure.

If the outside price were fixed, would that do it ? - Yes ; if the board would make a permanent log for inside and outside, I think that would go far to provide a remedy.

What kind of price does the average tailoress get ? - The average of the last month has not been more than 12s. a week ; they have not been on full work.

I propose now to give the evidence of the manufacturers as to whether protection in this trade is necessary, and for that purpose I turn to the report of the Tariff Board of Victoria, who took a large quantity of evidence - first, as to whether there should be a duty on the raw material, and if so, what it should be ; and secondly, as to the difference between the duty on the raw material and the duty on the apparel. The evidence is summarized in their report, at page 38, in these words -

Some of the manufacturers of clothing made from free material went so far as to assert that they required no protective duty, and that the entire abolition would not lead to a return of importation.

Senator O’keefe:

– Made from free material?

Senator Major Gould:

– As in New South Wales.

Senator PEARCE:

– If they were prepared to do without a duty on apparel, does it not show that they did not require protection, as they pointed out? The board say-

The manufacture was so firmly established that the makers were able to compete with the British factories on equal terms.

Of course, they do not mention the Chinese actories that Senator Styles considers so much, where clothing can be made at such a low cost. It is a strange thing that China does not lead in the clothing trade any more than she leads in the manufacturing trades of the world. I have not seen much Chinese clothing in Australia, and I do not think we shall do so until the Chinaman becomes as efficient as the European ; and when he attains that proficiency it may be that he will require the same wages. We are now legislating with an eye to the future, and there is no indication that the Chinaman will flood our markets with cheap clothing. He has not clothed himself yet, let alone begun to clothe the Australian. The board go on to say -

Wages were no higher here, and the methods and management of the local factories were equal to those of the factories in England.

I could quote a number of witnesses to bear out that statement, but I shall content myself with quoting the opinion of two witnesses. Mr. Charles James Lane, who is manager of the tailoring and mercery department of the Mutual Store, gave this evidence at page 156 -

There is a duty on woollen apparel of 50 per cent. , and on woollens 35 per cent. ; how about those duties? - I suggest that woollen apparel should be 30 per cent. , or . 10 per cent, higher than woollens. I recently bought a parcel of Standen’s goods in Sydney from a house that imported them there, and the bankwould not given them delivery. They came to us as cash people and asked me to make an offer, and I made an offer so much off English price. In opening up the goods - I had just the samples - I was surprised to see that such a beautiful quality of goods is imported into New South Wales, and I can candidly state that no such class o£ goods can be bought here in Melbourne. With the same patterns they must buy lower in range, lower in price, to meet the landed cost here as compared with Sydney ; the same pattern, but inferior. We in Melbourne are a shoddily-dressed people compared with any other people in the world.

On the same page, Mr. Norman McLennan gavethe following evidence -

What changes do you think should be made in the duty on clothing and piece goods ? - I said the other day that I thought woollens should bear 25 per cent. In that case, the clothing should bear 35 per cent. ; but I would not give the clothing one farthing duty were it not for the woollen mills, because they do not require it. They are quite independent of any duty.

How doe3 the Tariff affect you ? - We do not want a halfpenny duty on anything.

What duty in that case would be required as against the world? - In the other colonies it depends on how long the industries have been established. Here we want none. In New South Wales and South Australia they would need some.

Senator HIGGS:

– I submit that it is of very great importance to the Commonwealth, that when arguments are brought forward to show the poverty stricken state of things which existed in connexion with one of our local industries, we should be able to prove that the duty asked for by the Government and the local manufacturer is necessary to protect our own workers. Goods made under these sweating conditions, and at such wretched wages, in England, are sent into the Commonwealth. I want to show honorable senators what tire the wages and conditions in England, in order that they may realize the necessity of protecting ourselves. A great point has been made about the number of females employed in Victoria as against the number employed in New South Wales. In the first place, it cannot be expected that in free-trade New South Wales there will be the same number of clothing factories as in Victoria. In the next place we- want to know from the honorable senator what he thinks these female workers are to do if they are not to be employed in the clothing trade. Will Senator Symon employ them as typewriters 1 Surely they should be permitted to obtain some employment ? As reference has been made to the employment of women in Victorian factories, let me further quote from the report of the select committee in regard to their position in Glasgow : -

In some small sweaters’ places, girls and children are employed . With regard to one such shop we were informed: - “The sweater makes a practice of what we call ‘ taking on learners’, “that is to- say, employs young girls for a certain time to learn the machine part of the work, and they get no wages for, say, six weeks or two months, and after that time, if competent, they get 2s. or 3s. a week, and after the busy season is over, if they have not room for them, as a rule they discharge them all, and take on a new batch. The new learners are again got for nothing, and those who have sufficiently acquired the business as to be entitled to wages are sent adrift to find employment where they can. The wholesale sweaters in Glasgow are chiefly Jews, and the number is said to be increasing, though on this point evidence is somewhat scanty. It is computed that the workers in the tailoring trade in Glasgow number about 5,000 or 6,000. One of these workers stated that he could earn, 3Os. a week when trade was very good, and 14s- or 15s. on the average, working thirteen hours a day. A tailoress, who said she was not working for a sweater, stated that if she worked night and day from Wednesday to Saturday she could make 8 s. 6d. a week ; and she had to work hard from Monday morning to Saturday twelve o’clock to make 6s. or 7s. A small master, employing four hands and working himself, stated that he got what he considered very fair prices from the wholesale firms in Glasgow provided he could get plenty of work the whole year round, but that he was unable to do. He was paid from 18s. to 24s. per dozen for jackets, ls. 4d. each for a pair of moleskin trousers, and 12s. to 14s. a dozen for vests ; but there is no established scale for prices, so the sub-contractor is always liable to have his work taken from him or to have the rate of pay cut down. “ If,” said the witness, “ I did not take them at a reduced price, they would throw them under the counter.”

The vests and moleskins mentioned in the report often find their way into this country, and that is one reason why we desire that the duty of 25 per cent, shall be retained. I shall now give the committee one or two of the conclusions and recommendations made by the select committee. After stating that the evils of excessive hours of labour can hardly be exaggerated, they report : -

The earnings of the lowest classes of workers are barely sufficient to sustain existence.

The hours of labour are such as to make the lives of the workers periods of almost ceaseless toil, hard and often unhealthy.

The sanitary conditions under which the work is conducted are not only injurious to the health of the persons employed, but ai-e dangerous to the public, especially in the case of the trades concerned in making clothes, as infectious diseases are spread by the sale of garments made in rooms inhabited by persons suffering from small-pox and other diseases.

W e make the above statements on evidence, of the truth of which we are fully satisfied, and we feel bound to express our admiration of the courage with which the sufferers endure their lot, of the absence of any desire to excite pity by exaggeration, and of the almost unbounded charity they display towards each other in endeavouring, by gifts of food, and other kindnesses, to alleviate any distress for the time being greater than their own.

We sympathize with these unfortunate workers, but we say that, for the preservation of our own race, their goods must be kept out. We say also to the sweated workers in the East end of London that there is a home for them here. Let them come here and work under our conditions, but do not let us bring down our own people to the level of the workers in these trades in Glasgow and other parts of the United Kingdom. Senator Symon said that women were employed in this way in Victoria because they were prepared to work for lower wages than those given to men. Are those honorable senators who support this motion willing to support a proposition that the female workers in the clothing trade shall get equal pay for equal work ? I know that Senator Pearce is willing to do so, but he is only one amongst a number of the free-trade party. The protectionists support the new scientific protection which provides for eight hours’ work a day. Can Senator Symon show that his party have ever put in writing their indorsement of the demand for improved conditions for the workers 1

Senator Sir Josiah Symon:

– Every one of them.

Senator HIGGS:

– I have not been able to find a line in any of Mr. Reid’s speeches during the federal campaign to show that he is in favour of improved conditions for those engaged in the clothing or other trades. They show that he is in favour of nothing but free-trade. We know very well from the statements made by Senator Symon and I only mention him as the leader of the party, that he is anxious to reduce the revenue ; that he is anxious to reduce the duties, and to reduce them must be to reduce the revenue.

Senator Sir Josiah Symon:

– That I deny. I have said repeatedly that I desire to increase the revenue.

Senator HIGGS:

– We have a right to draw our own conclusions from Senator Symon’s actions. He has proposed that duty after duty be reduced. The reductions made must mean a loss of revenue, and the honorable and learned senator proposes that that loss shall be made up by the re-imposition of the duty on tea.

Senator Sir Josiah Symon:

– Do not say that I propose a duty on tea.

