View PDF View XML View in Voyant

Senate
30 June 1902

1^st Parliament · 1^st Session

ASSENT TO BILLS
SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT
QUESTION
- SUNDAY LABOUR
CUSTOMS TARIFF BILL
ADJOURNMENT
- Sugar Duties

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

page 14014

ASSENT TO BILLS

Royal assent to the following Bills reported : -

Supply Bill (No. 10).

Supply Bill (No. 11).

page 14014

SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT

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

. -I move -

That the Senate at its rising adjourn until half-past four p.m. to-morrow.

At 3:30 p.m. to-morrow His Excellency the Governor-General will hold a levee, at which he will take leave of the people of the Commonwealth who are here, and I take it that a number of honorable senators would’ wish to attend it. An address from’ the Senate has to be presented by the President, and, as he cannot attend officially to make the presentation while the Senate is sitting, it will be necessary for us to adjourn for. that purpose. Therefore I think it will meet with the necessities of the position and the wishes of honorable senators if we adjourn until 4.30 p.m. to-morrow.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 14014

QUESTION

SUNDAY LABOUR

Senator CLEMONS:
TASMANIA

asked the Vice-

President of the Executive Council, upon notice -

If any officers in the department of Trade and Customs have worked on Sundays?
If so, in what State, and on how many Sun days ?

Senator O’CONNOR:
Protectionist

– The answers to the honorable and learned senator’s questions are as follow : -

Yes.
From 1st January, 1901 -

page 14014

CUSTOMS TARIFF BILL

In Committee. (Consideration resumed from 20th June, vide page 13989.)

Division VI. - Metals and machinery.

Item 74. - . . . Iron, galvanized, plate, and sheet, per ton, 15s.

Upon which Senator Pearce had moved -

That the House of Representatives be requested to amend item 74 by adding to - the duty - “Iron, galvanized, plate, and sheet,’ per ton, 15s. , “ the words ‘ ‘ and on and after 1st July, 1902, free.”

Senator PEARCE:
Western Australia

– On this occasion I do not propose to do more than to ask honorable senators to come to the conclusion that galvanized iron shall be made duty free. That decision was arrived at by the House of Representatives, but afterwards, on the score of revenue, galvanized iron was restored to the list of dutiable articles. I believe that if the motion is agreed to, the other House will adopt our suggestion.

Senator HIGGS:
Queensland

– I am very sorry that after the adjournment Senator Pearce did not formulate a number of arguments in favour of his motion. Some 50,000 tons of galvanized iron are brought into the Commonwealth every year, and this, I think, is a very just and equitable means of raising a little revenue. I am not one of those senators referred to by Senator Dawson as wishing to cast a reflection upon the miner. I look upon the miner as a man who, when he is in his right senses, isa protectionist. Whenhe has had verylittlepoliticaleducation,orwhenheis on thewrongtrack,hehappenstobea strongfree-trader,who wishes toget£318s. perozforhisgold,andtobuyasmuch goods as possible with the money, frequently regardless of the interests of those persons whoare engaged in otherindustries, and forgetfulofthefactthatifthesepersonsarenot doingwelltheymaytaketominingpursuits and compete with him. I do not desire to place any undue burden on the miner, but put. it to the miner who is a protectionist that it is to his interest to bear an equitable share of the taxation, and if possible to encourage those industries that will’ flourish in the Commonwealth. I disagree with the proposition of Senator Pearce, among other reasons because he makes no attempt to differentiate between the better I quality of galvanised iron and the cheaper article which is most likely to be used by thepoorer classes. The Government seem to havefallenintothesame mistake. The “Orb” brand referred to by Senator Dawson as the best in the. market will pay no”more per ton. than will the cheaper qualities. Sena tor Bearee has not pointed out that the duty ‘ which will be paid by the importer will be very small, seeing that the galvanized. iron will be useful for very many years. Provided that it is not attacked by those who pelt stones at night time, or by hailstorms, it will last a life-time with ordinary care. Five per cent. on an article worth £15 per ton is a small duty to impose. If we are anxious to lighten the burden on the thrifty man, who has succeeded at very great -cost to his own comfort in saving sufficient to enable him to build a house of galvanized iron, we should make some distinction between the various brands, imposing a higher duty on the best quality, and a reduced duty on the lower-priced article. We need not go into the long catalogue of various items that are daily necessities on which duties ranging from 25 to 40 per cent. have been fixed. In supporting the duty as it stands, or in . proposing to increase it, I do not take up the position that, because a man is able to cover- his roof with galvanized- iron, he should be taxed for the reason that galvanized iron is a. luxury. What. I said on a prior occasion, was that when a man was able to build a house and cover- it with iron at a cost of £150, he should bo called upon to pay duty on that iron in proportion to the taxation borne by the man who cannot save £1-50 with which to erect a house, and who is required to contribute to the support of the Government by paying duty on various other necessities. Those who use galvanized iron are, as a rule, very well to do, and can; afford to pay this tax. Ko doubt Senator Pearceis actuated by the very best motives in proposing this motion, but, like Senator Symon, in regard to many of his propositions, he is misguided. He is anxious to make some alteration a in the Tariff in the interests of the -miners, but I believe that if he succeeds in bis desire it will be harmful to the general body of workers. Naturally a reduction of this duty must mean a reduction of revenue, and the Government will have to make good the deficiency by taxing, food stuffs which probably cannot be produced here.