Senator HIGGS:

Senator MATHESON:
Western Australia

– Senator O’Keefe has made some most astounding assertions in his speech. He has stated that in a country with many operatives and a high Tariff there is a better chance of getting high wages than in a country with a low Tariff and reduced employment. What is the condition in America - ti country with a high protective Tariff, and many operatives ? The Jewish Chronicle of 23rd July, 1897, says :-

The outside price received by the tailors of New York for making a coat is 46 cents (ls. Hd. ) ; vests, 22 cents (Hd.) ; trousers, 27 cents (13&d.) i ; overcoats, 50 cents (2s. Id.) ; but a whole suit has sometimes to be made for 60 cents, or in English money, 2s. Od.

Day after clay, and far into each night, they toil in their stifling rooms, bending over their work until strained muscles and tortured nerves refuse to endure longer. Then they drop into beds of rags to sleep a few hours and rise to toil again ; not quite, but almost naked ; not quite, but almost starved.

That is the condition in which Senator O’Keefe solemnly suggests that we shall plunge the operatives of Australia.

Senator O’Keefe:

– I did nothing of the kind. I leave it to the committee to say whether I said anything which could be construed to mean that I would like to bring operatives into that condition.

Senator MATHESON:

– I did not state that the honorable senator said he would like to do so, but that this was the fate which he was preparing for the operatives of Australia. If, as Senator Symon has said, any logical conclusion can be drawn from my honorable friend’s remarks, it is that in a country where there are many operatives, and a high Tariff, there is a better chance of getting high wages. In America, however, the result is entirety different from what Senator O’Keefe would like us to believe will be the result. He is highly intelligent, and thoroughly well posted in economic facts relating to the old world, and yet we find him endeavouring to impose upon the committee theories which he is perfectly well aware have no substantial basis. What did Mr. Burnett, Chief Inspector of Labour under the Board of Trade, say on his return , from a tour of inspection in the United j States, in 1S941 He reported as follows -

The condition of the work-shops in the clothing trade in New York appears to be worse than , that of the East London work-shops, before the reforms subsequent to the Lords’ Committee on the sweating system “

Senator Higgs omitted to state in his speech that as the result of that investigation by the House of Lords’ Committee, very great reforms have been effected in England, and that the state of affairs which he so boldly pointed out to the committee does not exist to anything like the extent it did. The comparisons he drew between the condition of sweating then prevalent in England and that in Australia have no parallel at the present time, and his arguments were absolutely useless. The people of Victoria are perfectly well aware, as Senator O’Keefe is, that protection has not brought about that improvement of wages which he pretends will necessarily follow. In a column of the Age of 1900 I find a detailed report of a meeting at the Trades’ Hall of delegates from some 30 Victorian trades, under such headings as “ Long hours - Low wages,” “ Some further revelations,” and “ Victorian wage slaves.” I do not intend to go through the statements - which are simply appalling - made by the- delegates of the working men. I shall content myself by quoting a summary in these words -

These fair samples of this authentic document relating to the present condition of large classes of the Victorian workers are not likely to impel New South Wales wage-earners to seek enrich* ment for themselves by paying taxes to -protect employers. Thirty separate trades with the same story of slave work by boys, girls, and women, low wages, and long hours of labour, after 30 years of protection !

That, I submit, is what we may reasonably expect if the desire of the Government for exorbitant protective rates is encouraged.

Senator BARRETT:
Victoria

– I do not know whether I should have taken part in this debate but for one or two speeches which have been made, especially the last one, because a good many of the statistics I intended to give ‘ have been quoted by Senator Styles. We have just been entertained by Senator Matheson with some quotations from the scrap-book which has been so frequently quoted by honorable senators on the other side to bolster up or attempt to prove their conclusions. I protest against honorable senators picking out a few lines from a leading article or from a speech by an advocate of protection, and trying to fasten upon the writer or the speaker something which the context proves that he did not intend to convey. Senator Symon or Senator Matheson would feel himself very much aggrieved if I were to quote a portion of his speech and try to draw a conclusion therefrom. Senator Matheson, like everyone else, knows that the quotations in this scrap-book are decidedly unfair. They in no way help us to form a conclusion, and they are wrong as regards the persons on whose behalf they seem to be quoted. We have had the spectacle of several honorable senators being very anxious about the taxation that is imposed on the workers. So far as I know, they have not yet done anything to help the great masses of the people. The honorable and learned senator’s opinions regarding industrial legislation are, I think, pretty well known, and I believe I am correct in saying that he has never assisted the great bulk of the working people of this country.

Senator Sir Josiah Symon:

– The honorable senator is quite mistaken in making such a statement.

Senator BARRETT:

Senator Major Gould:

– That has not been the case in New South Wales.

Senator BARRETT:

– I am tired of hearing that this and that is not the case in New South Wales. The honorable and learned senator and his friends are continually raising the parrot cry, “ It has not been so in New South Wales.” One would think that New South Wales was a beautiful paradise so far as life on earth was concerned. But does not Senator Gould know that recent legislation has given to the working classes of New South Wales an arbitration court to settle industrial disputes, and to put down sweating and low wages ? For the next twelve months that board will be actively engaged in remedying the state of affairs which exists in New South

Wales in common with other countries. Certainly, the honorable and learned senator is a representative of New South Wales, but I know far more of its industrial conditions than ever he knew. The history of the next twelve months will prove my assertion that there are evils associated with the clothing trade in New South Wales, just as there are in connexion with the trade in Victoria or anywhere else. It is only by the combination of the working men that evils of this kind can be avoided. I agree with honorable senators opposite that the manufacturers in Australia and elsewhere have not done the right thing by their workmen, and that is why we are eternally fighting to obtain better conditions. If we lower this duty, and leave an insignificant margin of 5 per cent, between the duties on piece-goods and the manufactured article, instead of our manufactories being in a flourishing condition we shall have our workmen reduced to a condition which we do not desire. For these reasons I shall vote against the motion.

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON (South Australia). - I rise to make an admission and an explanation to Senator O’Keefe in reference to some remarks which he made. The admission is that if every man, woman, and child in Victoria wore only one suit of clothes in a year, and that suit was imported, it would not be necessary for those’ goods to be made here, but there would be need for tailors to repair them before the year was out. The explanation I wish to make is this : My honorable friend said that he would be satisfied with a 10 per cent, margin. Does he know that that would give a protection of about 49£ per cent. 1 We have been talking about a. margin for the sake of convenience, because the Government, no doubt after full consideration, considered that a 5 per cent, margin would be sufficient. They accordingly proposed a duty of 25 per cent, on made-up apparel, and a duty of 20 per cent, on the material - piece goods - leaving a margin of 5 per cent., knowing that that would represent about 33 per cent, of protection. The duty is upon the finished article, including the cloth of which it is composed. It is proposed now to allow the maker-up of these articles a margin of 10 per cent., not only upon what he pays in wages - and we are anxious to see wages kept up - but upon the piece goods on which he bestows no labour whatever. If we take ^100 worth of cloth, and assume that it can °e made up into £150 worth of clothing, we have to add 33 per cent., in respect Of labour and other incidentals. Of course the cloth might make up more or less. But in regard to the £150 worth of madeup clothing the duty as upon the whole thing represents, plus the ordinary 10 per cent., £41 5s. The duty on the cloth valued at £100 is £16 10s., leaving a protection of £24 15s., which is 49 h per cent, protection on the £50 which represents the whole expenditure of the maker of these articles. If the original Government proposal of a 5 per cent, margin, which I now adopt, is carried, we shall get 20 per cent., plus the 10 per cent, duty on the £150 worth of goods, and, with the duty on the cloth at £16 10s., a protection is left of £16 10s., or equal to 33 per cent, upon the whole expenditure of the manufacturer whom it is desired to protect. We have already protected the mill -owner ; we now want to protect the manufacturer of the made-up article. All his wages and other expenses are embraced in the £50. His protection is 25 per cent, on the made-up article, including the material which is protected to the extent of 15 per cent. From these figures my honorable friend will see that if he accepts a margin of 5 per cent, he will vote for what is a handsome protection for those who make up the protected material into attire.

Senator GLASSEY:
Queensland

– The contention of both parties in the committee is that, they are anxious to protect the great mass of the people. Honorable senators opposite desire that the duty shall be reduced by 5 per cent, in order to give the masses cheap clothing. We on this side say that a duty of 25 per cent, is a reasonably protective one to impose, so that the masses of the people may be benefited and have some means of employment in order to earn sufficient to keep themselves and their families, not only in clothing but in food. Some most astounding contentions have been put forward this afternoon as to the position of people in protected countries in comparison with those living in freetrade countries. Senator Matheson has quoted a statement in a Jewish journal as to the deplorable condition of the tailors in the United States of America, as well as the masses of the people there. I should like to know the date of that newspaper. 39 n

Is that statement put forward as a comparison with the condition of the tailors and tailoresses in free-trade England ?

Senator Matheson:

– I did not draw that comparison.

Senator GLASSEY:

– Does the honorable sen’ator contend that the tailors and tailoresses of America are paid less than those in England ? He quoted from a report by Mr. John Burnett, secretary to the labour bureau of the Board of Trade - with whom I was acquainted and associated at one time - in reference to the conditions of labour in America in 1S94. Does he know that there was a period of depression in the United States of America during 1893 and 1894, and that that depression was brought about by a reversal of the protectionist policy by President Cleveland, who was a free-trader 1

Senator Matheson:

– That is the honorable senator’s personal opinion, and it is not borne out by the facts.

Senator GLASSEY:

– It is no mere personal opinion. I was in America at the close of 1S93, and formed my opinion of the conditions of labour there, not from the perusal of scraps from Jewish newspapers, but from an investigation of them in many towns and States there. The departure from the protectionist regime of President Harrison to the partial free-trade of the Cleveland administration was disastrous to the best interests of that country, and caused the prosperity which had prevailed prior to the adoption of the free-trade policy to be superseded by a period of depression. Senator Macfarlane told us that high duties do not mean encouragement to manufacturers. I .think they do. What is the object of imposing high duties 1 In some instances they are necessary to obtain revenue, and they are imposed also for the purpose of protecting not merely the manufacturers, but the labourers engaged in the various industries of -the country. Notwithstanding all that has been said concerning that paradise of the working man, New South Wales, I say, as one who is no merely casual observer of the conditions of labour, that those conditions in protected Victoria are infinitely better than the conditions of labour in free-trade New South Wales. Senator Macfarlane also told us that if we lower this duty we shall get more revenue in the smaller States. Let me tell the honorable senator that in Queensland, a number of years ago, we had a fluty of 7½ per cent, upon apparel. It was increased to 10 cent., then it was lowered to 5 per cent, as an experiment, and finally it was raised to 25 per cent., the rate at which it stood for the last few years. Why was the duty raised to 25 per cent, in Queensland ? It was for the ‘ purpose of protecting the people engaged in the making of apparel. That duty has been found to work so satisfactorily that I strongly protest against its reduction, first and foremost in the interests of the people employed in the industry, and secondly, because a reduction of the duty will mean a reduction of our revenue. In 1899-1900, Queensland derived a revenue of nearly £37,000 from apparel. Honorable senators opposite propose to reduce that, and at the same time jeopardize the interests of the persons engaged in the industry by bringing the locally-made article into competition with apparel imported from countries where labour is exceedingly cheap, and where the conditions of labour are not up to our standard. Our experience in Queensland is that a duty lower than 25 per cent, will not be sufficient protection for those engaged in the industry locally, and they must suffer if this duty is lowered. I again ask my free-trade friends on the other side to have some little consideration for the industries of Australia, and some consideration for the interests of the smaller States. Senator Macfarlane claims to be anxious about the interests of the smaller States, but the honorable senator proposes to adopt a very peculiar method for preserving their revenues, a method which will mean a loss of revenue to Queensland to the extent of £8,000 or £9,000 a year. I hope the proposed reduction of the duty will not be agreed to, and I shall vote against the motion, as I shall vote against all similar proposals.

Senator McGREGOR:
South Australia

– I have kept as quiet as I possibly could this afternoon, and have taken the advice of some of our friends who have accused us of wasting time; but when I find that the leader of the Opposition had so little consideration for the interests of the public as to make two lengthy speeches on this subject already, I think I am not justified in remaining silent any longer. What is the object of the Opposition in reducing this duty on apparel from 25 to 20 per cent.? The only object I can recognise in the proposal is the gratification of the desire, where they possibly can, to alter the Tariff in orderthat they may be able to say - “ We have done something.” Some of them have said, and it has been said on their behalf by newspapers claiming to represent their views - “ Wait until suchandsuch a tame, and we shall let the Government see what we are going to do.” They propose to reduce the duty by 5 per cent, for the purpose, as they tell us, of giving the vast number of consumers in the Commonwealth the benefit of cheaper clothing. Yet it has been continually and conclusively proved that where duties are of a protective character their reduction below a certain point has never had that effect. When honorable senators opposite are taxed with intending to decrease the opportunities for employment of the people, they tell us that they do not want to do anything of the kind. The leader of the Opposition very ingeniously replies to the Government that if it were a fact that the 4,000,000 of people in the Commonwealth only wore one suit of clothes a year, there might be some logic in the statements made; and to keep that one suit in repair there would need to be a very large army of tailors and people of that description. That is the kind of logic with which arguments, statistics, and figures that cannot be controverted have been met.