Senator BARRETT:
Victoria

– In moving this motion Senator Pearce had a good deal to say in regard to the position of the primary producer. I should like to point out to him that for one sheet of galvanized, iron, in plate or sheet, which is used as roofing material by the primary pro– ducer, 100 sheets are used in other directions, and, therefore, we should remember that there is another side to this question. In my opinion the duty is not high enough, and should be increased for protective purposes. Iron, is galvanized to a very large extent throughout the Commonwealth. Perhaps Senator Pearce does not know that there are no less than four galvanizing establishments in this city. Some of the people who have embarked, upon the industry have been engaged in it, to my own knowledge, for the last 30 yeans. They should have a certain amount of protection, although I regret to say that they did not receive any under theVictorian Tariff. In the interests of that industry as well as with a view to encourage the iron trade, which we are all anxious to build up, this duty should be made a protective one.

Senator Pearce:

– Those engaged in the iron industry do not want it.

Senator BARRETT:

– That is not the statement of those interested in the industry. Mr. Sandford, manager of the Lithgow iron works, desires to see a protective duty imposed, and he has stated that without it the industry in Now South Wales must die. For every sheet of galvanized iron used for roofing purposes’ by the primary producers, 100 are used by manufacturers of baths, I buckets, tubs, and hundreds of other I articles. .The duty as proposed by the Government is only for revenue purposes, but I hope that later on we shall impose a substantia] protective duty, to encourage, not only the manufacture of iron, but the galvanising of iron throughout Australia.

Senator DAWSON:
QUEENSLAND · ALP

– I can hardly understand the position taken up by Senator Higgs, and I am satisfied that if I were to present the Senator Higgs whom we heard last Friday week to the Senator Higgs of to-day there would be a family quarrel. The honorable senator has made a pathetic appeal to the committee to vote against the motion on the ground that it is desirable that a reasonably protective duty should be imposed in the interests, I presume, of those engaged in the galvanizing industry, as well as of those who may be induced to embark upon it later on. Subsequently he made a still stronger appeal for the retention of the duty proposed by the Government on the ground of revenue. If the duty is to afford any substantial protection to this infant industry, its usefulness from a revenue stand-point must be destroyed. The more effective it is from the stand-point of protection, the more destructive it must be to revenue. In common with the VicePresident of the Executive Council and several other honorable senators, Senator Higgs appears to be imbued with the idea that the miner is fair gome, not only in regard to this, but in relation to. every other item in the Tariff, because he is a rich man, and is able to indulge every Sunday in the great luxury of tinned milk. Senator Higgs says that a miner who is able to erect a tin house, costing £150, should be well able to pay this duty. But does he know how the average miner erects such a house 1 Unlike the working man in the city, he does not obtain a loan from a building society and pay it back by weekly instalments. As a rule, ho buys a few sheets of iron on one occasion, and a small quantity of timber on another, and builds his residence ‘ during his spare time. He scrapes and struggles from week’s end to week’s end, and it is some time before he can leave the tent with which he starts for his galvanized iron house. Such a man should be encouraged instead of being penalized for his industry. I shall not quarrel with Senator Barrett as to the state-; ment that for every one sheet of -iron that is used by a primary producer 100 sheets aroused for other than building purposes. If the committee- wish to deal specially with those who use- iron for other than buildingpurposes well and good. But an exception should be made with regard to corrugated iron which is used for building purposes, while other classes of iron might be allowed to bear the duty proposed by the Government.

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

– The honorable senator who has just resumed his seat has again introduced the miner to our notice. I thought we had got rid of him for a time. No one wishes to put him in a position different from that occupied by any other citizen, but it is rather absurd to call for the special protection of the miner against this terrible exaction. What do we propose? I suppose that the miner, as’ well as any one else, must have some kind of roof over his house, and I imagine that for every piece of iron that is used by him for roofing purposes 100 pieces are used in the metropolis, aa well as in country towns, and other places, by persons who are very well able to pay this reasonable duty. The three kinds of roofing material which - apart from bark and shingles - are generally used are slates, tiles, and galvanized iron. Slates pay a duty of 15 per cent., while on tiles there is. a like impost. Now, we are asking that galvanized iron shall pay a duty of 5 per cent. At the outside, if we take the margin of the lower values of iron, it certainly cannot amount to- more than between 5 per cent, and 6 per cent. -I shall show the . committee’ that that is so, and that the suggestions which have been made- as to the - varying prices of galvanized iron have really no foundation. I have been at some trouble to have inquiries made, and I find that £15 per ton is a very fair price, and that the duty does not, therefore, amount to more than 5 per cent. Mi-. Davey, of Lysaght & Co., who are the biggest dealers in this particular kind of commodity, informs me that the wholesale price, with duty, freight, and everything paid, is £18 15s. per ton, less per cent, discount. The price, free on board, for iron in 8-ft. lengths is £15 per ton first quality, which is known as the “ Orb,” and, I understand, represents 50 per cent, of the galvanized iron imported into Australia. The second qualities consist of the Ratcliffe, the Blackwell, the Crown, the Sun, the Cornet, and some others not so well known, which are sold at 10s. per ton less than is the first quality, prices being regulated by the Hardware Association. Mr. Gelately, of Messrs Briscoe <fe Co., states that the first quality, the Orb, is sold wholesale at £17 10s. to £18 per ton, and retailed at £18 15s., the price, free on board, in London being £15. Mr. Gelately also says that the Orb quality represents about 50 per cent, of the galvanized iron imported, and that the Blackwell, Crown, and other brands of the second quality are sold at 10s. per ton less, while the inferior qualities known as the J.C.M., the Phoenix, the Pagoda, and other brands are sold at £1 per ton less than the first quality. The best information we have is that there is no variation greater than £1 per ton between the price of the very best quality and the price of the lowest quality.

Senator Pearce:

– There is far more variation in the retail prices.