Senator STEWART:
Queensland

– I intend to oppose the motion. There is much more involved in this question than the mere raising of so much revenue. Although that of itself is very important, yet I think that in a young community it ought to be the ambition of every citizen to establish as many industries as possible. I have always tried to keep that point before me. I was both surprised and amused at the passion of Senator Pearce’s address. He set out to tell us what a dreadful failure protection had been in Victoria, how sweating was rampant under it, as if we did not know that. Every honorable senator who has studied the position of labour under both systems knows perfectly well that it is just as well or as ill paid in protectionist countries as in free-trade countries. While the United States is a protectionist country, it protects only the capitalist. In this Tariff we propose to protect, not only the capitalist, but the worker. We have the sheep, the wool, and the people, and we wish to employ our people and to establish as many industries native to the soil as we possibly can. My ambition is that every Australian man and woman should be clothed in the pure product of the Australian sheep, woven and manufactured by the people of the country. That, I believe, is also the goal of the protectionist party throughout the continent, and having put its hand to the plough, I hope that it will never draw back until its object is achieved. Senator Pearce harried our feelings with his description of labour in protectionist Victoria, but he did not say a word about New South Wales. In Sydney, the condition of the employes in the tailoring trade was so bad recently that the tailoresses almost broke out in riot. They held mass meetings - a tiling which, I believe, had never been done before by women - and in that way brought forward their grievances so prominently that the force of public opinion compelled Parliament to pass an Arbitration and Conciliation Act. If labour in New South Wales were in the happy condition we were asked to infer, why were those meetings held ? Why was there that tremendous impulse infavour of the passing of an Arbitration and Conciliation Act ? Senator Symon interjected that if we had free-trade there would be no need of wages boards and Arbitration and Conciliation Acts. He spoke in jest, but it was one of the truest remarks he ever uttered. It is absolutely useless to call in a doctor to a man after he is dead. Arbitration courts, wages boards, and like institutions would be utterly without value in Australia if the policy of the free-trade party were carried out. We know that in both New South Wales and Victoria there has been sweating, but we also know that while protection at one time in Victoria was only good to the capitalist, of late it has also been good to the workman, and to that idea the name of scientific protection has been given. Honorable senators who argue from the basis that protection is a failure because in several countries it has not benefited the working man would be equally logical if they said that they could not cut with only one blade of a scissors. If you protect the capitalist alone, it is a lop-sided protection. An arch with only one side built up is likely to break down at any moment, but if you build the two sides and insert the keystone, then you can pass over the arch. If you establish this scientific protection you will have a policy which will protect the capitalist, give employment to native labour, strengthen the country, and confer benefit all round. I have not been able to get any light or leading from any of the speeches from the opposite side. These honorable senators profess the utmost regard for Australian people and Australian industry. They would like to see them grow up and flourish everywhere, but professions of friendship are about the cheapest things imaginable. We require something more than declarations of good will. We desire to see a policy established which will help industries to grow up in our midst. I think it has been abundantly proved that without some measure of protection it would be impossible to establish the clothing industry on such a basis as would give to the employes a living wage. Of course, Senator Gould will tell us that in New South Wales they did establish the industry. It was a disgrace to them after it was established. What sort of an industry is it that gives 5d. for making a pair of trousers ? Some firms give 4½d. per pair for making trousers with raised seams, and4d. a pair for making trousers with plain seams, and 10s. per week for finishing 60 pairs of trousers, and in many cases the finishers are paid only from 7s. 6d. to 10s. per week. Nowonder that the first time I set my feet in Sydney my soul revolted against it. It seemed to me as if by some magical influence I had been transported to one of the dirty manufacturing cities of the old country. The place actually smelt. My usual custom when I go to a city is not to visit Government-house and all the palatial buildings in that location, but to search out the meanest and lowest places. I did that in Sydney, and I saw scenes that rather surprised me. When. I find a representative of that great city with the beautiful harbor glorying in industries like this one, which gives the miserable, beggarly wages I have quoted, I am not a bit surprised at anything that may turn up in the way of slums. I must do justice to Melbourne, whatever its demerits may be. I searched here just as closely as I did in Sydney, and I failed to find anything like the same amount of degradation here as I did there. I do not know whether protection has or has not anything to do with it ; but I think that this rule must hold good, that if you compel your people to enter into competition with the low-paid people of other countries, you must reduce them to a similar position. From that conclusion there is no escape that I can see. Suppose that we reduce the duty on this line as proposed by Senator Gould, we shall, as honorable senators urge, increase importation. If it is increased it means less employment for the people who are here, and if it is not increased it means that an additional scourge is being applied to the backs of the workers. Senator G ould says that the clothing industry has been established in New South Wales. I have tried to show what kind of an industry it is. It will be asked, “ Why do the people engage in it if it is so bad ? “ But in a place like Sydney, where there is a large natural increase of the population, a vast number of young men and women are growing up who must find employment ; and if they can only obtain work at a remuneration sufficient to keep body and soul together, they are compelled to accept it. That is the reason why, in the face of circumstances which would otherwise have operated against the establishment of the industry, it has been possible for it to exist in Sydney. But we do not desire that our working people should be reduced to a condition similar to that which exists in the old country. Those of us who sit on this side of the Chamber are prepared to take every possible step to prevent even the bare possibility of such an occurrence. Several honorable senators have had nothing but an Australian experience. They do not know of the condition of the working population in other portions of the world. I had the good, or ill, fortune - perhaps it is a blend of both, because it has given me opportunities of seeing the two sides of the shield - to be born in a country where labour is in a far worse condition than it is in Australia, a country where the great mass of the working population live under conditions in comparison with which the conditions of the working population of Australia seem like paradise. People who have been born and nurtured here, and have none but an Australian experience, are absolutely ignorant of the circumstances of labour in the older countries of the world, and some honorable senators who do know of those circumstances seem to have allowed their experience to pass out of their minds completely, and to have no influence upon their legislative action. I find that one firm in Sydney pays only 2s. Sd. per suit for the manufacture of Government clothing. Before the wages boards were established in Victoria there was no doubt a perfectly disgraceful conditions of things here ; but that cannot be attributed to protection. The competition of worker with worker always tends to reduce the price of labour, and J something else is required to bring things to their proper bearings. That something else we propose to supply by means of this Tariff. There is another reason why we should try to keep out foreign products as much as possible. Those who have studied the conditions under which clothing is manufactured in London, for instance, are aware that those places are very hot-beds of disease. It is quite possible for various diseases to be carried from Europe to Australia in clothing. That is a danger against which we are justified in defending ourselves. From the point of view of national vigour and health alone I appeal to honorable senators to encourage as little as possible the importation of foreign-made clothing. We can control the circumstances surrounding the manufacture of these goods in Australia. We can compel the work to be done in open factories, under the supervision of officers of the law, and in such a way as to guard against the communication of disease in this fashion. But when goods are introduced from abroad we are absolutely helpless. We are told that we do not consider the wearers of clothing, and that our trouble is merely about the makers of it. I represent more wearers of clothing than makers, and I can assure the committee that I am considering the wearers. The country producer has been assisted in many ways. How many millions of pounds have been poured into the lap of the squatter in the past1? In every State of the union the farmers also are being assisted. The pastoralist and the miner likewise have received assistance directly or indirectly. I claim that those industries, being now the basic industries of Australia, are in the position of being the elder brothers of the younger industries ; and as they have been assisted in the past, it is their duty now to assist other industries which are growing up. I have never heard a country producer or consumer complaining of this policy. The wearer of clothing is not such an absolute idiot as some people would try to make him out to be. He knows perfectly well that if employment is not found for the young people in other occupations than exist in the country districts, they will enter into competition ‘with the producer, and thus inevitably bring about a reduction in wages. The producers are quite prepared to contribute something towards the building up of other industries so that the pressure upon the employment in which the)’ are more immediately engaged may be to a certain extent relieved. I am glad to think that an ever increasing number of country producers look upon this question from a national point of view. They say - “ Why should we grow wool here, send it to England to be woven, brought back again, and sold in suits of clothing half a crown or three shillings cheaper than the price would be if the whole of the work were done in Australia 1” The folly of that policy is appealing more and more to the great mass of the Australian electors ; and Senator Symon, who has captained the free-trade cause in this Chamber with so much assiduity and ability, will, before many years are past, find himself high and dry, one of the last representatives of a fast dying cause. I am exceedingly sorry for the position in which he is placed - but I have not the slightest doubt that when he sees how the wind is blowing and the ebb is flowing, he will be found not upon the sands, but swimming along beautifully with the rest of us. I have1 now given the reasons why I cannot support the policy of the Opposition. I should be very glad to give them an occasional vote if I could, but their policy seems to be one which is so likely to produce injury to the community, and so much opposed to my ideas of progress, that I cannot see mv way to support them.

Senator McGREGOR (South Australia). - -I am sorry that other business prevented me from being present when the committee resumed, because I had a little more to say upon this question, and particularly in reply to some assertions made by Senator Symon. That honorable and learned senator has come so far down from the lofty pedestal on which he places himself as to say that he is willing to give some little protection to the industrial classes of Australia. He has argued to-day that under the duty as it stands the clothing industry will have a protection of something like 50 per cent. I am puzzled to know how he arrives at that conclusion. He is always making statements of this kind, and always denying them when taxed with them. I hope, there: fore, that he will not deny that he said that the protection in this case would be 49J per cent., or about 50 per cent. I have thought over this question for years. If, as proposed by the Government, we grant a protection of 25 per cent, to our manufacturers of the finished article of clothing, and they have to compete with the manufacturers and operatives in other parts of the world, that will amount to a preference in favour of our people of 25 per cent., plus the expenses of bringing the imported article here. We have already imposed a duty of 15 per cent, on the greater portion of the material used in the manufacture of clothing in the Commonwealth. Senator Symon went into an elaborate argument to show that, if £100 worth of goods were imported, the manufacturer who made them up here would increase their value by only £50, and thus bring up the total value to £150. Assuming that a manufacturer introduces that value of goods, and. assuming, according to Senator Symon’s continual argument, that he has to pay the duty of 15 per cent, if the goods are manufactured here, what is the result ? Fifteen per cent, on the raw material means a total of 10 per cent, on the £150 worth, which the manufacturer has to pay away. Therefore, the protection of 25 per cent, is reduced to 15 per cent. Is that an unreasonable amount of protection? I know that Senator Symon will not say that it is. That is the only protection which the manufacturer receives under the Tariff. But Senator Symon says that the cost of bringing the manufactured article here ranges from 7^ to 17- per cent. If we take the cost at 7-£ per cent., it gives us a total protection of 22£ per cent. Is that an unreasonable amount of protection to afford ? Is the honorable and learned senator going to refuse the thousands of operatives in Australia the very bread and butter that they are getting from this industry for the sake of a protection of 22£ per cent. ? He has said, however, that the cost of bringing the manufactured article here may amount to 17- per cent., I desire to show the absurdity of some of the statements made by honorable senators of the Opposition, although there are not many here when we wish to tell them something. What is the weight of the trousers worn by Senator Symon? The quantity of material used in an ordinary pair of trousers is 2 J- yards, but we will allow 3 yards for the production of a pair of pants for the honorable and learned senator. I find that serge or tweed of good quality weighs from about 12 to 14 oz. per yard. Therefore, allowing for the weight of the buttons and the finishing material, the honorable and learned senator’s trousers would not weigh 3 lbs. I have stated before that 11 lbs. weight of goods can be brought from Great Britain to Australia through the post for 6s. Therefore, four pairs of trousers can be brought by post from Great Britain to Australia at a cost of not more than ls. 6d. per pair. In view of these facts, where are we to look for the extraordinary expenses which, according to Senator Sargood, are incurred by importers in importing these goods? It would be far better for the people of Australia to bring by post articles of this kind which they require from England or Germany, than to go to Senator Sargood’s emporium for them. I put this argument before the committee, only to show the ridiculousness of some of the statements which are made with respect to what is called the natural protection. A pair of trousers, costing from 10s. to 15s., could be brought here by post for ls. 6d., yet Senator Symon talks about 50 per cent, of incidental protection. According to these calculations, the local manufacturer of clothing will receive under this Tariff not one penny more than 22£ per cent, of protection, and really I do not believe that some honorable senators know the meaning of statements sometimes made by them. Senator Matheson has told us of the horrible condition of affairs that exists in connexion with the clothing trade in New York. We know that in very large cities there may be a congestion of trade and other difficulties at certain periods in connexion with the clothing and every other industry. But some honorable senators of the. Opposition are always looking for proof. They do not believe in figures ; they want facts, and I intend to give them facts. Senator Matheson has compared the position of the workers in this trade in New York with that of the workers in Great Britain. How is it that the people of Great Britain, who are so well off, are flocking to America by hundreds and thousands every year? Operatives in the clothing trade go there, but not for the purpose of spending the enormous amount of money they make in Great Britain. Do we see any tide of emigration from America to Great Britain, where such favorable conditions prevail ? People belonging to the working classes who have emigrated from Great Britain to America, and have never risen above the working classes, often go back to Great Britain in order to spend a two or three months’ holiday in their native land. I have met them myself, and what I state is a fact. When we find that instead of emigration from America to Great Britain taking place it is the other way about, and when we find that mechanics and operatives and trades-people go from America to Great Britain to spend a few months’ holiday, and that it is impossible for people engaging in the same industries in Great Britain to go to America for the same purpose, it is idle for Senator Matheson to present to the committee arguments of the description I have referred to in order to influence honorable senators. It has been said by Senator Pearce that protection can never raise wages. On the other hand it has-been admitted by Senator Stewart that no protectionist claims that protection in itself has ever raised wages ; but it has made it possible for wages to be raised. So far as those connected with the clothing trade are concerned, if we import everything from Great Britain they will have no work to do here, and it will be impossible for them to receive any wages, either high or low. But if we prevent the competition of older parts of the world, and of those who live under degrading conditions, from operating in Australia, do we not give the people here an opportunity to find employment ? If we, who have the control of the affairs of the Commonwealth, fail to see that our workers have fair conditions when the manufacturers receive that protection, the fault rests with us. If we do not give the employers that, protection, we can have no excuse for protecting the workers, because there will be no work for them to do. I hope honorable senators will take a rational view of the whole subject, and that they will consider, amongst other things, that disease may be introduced into Australia with clothing manufactured under filthy conditions in the old country. I trust they will be found voting for protection to our own industry to the small extent of 25 per cent.