Senator O’CONNOR:

– As to that I cannot say, but iron dealers inform us that prices are cut to the very lowest possible point with a view to getting business, and that in many cases prices are really below those at which the iron can be profitably delivered here. It may be that in Western Australia particular dealers may be able, owing to discount arrangements with particular firms, to land iron a little cheaper than can other firms ; but it may be taken, on the authority of the firms I have quoted, that the position is as I have described. The duty proposed is 15s. per ton on an article valued at between £14 and £15 pelton, and it means something like 5 per cent, or 6 per cent., which cannot be described as a heavy impost, in view of the fact that tiles and slates have to pay a duty of 15 per cent. This is an item from which we expect to realize a revenue of £34,000 a year, and we .ire asked to give that up because a number of persons, who use a very small proportion of this class of iron, cannot afford to pay the Id. or 2d. per sheet which is represented by the duty. It is absurd to suppose that we can regulate the Tariff in that way, and honorable senators who propose a reduction of the duty must find some better reasons for the position they assume. I am quite certain that the persons who use galvanized 6iron will not feel this duty in the slightest degree. It has been very properly pointed out that iron is not like a commodity which a man buys every day or every week.

Senator Higgs:

– It is not like a case of fruit.

Senator O’CONNOR:

– No ; nor is it like a hundred and one household articles on which there has to be continuous expenditure. A person may have to buy corrugated iron once a year, or once in ten years ; and when we contrast the proposed duty with others which have been imposed by the unanimous consent of this and the other Chamber, on articles of food and clothing, we see the absurdity of the arguments used by those who favour a reduction. Prom the protectionist point of view, I altogether join issue with Senator Dawson, when he says we cannot have a duty which is both protective and revenue producing. There are in the Tariff a number of duties which are both protective and revenue producing, and we could not otherwise frame a Tariff on the principles on which this Tariff is framed. We have factories in the Commonwealth which are producing this article, and which I hope will produce it to a very much greater extent, though foreign competition will not be kept out with a duty of 5 per cent. A heavier duty might have that effect, but with the duty proposed there will always be a certain amount of this commodity received at the ports which have direct dealings with the old country. The freight on such an article as galvanized iron from either N/ew South Wales or Victoria to the northern ports of Queensland, or to Western Australia, comes very nearly up to that which would have to be paid from England direct to those ports.

Senator Styles:

– There is about 5s. pelton difference.

Senator O’CONNOR:

– With a duty of 15 per cent, or 20 per cent, iron manufacturers in the different States might be able to overcome that difference, but a duty of 5 per cent, will not so counterbalance the cost of the freight from the various States as to very seriously affect importation. From both the revenue point of view and the point of view of protection, the duty ought to be passed as proposed. We cannot afford to lose the revenue, and the protection will give a certain amount of encouragement and stability to the industry.

The duty is necessary to the industry, but it cannot prove to any extent burdensome.

Senator McGREGOR:
South Australia

– We constantly hear the free-trade argument that a duty cannot by any possibility be both protective and revenue producing. But, no matter what duty is imposed, theremust be importation until local manufacture overtakes local requirements. The lower the duty the greater the importations, and the longer the importations will continue with less encouragement to the establishment of manufactures. The “poor miner “ is getting almost as common as the “poor widow” and the “poor orphan.” Senator Dawson and Senator Pearce have no monopoly of sympathy with the miners or others who develop the outlying portions of the Commonwealth. Does Senator Dawson imagine that the gold miner is the only man who follows mining pursuits in the Commonwealth ? So far as the iron industry is concerned, I am sure that the benefit claimed would be more for coal miners than for any other section of the community. We hope a time is coming when the enormous sources of wealth which we possess in the shape of iron ore will be developed, and will employ thousands of miners. Are we to confine ourselves to importing the very articles that we tread under our feet every day? I do not wish to anticipate, but I must do so to a certain extent, in order to -show the fallacy of the position assumed by the opponents of the duty. I hope we shall pass legislation giving power to the States to develop the iron industry, and that the States will take this matter up. Would it be reasonable to allow manufactured iron to come in free when the States were thus engaged, and when, as I hope, we shall agree to spend nearly £1,000,000 in furthering that object. I feel sure that neither Senator Dawson nor Senator Pearce would wish to prevent the States encouraging the production of iron in Australia. What do. these honorable senators know about the subject? What will the duty mean to the poor miner about whom Senator Dawson is so pathetically interested ? I have travelled in mining districts and have seen the houses in which miners are compelled to live in. I have witnessed the result of their industry in endeavouring to keep homes together. Let Senator Dawson contradict me if he can when I say that the majority of the places in which they live measure about 12 feet by 24 feet.