Senator HIGGS (Queensland). - Honorable senators representing New South Wales have claimed that under the free-trade policy of that State it has not been found necessary to have anything like the “Victorian legislation to protect the interests of persons engaged in the clothing and other trades, but I find that in New South Wales they have a considerable amount of legislation dealing with employes in the clothing trade and in other occupations. They have an Act called the Operatives Act of 1S94. They have the Factories and Shops Act of 1896, and the Arbitration and Conciliation Act and the Early Closing Act of 1899. In a report upon the working of the Factories and Shops Act and the Arbitration and Conciliation Act during the year 1899, I find that the New South “Wales Inspector of Factories makes the following remarks : -

Each year of administration of the Factories and. Shops Act shows more emphatically the necessity for amendment being made in the present ineffectual provisions with regard to the hours of labour for women. As the Act now stands, the limitation is so vague, and the opportunities for evasion, as well as the temptation to evade, so great, that time after time the department is put in the unfair position of being morally certain that the Act is being evaded, una yet, by the tacit collusion of the employer and employed, unable to secure a case that will stand the test of police court proceedings. As I have stated before, and now reiterate, it is unjust to place any woman in such a position that she must make an election between telling the whole truth frankly and being dismissed from the factory - thus becoming more or less marked in the eyes of other employers - or evading the truth in order to retain her means of livelihood. Yet that is what in plain language it means. Time after time letters are written to the department, signed by the familiar “Lover of Justice,” or “ One of the “Victims,” about women being worked for excessive hours in certain factories. Inspectors are sent at all hours of the day and night to detect these reported abuses. In some cases they are successful and prosecute, with the result that the unfortunate person whose interests the Act is supposed to guard is put in the witness-box to swear away ner means of livelihood. The employer probably escapes with such a penalty as magistrates appear to regard as adequate punishment for this class of offence, and thus the matter ends. … In .New South Wales it is possible for a woman to be worked continuously for 48 hours with breaks only for meals. Our Factory Act contains nothing to prevent it.

That is in free-trade New South Wales. Honorable senators like Senator Pearce have said that it is claimed that a duty of 25 per cent, on these goods will maintain the high standard of wages. If that is so, what about the free-trade claim - that, if we lower the duty, the women workers in New South Wales will get high wages 1

Senator Pearce:

– I do not say there will. I did not claim that for free-trade.

Senator HIGGS:

– No ; but the honorable senator has said that we protectionists claim that protection will secure high wages, and he knows that there is no more soundness in that contention than there would be in my contention if I said that Senator Pearce, being a free-trader, claims that free-trade will keep up wages in New South Wales and in every free-trade State. We find sweated workers in New South Wales, and legislation has had to be introduced in the endeavour to prevent sweating. We find that there was sweating in Victoria before the advent of the Anti-Sweating Society and their sensible legislation. We may find, even in Queensland, where there is a Factories Act, that there is a good deal of sweating in the clothing trade. It will no doubt be prevented later on when the people of that State succeed in getting an improved Factories Act, but it will not be prevented if Senator Symon and his followers get their wa)’ in reducing the proposed duty upon imported apparel. This is a matter in connexion with which honorable senators who aN not strong for either free-trade or protection, may well cast their votes in favour of the thousands of workers who are engaged in these industries throughout the Commonwealth. As has been pointed out by one of the newspapers during this week, honorable senators should be willing to pay a certain price for the making of an Australian nation. Senator Neild told us the other evening that New South “Wales had given up her policy for the sake of coming into the Federation. If that be so she must be willing to pay this price of 25 per cent, upon imported apparel. I have no doubt that men like Senator Symon cannot be expected to give way, but we may ask those who are not so cold hearted and soulless as the average free-trader, who believes in buying in the cheapest and selling in the dearest market - we may ask those whose mission primarily is to lighten the lot of the working classes to vote with us upon this occasion.

Senator DE LARGIE:
Western Australia

– This is one of the very few items in connexion with which Western Australia may receive some direct advantage from the protection proposed, and I must, therefore, support the proposal of the Government. I am prepared to support this proposal as a trade unionist, and not merely as a protectionist, because I can tell honorable senators that on the gold-fields of Western Australia we found it necessary to take measures to protect ourselves against sweated goods made in Perth, the district from which Senator Pearce comes.. We went so far as to call public meetings in the streets, and to boycott the sweated work of Perth that was hung up for sale in the clothing shops of Coolgardie. That action was consistent with the policy of trades unionism, and it was taken by the trades unionists of Coolgardie. It was recognised as a good trades union principle to keep the sweated goods of

Perth out of the Coolgardie market, and having taken a part in that action I intend to be consistent, and to go now a step further and keep the sweated goods of other countries in which the conditions of labour are far worse than they are in Perth out of the markets of Australia as a whole. We have heard a great deal of the sweating which prevailed in Victoria at one time. We admit and deplore the fact that sweating did exist in this State, but in the name of all that is reasonable what is the use of harking back to those days when we know that the condition of things complained of is at an end? When we have wages boards established here for the purpose of preventing sweating, why should honorable senators make these references to sweating, and why should they attempt to reproduce those conditions by lowering the duties which made it possible for the Victorian people to do away with them. We have heard of the conditions which existed in Victoria five or six years ago, but I should like honorable senators who are always asking for the reduction of duties to know the conditions prevailing at the present time in England -

At a public meeting held at Manchester recently, the Rev. H. Mills moved- “That this meeting deplores the late hours which so many women and girls are compelled to labour, the scanty remuneration which they receive, and the insanitary conditions of so many workrooms : and calls on all lovers of justice to endeavour to promote a happier state of things.”

Honorable senators may think th.at can be remedied by free-trade, but I hold that it cannot. We have free-trade in the clothing trade in England, and it is easy to discover from English newspapers and books the conditions of affairs existing in the trade. I find that, speaking to the resolution I have quoted, Lady Dilke, said -

To show how necessary it was that women’s wages should be raised she would quote a few case3. A Birmingham girl was making pens at 2s. a gross. A London woman made fancy aprons at 2s. fid. a dozen, and could only earn lOd. a day by working 16 hours.