Senator MILLEN (New South Wales).For the arguments which have been adduced in favour of placing this item upon the free list I have every sympathy ; but I would point out that, so far as they touch the fiscal aspect of the case, they could apply to every other item in the Tariff. If we are to indorse them while dealing with this item we should propose that every other item in the Tariff be placed upon the free list. If I were called upon to frame a Tariff upon free-trade lines I should vote for the motion ; but, as we must have revenue, it is a little hypercritical to cavil at a duty of something between 5 and S per cent, while we have passed duties ranging up to 25 and 30 per cent. With every sympathy for the primary producer, and with a desire to relieve him as far as- possible of taxation, I can see very little reason for objecting to a duty of 5 per cent, on the roofing of his house, -while we impose a duty of 25 per cent, on the roofing for his head. Some honorable senators who ask us to support this motion voted for a 25 per cent.’ duty on hats. For this reason, and believing that the duty, whilst necessarily increasing to some extent the price of the article, is only one of those which must be imposed in order to raise revenue, I propose, with very much regret, to vote with the Government.

Senator HIGGS (Queensland). - I think that it is due to myself that I should explain that I have never for one moment attempted to sneer at the miner, nor has any honorable senator on the protectionist side done so. On the other ‘hand, we have certainly attempted, and with success, I think, to hold up to ridicule honorable senators’ who, while claiming that they wish to relieve the miners of some of their burdens, have endeavoured to reduce the duties on silk hats. Honorable senators will recollect that in the early part of the Tariff discussion -Senator Matheson and others continually quoted .the position of the pioneer miner of the Western Australian gold-fields in support of a demand for the reduction of certain duties ; and when we came to deal with “Senator Symon’s proposals, suggesting to another place that the duty on silk hats, high-class cigars, and blanc-mange powders should be reduced, we could not refrain from drawing the attention of -the committee to the way - in which some honorable senators proposed to reduce the burdens on the miner. When we referred to the-fact that some honorable senators desired to reduce, a duty in order that the miner might have a linoleum on his tent floor, it was not with any desire to sneer at him, but only to show the hollow pretensions of honorable senators on the free-trade side.

Senator PEARCE (Western Australia). - It is only right ‘that I should reply to some of the statements whish have been made this afternoon with respect to the reason which prompted me to submit this motion. In defending the. duty from a protectionist stand-point, Senator Barrett pointed out that there are three industries already established in Victoria, but he did not tell us that they were created under free-trade conditions.

Senator Barrett:

– The honorable senator is making a mistake. I said that there were three galvanizing establishments in Victoria.

Senator PEARCE:

– Why did the honorable senator defend the duty unless . he thought its imposition was necessary for the expansion of the industry 1 If it has been possible to found three of these establishments in Victoria without ‘any duty, why should this impost be necessary now when the whole of the Commonwealth is open to them for a market? Tint what is the galvanized-iron industry ? A vat is.prepared, in which ;a solution for the galvanizing of iron is placed. -Then a large crane is employed in lowering a number of plain iron sheets into the vat, and after they have remained in the solution for a certain time the iron is galvanized. That is the whole scope of the industry to which we are :asked to afford 5 per cent, protection against, I suppose, the cheap-labour cranes of China or India. With regard -to Senator McGregor’s lecture, I think she will give those of us who support this motion credit for having sufficient sense to be able to look after ourselves. I shall give the States >all the protection they require when I am satisfied that such will lead to the establishment of State-owned iron-works, and will not be for the benefit of any private firm. But this item does not affect that question. We have no guarantee that if we agree to the duty the spoils of the monopoly will not .go into the hands of the manufacturers. In supporting the duty, ‘Senator McGregor is supporting, not State-owned iron-works, but private manufacturers, the monopolists, and the future Carnegies of Australia. He was very funny at the expense of -Senator Dawson who championed the miner, but the very example which he gave showed that this tax will -lessen the .accommodation which the miner’s hut affords. As Senator Dawson has pointed out, the average miner builds . his hut out of his scanty savings, and ‘we are going to compel him to reduce the size of it, in order that duty amounting to 5s., which otherwise might be devoted to the purchase of another sheet of iron, may be paid, not into the Treasury, but into an industry owned by Mr. Sandford and others. Senator McGregor may know -something of the manufacture of oleomargarine, but I pit my knowledge of building against his j and when1 he ‘talks of placing 6-ft. sheets of iron over a 12-ft. room, he does not know what he is speaking about. Last week Senator Styles discussed eloquently for the benefit of the farmers the way in which the votes given by protectionists in the Senate and another place would benefit them ; but he ought to have told them this afternoon how this duty, amounting to 15s. per ton, will reduce the price of the iron they use. He cannot controvert the statement that in most of the towns in Australia galvanized iron is the roof of the working .man ; that slates compose the roofs of the mercantile classes ; and that tiles constitute the roof of the rich man. Thus, by agreeing to a duty on galvanized iron, he is agreeing to a taxnot upon the roof of the rich man, but upon the roof of the worker . I do not mind helping theminers, because I recognise that, if there are three industries which Australia needs to assist her, they are the mining, agricultural, and pastoral industries. These producers cannot be protected, as their products go into the markets of the world, and every shilling of duty which we impose on the articles they use is a handicap upon their struggles in the foreign markets. Galvanized iron is used by every one of them ; the pastoralist uses it for his shearing sheds, his stations,and outbuildings; thefarmer uses it to shelter himself, his stock, and his machinery; while the miner finds it the most portable covering for his domicile. It forms the greater portion of the roofing and building material of the gold-field towns in Victoria and Western Australia, and it is because this duty affects the three primary industries which cannot be protected, that I urge that it should be remitted.

Senator BARRETT (Victoria). - I wish to clear away a misapprehension that seems to exist in the minds of ‘Senator Pearce and Senator Smith with respect to the remarks I made earlier in the afternoon. With a great flourish of trumpets theyask how it is that there are four establishments in connexion with this industry in Victoria without a protective duty ? It must be remembered that the galvanizing industry is not confined to the galvanizing of sheets of iron. It is not merely roofing iron which we are discussing. Galvanized iron work enters largely into other manufactures. When I referred to four establishments in Victoria, I meant four that were engaged in iron galvanizing generally. As Senator Styles and others have pointed out, the iron industry in the future is likely to be very extensive as far as the Commonwealth is concerned. The burthen of my earlier remarks was that although what is proposed is only a revenue duty it would to a great extent have a protective incidence. Senator Pearce has referred to the method employed in galvanizing iron. Evidently he does not know very much about it. He says that the iron is simply dipped into a vat by means of a crane, and that when it is drawn out again we have the finished article. Such is not the case. I had two or three years at this business in the trade with which I am connected, and I know something about it. The process is this - first of all there has to be prepared a solution of muriatic acid and water. This mixture has to be of a certain strength, because if pure muriatic acid were used, in two or three hours there would be no iron left; it would be all eaten away. The iron is dipped into the solution. After it has gone through that process, and the scale or rust which may be adhering to the iron is thoroughly cleaned off, it is dipped into a solution of pure muriatic acid, dried over a coke fire, and put into a stove. After that it is put into the galvanizing pit, taken out again and plunged into cold water, after which it is dried or cleaned with sawdust. It is a fairly extensive process, and certainly is not to be treated in the light and airy fashion adopted by Senator Pearce. Under the circumstances, I am prepared to allow the item to go as it stands in the schedule, although I Am sorry that the Government, in the interests of those who are engaged in the iron industry, and who intend to engage in it, are not prepared to put it upon a more substantially protective footing.