I suppose that these fancy aprons are amongst the articles which will be imported under this item. Lady Dike said that matchmakers got 2 1/4d. per gross, and they had to find much of the raw material necessary, and she quoted a host of articles, which will come in under this particular item, and told df the conditions under which they are manufactured. To give honorable senators a further idea of the conditions of affairs in England, I quote from the issue of Ramsay’s Newspaper for the 22nd March - of this year the following references under the heading, “ The Sufferings of the Poor”-

Remarkable speeches as to sweating and the general condition of the poor were made at the meeting of the Church Pastoral Aid Society in Bristol on Thursday. The Rev. Wall, of St. Basils, Birmingham, stated that in his parish, for sewing 24 gross of cards of hooks and eyes, the workers were paid but 7d., and this took six people working all day to earn. Packets of hairpins made up in dozens in coloured paper, and packets sewn to a card, for a gross of such cards a women only received 4Ad. Some of the girls wanted to be respectable, but found it almost impossible to get respectable work. Ladies’ aprons, nicely tucked, were paid for at the rate of od. a dozen, whilst children’s pinafores beautifully made with lace insertion were only paid for at 9d. a dozen. The Rev. E. Despard, the association secretary, spoke strongly on life in the slums of Bristol, stating that the rate of infant mortality in some of them was even greater than in the concentration camps of South Africa, about which we have read and heard so much. Parents, too, insured their children as heavily as they could, and then gave them gin and other things to bring on convulsions and deceive the doctors.

That is on all fours with the method which Senator Higgs mentioned last night. I only cite these instances to show the Senate the state of affairs with which the workers, male and female, in Melbourne would have to compete if we allowed our markets to be flooded. The introduction of that state of affairs can only be prevented by our imposing barriers in the shape of import’ duties, and afterwards by adopting the policy of the newer protection. That is the answer to those who ask - Can wages be raised by the imposition of import duties ? A high duty will assist in that direction, and we look to the wages boards and similar institutions to do the rest. I hope that the committee will see its way to prevent the sweating which obtains in other countries from gaining a foothold in the Commonwealth.

Senator O’CONNOR:

– This is so important a question that I think it necessary to reply to some observations which have been made, particularly by Senator Macfarlane, who said that the duty on this apparel will deprive Tasmania of a large portion of revenue. He urged that if we have the duty at 25 per cent, very little apparel will be imported there from abroad ; that she will get the bulk of her supply from Victoria or New South Wales, or other large centres : and that, therefore, she will lose her revenue, and get no benefit of any kind. My answer to the honorable senator is simple, and, I believe, effective. Honorable senators on the other side have told us over and over again that 20 per cent, is quite sufficient protection to keep the industries in the Commonwealth in a prosperous condition. If they are kept in a prosperous condition by a duty of 20 per cent., will not their products go into Tasmania exactly in the same way as if it were 25 per cent.? What difference can it make to the position of Tasmania when you once establish these flourishing clothing factories on the mainland ? If their products are to take the place of the foreign article within Tasmania, surely they will come in whether the protection is 20 or 25 per cent.? Senator Macfarlane has fallen into the mistake of supposing that there is only one item in the Tariff, and that is the one we are dealing with. He has fallen into the mistake of forgetting that this is a Tariff which aims at dealing with every industry in Australia, and which has application to the production of every part of Australia. It is only by looking at the Tariff as a whole that you can fairly weigh and balance the benefit which each part of Australia is going to derive from it. We ask honorable senators to regard the Tariff in that spirit - not to consider whether Tasmania is going to get a certain amount of apparel from abroad, or whether she will be supplied by some other State, but to consider whether, as a whole, it will benefit the interests of Tasmania, or benefit the interests of the Commonwealth.

Senator O’Keefe:

– Why should not Tasmania manufacture her own apparel ?

Senator O’CONNOR:

– I see no reason in the world why she should not. I do not agree with Senator Macfarlane’s view that she will not manufacture for herself. Assuming, for the purpose of my argument, that the great bulk of her apparel will come from the larger centres of population on the mainland, surely it is to the mainland that she must look for the ‘ consumption of the output of her woollen mills, since she cannot expect at the present time to find a market in Europe. The more you make it worth while to the clothing manufacturer to manufacture here, the more he will use the material of Australia, and the more the mills and factories, such as the woollen mills of Tasmania, will be benefited. It seems to me that Senator

Macfarlane is looking at the benefits of the Tariff with his eyes half shut, if he takes that view. While he is following this fetish of free-trade which leads him into all sorts of outlandish places, he is neglecting the real interests of his own State. He tells us that we do not regard the country people. Are the country people of his State gaining no benefit ? Is it not the case that the country people of Tasmania are going to be benefited in the large market which they get for their barley, oats, hops, potatoes, fruits, and other products ? Why is it that duties have been left on those very articles ? To keep them from the pressure of foreign competition and to preserve the Australian market for them. Yet the honorable senator tells us that he fails to see where Tasmania will get any benefit out of the Tariff. He keeps his eyes centred on one point, that there will be fewer imports of manufactured clothing into his State, and he forgets altogether that he, free-trader as he is, has benefited her by helping to put a duty on oats and the other products I mentioned. The result of this half-blind way of looking at the Tariff is that where an honorable senator is looking at one miserable little aspect of an article, or an item as it affects his own State, he loses sight of the great benefit which it derives in other ways, and forgets altogether that he has helped to impose duties for the protection of other articles in his own State. Why ? Because it is for their benefit. It is impossible that you can have an Australian Tariff unless you look at the question from every point of view. It is impossible that you can frame an Australian Tariff if every State is going to have regard to whether or not there is to be a loss, or an increase of revenue on some item affecting that State. It seems to have been assumed all through the debate on this item, that we are dealing with articles cheap in price, and used by only the poorer classes. It deals with all kinds of manufactures of wool and silk, and it includes a very fair proportion of high-class and expensive jackets, cloaks, shirts, and other articles of that kind. If you regard the question of revenue only, these are articles which ought to pay a larger percentage, on principles which are well recognised in the framing of Tariffs. Shawls, jackets, cloaks, and other expensive articles of that kind, which form a verv fair proportion of the bulk of this line, have their value according to the seasons. It happens that the London and continental season is just over in time for the beginning of the season here. The importers here buy up job lots of these goods at half price, and we do not get the whole amount of duty on them. We only get the duty on the invoice price, which is half their value, but they are sold here at their full value. That is the sort of thing we have to compete with. When you look at the nature of the articles - articles of luxury that are imported at half their real value - certainly 25 per cent., with a 10 per cent, margin is not a bit too much to give as a reasonable measure of protection to the large number of persons who are engaged in the clothing industry. I do not believe that a 20 per cent, duty would yield an increased revenue. . I do not believe that the articles would be imported in sufficient quantity over and above the present rate of importation to give us an increased revenue. But if an increased revenue were obtained it would be at the very heavy price of making it more difficult for hundreds of working women to obtain and keep regular employment, and in that way injury would be done to the general community.

Senator HIGGS (Queensland). - There is a point which I had hoped that the VicePresident of the Executive Council would touch upon, namely, the records of another place with regard to the way in which this matter was dealt with there. If Senator Symon is not certain that he can carry his proposal by a large majority he should have hesitated before making it. We have spent about five hours in discussing the motion ; in another place it was dealt with in a very few minutes. I find that an amendment was moved by Sir William McMillan in the following terms : -

That the words “and on and after the 5th December, 1901. 20 per cent.” be added to the duty “ Apparel and attire and articles n.e.i., woollen or silk, or containing wool or silk ad valorem, 25 per cent.”

Very little discussion took place. The question was put - “ That the words proposed to be added be so added.” The committee divided, and the result was - Ayes, 14; Noes, 32 - a majority of 18 for the Noes. Amongst the “ Noes “ were such well-known free-traders as Messrs. Fowler, McDonald, Page, and Spence. Surely the action taken by the leader of the free-trade party in the Senate may be characterised as one that disregards the interests of the community generally and of the commercial community in particular.

Question - That the House of Representatives be requested to amend item 58 by adding to the duty, “ Apparel and attire and articles, n.e.i., woollen or silk 25 per cent.,” the words, “ and on and after 1st July, 1902, 20 per cent.” - put. The committee divided.

AYES: 12

NOES: 10

Majority … … … 2

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Sir JOSIAH SYMON:
South Australia

– I desire to add, after the word “ shape,” in the first paragraph of the item, the following words : -

And including coatings, vestings, trouserings, n.e.i., and flannelettes.

This proposal does not affect the rate of duty. I intend to make it for another reason. Senator O’Connor will remember that coatings, vestings, and trouserings, n.e.i., and flannelettes were left at the same rate of duty as woollen piece-goods, 15 per cent. Therefore there is a doubt as to whether they would come under the first paragraph of item 58. To make it clear that they would pay the higher rate of duty, and that the manufacturers would get the benefit of the 5 per cent, margin, I make this proposal. Upon the next paragraph of the item I intend to move the reduction of the duty to 15 per cent., but I do not want to include the goods mentioned in my suggestion. If my honorable and learned Mend objects, I am perfectly satisfied to leave the wording of the item as it is, but he must not complain if we succeed in reducing the duty upon the second paragraph to 15 per cent., that there is no protection for the maker- up of coatings, trouserings, vestings, and flannelettes.

Senator O’CONNOR:

– lido not propose to take the point of order which might be raised, that, as’ we have dealt with the first paragraph down to the amount of the duty, no alteration can be made in a previous part .of it.

Senator Sir Josiah Symon:

– . If the honorable and learned senator takes that point, I will make my proposal in the form of an addition.

Senator O’CONNOR:

– I will give my reason why I do not think the suggestion should be accepted. The item as it stands ought to be allowed to remain very much as it is, because the collections under it are validated by clause 5 of the Bill. It would be unwise ‘to add the words proposed, as. Senator Symon suggests ; but if it is desirable to make any alteration, it should be dealt with as a separate line. I will state the reasons against it later on.

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON (South Australia). - I will propose the addition of these words in a separate Une. I move -

That the House of Representatives he requested to amend item 5S by inserting the following new paragraph: - “Apparel and attire - made from coatings, vestings, trouserings n.e.i., flannels and flannelettes, on and after 1st July, 1902, 20 per cent.”

Senator O’CONNOR:

– I object to this motion, and would like to point out what it really means. In the first place, looking at the Tariff as ‘ it originally stands, under the heading of “ woollen piece goods “ there is a line “Coatings, vestings, trouserings n.e.i., flannels and flannelettes.” That does not, and did not, include anything in the way of woollen goods. “Woollen goods come under the heading of “Piece goods, woollen or containing wool.” All material of wool for the purpose of making coatings, vestings, and trouserings wil] be included under the heading of “ wool or containing wool,” but

Ave desired to make it quite clear that flannelettes, which consist of cotton, were to be included in this line, in order that we might cover, not only flannelettes, but substances made of cotton which “might be called flannel. The whole purport and scope of that line as it stood in the Tariff was simply to include cotton coatings, trouserings, and so forth. Unless this special exception had been made, all these goods would have come in at 5 per cent. “We think they should be liable to a duty of 15 per cent., and, therefore, for the purpose of making clear those words in the first sub-division, there is no necessity for this motion. The reason for the motion is that Senator Symon finds himself met with this difficulty, that when he comes to deal with trouserings, coatings,, and vestings, which have been fixed at 15 per cent., he knows that if the duty on manufactures of cotton goods is reduced, there will be no protection. It is to remove that inconsistency which stands in his way that he proposes this motion. I propose to leave the inconsistency in front the honorable and learned senator. If it were simply a matter of carrying out the original meaning of the Tariff I should consent to the motion, but when Senator Symon asks me to consent to something which will remove a difficulty that will be in his way when he comes to deal with a later part of the item, I can not do so. It is a difficulty which the honorable and learned senator will find it hard to get over, if he wishes to reduce, as he says he does, the next part of the item which includes all goods made up from coatings, vestings, trouserings, and flannelettes. If he includes them under the 15 per cent, duty, there will be no protection to the persons who make that particular class of goods, and they compose a very large proportion of the goods which would come under this provision. As I do not propose to make it easier for the honorable and learned senator to get over this difficulty, and as I object to these motions, I oppose his proposal.

Senator HIGGS (Queensland). - Senator O’Connor has put the position very clearly. I fail to see why Senator Symon should wish to move this motion, inasmuch as the words -

Not containing wool or silk, partly or wholly made up (not being piece-goods), including articles cut into shape embody flannelettes, trouserings, coatings and vestings that are not woollen. What is the honorable senator’s object if it is not that stated by Senator O’Connor ? He de-‘ sires to pose as a protectionist, and he knows that if this motion is not carried there will be no protection for the makers of coatings and trouserings. This is the honorable senator who is anxious to sweep away all protective duties. If there is any one trying to delude the public it is Senator Symon, and not Senator O’Connor. Senator Symon desires to give a protection of 5 per cent, to those who make up rubbish for the purpose of deceiving the general public. I do not think the committee should give way to Senator Symon’s idiosyncracies. He has frequently taken objection to surplusage and repetitions, and we should not fall in with this proposal. I claim, with Senator O’Connor, that these words are not necessary, save for the evil designs of Senator Symon, who wishes to destroy the Tariff, and to interfere with the regular work which has been done in another place.

Senator MILLEN:
New South Wales

– I must admit that I find some little difficulty in determining just now to whom my fiscal allegiance belongs. I am inclined to think that I must lean to Senator O’Connor ; certainly, I must do so if he continues in the path which, by some strange accident, he seems to have struck for once in his life. The position is abundantly clear. Senator O’Connor cannot deny that the underlying principle of the Tariff is that we should have a duty somewhat higher upon the manufactured article than upon the raw material. At the present moment, however, he stands up in opposition to that principle, not because he is opposed to it, but because he is seeking, if hecan obtain the rejection of this motion, to forestall the decision of the committee in regard to the next item. If the committee rejects the motion, it cannot with any degree of consistency consider the motion which Senator Symon has outlined in regard to the next item. Therefore, I think Senator O’Connor is trying to use the one in order to influence the committee in its judgement upon the other. J ust as he is using one as a lever against the other, so, when the time comes for a compromise between the two Houses, this will be used as a lever to frighten the Senate in regard to the position which it has just taken up. I trust that the committee will not stultify the vote it has just given by rejecting this motion.

Senator Sir RICHARD BAKER:
South Australia

– If I appreciate the position this motion is proposed in order to pave the way for another motion on the second part of this item. If that is so I shall have to vote against it, because I do not intend to support a reduction of the duty on the second part of the item to 15 per cent. I intend to vote for a duty of 20 per cent., so as to make it consistent with the first part. If the two items are both fixed at 20 per cent., there can be no necessity for the motion. That is the view I tske. We ought to simplify the Tariff as much as possible. We ought to look - as I always look - at the amount of revenue we are going to receive.

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON (South Australia). - There would be a great deal of force in what Senator Baker has just said if the assumption which underlies his remarks were well founded, and that is, that we are not going to reduce the next part of the item to 15 per cent. Of course, if the honorable and learned senator’s view is that because he is not going to vote for a reduction of the duty to 15 per cent., that is to be accepted as the decision of the committee, I admit that there is nothing to be gained by putting these trouserings, coatings, and vestings under the 20 per cent list. But it is not a matter of paving the way for the next part of the item. The very reason which Senator Baker gives is the strongest possible one for dealing now with these trouserings, coatings, vestings, flannelettes, and so forth, which we are all. agreed should, for simplification, bear the 20 per cent, rate, and getting rid of them. We have just carried a motion that apparel and attire made from woollens shall be 20 per cent. Piece woollen goods pay a duty of 15 per cent., and trouserings, vestings, and coatings, flannels, and flannelettes are also 15 per cent. Therefore, on the same principle on which we proceeded in fixing the duty on woollen apparel and attire at 20 per cent., we say that these other things should also stand at 20 per cent. The simplification of the Tariff will then be brought about in the most effective possible way. We have the duty upon apparel and attire madefrom woollens fixed at 20percent., and we shall then have the duty on these coatings, vestings, and trouserings made from doubtful materials also fixed at 20 per cent. Senator O’Connor has himself pointed out that “woollen or containing wool” in the description of piece-goods is exhaustive, and that coatings, vestings, trouserings, n.e.i., do not come within the category of goods which are “ woollen or containing wool.” Now the honorable and learned senator says that they will come under the next paragraph, “ not containing wool or slik.” If Senator O’Connor does not wish to have the Tariff simplified, I have no desire to force its simplification upon him, but the honorable and learned senator is much mistaken if he thinks that will make any difference so far as the next line is concerned.

Senator Higgs:

– The honorable and learned senator has counted heads now, and when he knows that he is beaten he gives way with a good grace.

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:

– I do not know that I am beaten, but when I offer a gift and it is scornfully rejected, I do not propose to thrust it down the throats of those to whom I have offered it. I therefore propose to withdraw my motion, and then propose a motion affecting the next line, throwing the responsibility of destroying the protection upon the making up of trouserings, vestings, and coatings upon the Vice-President of the Executive Council and his supporters.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON (South Australia). - I move -

That the House of Representatives be requested to amend item 58 by adding to the duty “ Apparel and attire, and articles, n.e.i., not containing wool or silk . . . act valorem 25 per cent.,” the words “and on and after 1st July, 1902, 15 per cent.”

We fixed the duty on woollen piece-goods at 15 per cent., and I think it has been generally understood that a difference of 10 per cent, would be maintained between the rate imposed on the raw material, and that upon the made-up article.

He is of opinion that there should be a 10 per cent, difference.