Senator CHARLESTON:
South Australia

– I shall vote with the Government in this case, as I regard the duty proposed as one of a revenue character. It will not amount to more than 5 per cent., and the duty cannot be called excessive.

Question - That the House of Representativesbe requested to amend item 74 by adding to the duty, “Iron, galvanized,’ plate and sheet, per ton 15s.,” the words, “and on and after 1st July, 1902, free” - put. The committee divided -

Ayes … … …8

Noes … … …14

Majority … … 6

Question so resolved in the negative.

Item agreed to.

Item 75 (Lamps and lampware) agreed to.

Item 76. - Lead, sheet, and piping, free.

Senator STYLES:
Victoria

– I move-

That the House of Representatives be requested to amend item 76, by adding the words “and on and after 1st July, 1902,1s. percwt.”

Under the Tariff as originally introduced there was a duty of £2 10s. per ton, or 2s. 6d. per cwt., on sheet-lead and piping. That duty was struck off by the House of Representatives. The previous duty in Victoria was £2 10s. per ton, in New South Wales there was no duty, in Queensland there was a duty of £2 10s. per ton, and the same duty was also levied in South Australia and Tasmania, whilst in Western Australia there was no duty. There is £35,000 worth of pig - lead worked up into sheet-lead and lead-piping every year in Australia, and the whole of this material is produced within the Commonwealth. It pays railway carriage from the mines to the factories. Since the duty was struck off by the House of Representatives, a shipment of lead-pipes and sheet-lead has been ordered, and is about to be delivered into the Commonwealth. The singular thing is that the Hardware Association of Victoria in its price list of October 21st last - a week or two after the Tariff came into force, and when there was a duty of £2 10s. per ton - quoted a certain price for lead, sheet and piping. The price is precisely the same, although there has been no duty since 10th December. This shows that the consumer does not pay the duty. I have the list here, and it is open for inspection. It may be thought that there is a certain amount of natural protection to this industry through the freight that has to be paid on the lead imported from Great Britain. But, as a matter of fact, the manufacturer of sheet - lead and lead-piping can send a consignment at the rate of 25s. per ton from London to Western Australia, whilst a consignment of precisely the same material from Melbourne to Western Australia pays £1 per ton. This shows that there ‘is a natural protection of only 5s. per ton to the manufacturers of sheet-lead and lead-piping in New South Wales and Victoria. Again, it has been thought that the carriage to Australia would be some protection. But, as a matter of fact, the London price of piglead, as shown by the Argus list of the 5th April, was £11 9s. 4½d., whilst the Melbourne price for the same article was £12 2s. 9d.; that is, 13s. 4½d. more in Melbourne than in London. So that it will be seen that the manufacturer of lead-pipes and sheet-lead pays half the carriage himself. The average price of pig-lead is 10s. or11s. more here than in London, and, according to my calculation, the natural protection left is 14s. or 15s. per ton, if there were no other consideration. The manufacturer here has to pay a higher rate of wages to men who work shorter hours. He has also to pay more for fuel, and more for money borrowed, and should, therefore, get more interest on his capital invested. The duty I propose is only1s. per cwt., but I suppose the Government will oppose such an amendment, seeing that they desire to adhere to the Tariff as it came from the other Chamber. In view of the fact that the Tariff as introduced imposed a duty of 2s. 6d. per cwt., or £2 10s. per ton, the Government could now very well support a proposal for a duty of £1 per ton.

Senator O’CONNOR:
Protectionist

– On the ground which I have already stated on many occasions, I cannot accept the amendment. I agree with Senator Styles in the protectionist views he has put forward, but I intend that, as far as possible, the Tariff shall be returned to the other Chamber in the shape in which it was presented to us.