Senator Sir Josiah Symon:

– I am allowing a 10 per cent, difference. The duty on piece-goods is 5 per cent., and my proposal is to reduce the duty on this line to 15 per cent.

Senator HIGGS:

– There is not a difference of 10 per cent, between the duty on the item we carried last night and the proposition made by the honorable and learned senator this evening.

Senator Sir Josiah Symon:

– But flannelettes, the honorable senator says, are dangerous.

Senator HIGGS:

– On that point I wish to know where Senator Sargood stands. He wanted to introduce these cotton tweeds into the Commonwealth at any low rate. Now, however, he describes them as injurious. I took down his words at the time. He said - “I have no wish to encourage fraud-, and would keep out inferior and dangerous stuff.” He proposes to do it by reducing the duty. Senator Sargood, who has been in the trade for a long time, says he can only discover that these tweeds are made of cotton by the application of a lighted match. How, then, is the consumer to know when a pair of trousers is offered to him for about 2s. 6d., or a suit of clothes for about 10s., that the goods are made of cotton ? Will the shop-keeper permit him to apply a lighted match to the garments ? If Senator Symon’s real object is not to get dress feathers imported at a low rate, together with all the rest of the finery that is included under this item, he will not insist upon his motion.

Question - That the House of Representatives be requested to amend item 58 by adding to the duty, “ Apparel and attire and articles n.e.i., not containing wool or silk . . . . ad valorem 25 per cent.,” the words, “and on and after 1st July, 1902, 15 per cent.” -put. The committee divided.

AYES: 12

NOES: 10

Majority … … 2

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON (South Australia). - I move -

That the House of Representatives be requested to amend the special exemption to item 58, “Regalia, namely, embroidery woven sashes.” by omitting the words “embroidery woven,” and inserting after the word “sashes” the words “ collarsand aprons. “

I make this proposal with a view of making somewhat clearer the special exemption with regard to friendly societies’ regalia. Senator Neild, who intended to move in the matter, has handed to me a letter setting forth the view of the societies. It is pointed out that these goods are not imported for the purposes of trade, and that the three lines mentioned are not made in the Commonwealth. Sashes, collars, and aprons are exclusively used by friendly societies, and I understand that it was on account of their peculiar position in the community that the special exemption was made. Unfortunately, however, the special exemption as drafted does not apply to sashes, collars, and aprons, and it is desired to put them in the same category as woven embroidered regalia.

Senator O’KEEFE (Tasmania). - I have had a great deal to do with friendly societies who use these articles. It is quite true that if the material from which collars and aprons are made, is taxed at 20 per cent., and the goods are made in the Commonwealth, it will be unfair to put the finished article upon the free list. I do not believe that the members of friendly societies object to their regalia being subject to duty, seeing that the raw material pays duty. I have as much sympathy with friendly societies as any one, but on the grounds I have mentioned, I must oppose the motion.

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON (South Australia). - I think that there is a great deal in what the honorable senator says. In the letter to which I have referred it is admitted that these collars have not, up to the present, been manufactured in this country. Therefore, I will not press my motion.

Motion negatived.

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON (South Australia). - I move -

That the House of Representatives be requested to amend item 58 by adding to the special exemptions “ On and after 1st July, 1902, all accoutrements, badges, and material imported for making navaland military clothing under departmental regulations.”

I willshow why this is necessary. At the end of the Tariff there is an exemption of -

Articles imported by and for the use of the army or navy, viz. : - Arms, military and naval clothing, musical instruments for bands, military stores, and munitions of war.

Really this motion ought to be moved by some of our honorable friends of the protectionist party. I have tabled it as the result of a letter addressed through the Government of New South Wales, by tailors, who complain that, whilst complete uniforms are admitted free, the material - woollen or silk apparel - from which.they are made here are taxed under the Tariff to the extent of 20 per cent. It seems hard that they should be taxed to that extent when the completed uniform comes in free.

Senator HIGGS (Queensland). - I regret that Senator Neild is not present to throw a little light on the question of what should be the width of gold lace allowed in free of duty. As Senator Symon does not seem to be quite sure about the proposal he is making, I think we should report progress so that he will have time to hold a conference before we resume to-morrow. As it is, he is only wasting time in making this senseless proposition.

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON (South Australia). - By leave, I will amend my motion so that it will read as follows : -

That the House of Representatives be requested to amend item 58 by adding to the special exemptions “On and after 1st July, 1902, all accoutrements, badges, buttons, braid, and lace for naval and military uniforms under departmental regulations.”

Motion, by leave, amended accordingly.

Question put. The committee divided -

Ayes … …. 12

Noes … 10

Majority … … 2

Question so resolved in the affirmative:

Item68 - Socks and stockings, cotton, ad valorem, 10 per cent.

Senator SirJOSIAH SYMON:
South Australia

– I move -

That the House of Representatives be requested to amend item68 by omitting, on and after 1st July, 1902, the word “cotton.”

The effect of the motion, if carried, will be to place all socks and stockings upon the same footing ; that is, chargeable with duty at the rate of 10 per cent. The position is at present that woollen socks are liable, under item 58, to a duty of 20 per cent. There seems, to be no reason why that should be so.

Senator O’CONNOR:
Protectionist

– I object to this motion, for reasons that I should prefer to give to-morrow.

Progress reported.

Senate adjourned at 10.30 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 19 June 1902, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1902/19020619_senate_1_10/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant

Senate19 June 1902

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN TROOPSIN LONDON

Senator DE LARGIE:WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator O’CONNOR:Vice-President of the Executive Council · NEW SOUTH WALES · Protectionist

QUESTION

MILITARY BREAD CONTRACT

Senator STEWART:QUEENSLAND

Senator O’CONNOR:Protectionist

CUSTOMS OFFICERS’ OVERTIME

MAIL SUBSIDY: NEW HEBRIDES

PAIRS

The PRESIDENT:

Senator Higgs:

The PRESIDENT:

CUSTOMS TARIFF BILL

Senator PULSFORD:New South Wales

Senator O’Connor:

Senator PULSFORD:

Senator O’CONNOR:Vice-President of the Executive Council · New South Wales · Protectionist

Senator Clemons:

Senator O’CONNOR:

Senator Sir Frederick Sargood:

Senator O’CONNOR:

Senator Sir Frederick Sargood:

Senator O’CONNOR:

Senator Sir Frederick Sargood:

Senator O’CONNOR:

Senator Sir Frederick Sargood:

Senator O’CONNOR:

Senator Sir Frederick Sargood:

Senator O’CONNOR:

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:South Australia

Senator O’Connor:

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:

Senator Major Gould:

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:

Senator O’Connor:

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:

Senator O’Keefe:

Senator Sir J6SIAH SYMON:

Senator O’Keefe:

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:

Senator O’Keefe:

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:

Senator STYLES:Victoria

Senator Sir Josiah Symon:

Senator STYLES:

Senator Sir Josiah Symon:

Senator STYLES:

Senator PEARCE:Western Australia

Senator Styles:

Senator PEARCE:

Senator Styles:

Senator PEARCE:

Senator Styles:

Senator PEARCE:

Senator Styles:

Senator PEARCE:

Senator Styles:

Senator PEARCE:

Senator Stewart:

Senator PEARCE:

Senator Stewart:

Senator PEARCE:

Senator Stewart:

Senator PEARCE:

Senator O’Keefe:

Senator PEARCE:

Senator Barrett:

Senator PEARCE:

Senator O’keefe:

Senator Major Gould:

Senator PEARCE:

Senator O’Connor:

Senator PEARCE:

Senator O’Keefe:

Senator PEARCE:

Senator HIGGS:Queensland

Senator HIGGS:

Senate
19 June 1902

Senator DE LARGIE:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator O’CONNOR:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · NEW SOUTH WALES · Protectionist

Senator STEWART:
QUEENSLAND

Senator O’CONNOR:
Protectionist

Senator PULSFORD:
New South Wales

Senator O’CONNOR:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · New South Wales · Protectionist

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:
South Australia

Senator STYLES:
Victoria

Senator PEARCE:
Western Australia

Senator HIGGS:
Queensland

Senator DAWSON:
QUEENSLAND · ALP

Senator O’KEEFE:
Tasmania

Senator DAWSON:
QUEENSLAND · ALP

Senator MATHESON:
Western Australia

Senator BARRETT:
Victoria

Senator GLASSEY:
Queensland

Senator McGREGOR:
South Australia

Senator STEWART:
Queensland

Senator DE LARGIE:
Western Australia

Sir JOSIAH SYMON:
South Australia

Senator MILLEN:
New South Wales

Senator Sir RICHARD BAKER:
South Australia