Senator PULSFORD:
New South Wales

– All the amendments which have been proposed in the Tariff are stated to take effect from 1st July, and, under the present circumstances, that appears slightly ridiculous. Some other date ought to be fixed, because we cannot ask the House of Representatives to agree to alterations taking place on a date which has already gone by.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The date is only nominal ; the amendments will operate from the date on which they are agreed to.

Senator PULSFORD:

– I very much doubt that. If we leave the date unaltered, it will be open to any keen member of the Government in another place to raise the point that the Senate has proposed something which is obviously impossible, and that, therefore, all the suggestions must be declined. As to the item itself, lead is one of the primary productions of Australia. The commodity is produced here in quantities far beyond any possible local consumption, and the value of the article cannot be in any way increased by means of a duty. The chief manufacturers of this commodity carry on their operations in Sydney, and they neither require nor desire a duty.

Senator HIGGS:
Queensland

– I support the amendment of Senator Styles, who is a good protectionist, and entitled to take a hand in framing a Tariff with a protective incidence, when so many attempts are made in the other direction. The excuse given by Senator O’Connor for not accepting the amendment is not valid. He states that he desires to adhere to the Tariff as it came from another place ; but not very long ago he was willing to back down when the item of gold lace was under consideration.

Senator O’Connor:

– That was to remove an anomaly.

Senator HIGGS:

– If we can give protection to our local industries we should do so.

Question - That the House of Representatives be requested to amend item 76 - “Lead, sheet and piping, free,” by adding the words, “ and on and after 1st July, 1902, per cwt.,1s. “ - put. The committee divided -

Ayes … … … 5

Noes……… 19

Majority … … 14

Question so resolved in the negative.

Item agreed to.

Item 77 - Mangles, clothes wringers, and washing machines, ad valorem, 20 per cent.

Senator Lt Col NEILD:
New South Wales

– I move -

That the House of Representatives be requested to amend item 77 by adding the words “and on and after 1st August, 1902, 10 per cent.”

These are articles used mainly by widows, deserted wives, and other struggling and industrious women, who have met with adversity, and who endeavour to make a living by undertaking very necessary but poorly remunerated work.

Senator Pearce:

– Tools of other trades are free.

Senator Lt Col NEILD:

– Exactly; and though some of the articles mentioned can be made in Australia, many of them, on the other hand, are patented, and must be imported.

Senator O’CONNOR:
Protectionist

– I must oppose this suggestion. The honorable senator’s view that the only persons concerned in this duty are poor washerwomen is altogether mistaken, because these mangles, clothes wringers, and washing machines are used very largely in households. The washerwoman has no monopoly of the mangle, especially as there are mangles used in almost every household in the land. The other articles referred to are also largely used in households, and so the honorable senator’s ad misericordiam appeal on behalf of the poor washerwoman appears to fall to the ground. Another honorable senator suggested that these articles should be admitted as tools of trade. That seems to me a very extraordinary argument, because, for the same reason, pots, pans, and kettles might be admitted free on the ground that they are the tools of trade of the cook. Honorable senators must see at once that tools of trade are tools used either in a manufacturing process or in the carrying on of some industry. To say that articles which are used not merely by tradesmen, artisans, and manufacturers, but generally by the community, are tools of trade, and should therefore be admitted free, is to say that one-half of the ironware covered by this Tariff should be admitted free, because it constitutes tools of trade. The suggestion is carrying the tool of trade argument a little too far. I hope that upon every ground this item will be allowed to remain as it is. Those who use these articles can certainly afford to pay the duty. Th& bulk of them can be manufactured here, and 20 per ‘cent, is not too high a duty to impose upon them.

Senator HIGGS:
QUEENSLAND · ALP

– I supposethat if we say a word against Senator Neild’s proposition we shall be accused of sneering_at the poor washerwoman and the poor widow, as on the last item we were accused of sneering at the poor miner. In all probability the majority of the people who purchase- mangles and American wringers are able to pay the duty proposed, and such a duty will be a hardship in only a very few instances. The honorable senator’s poor widow- and poor washerwoman will not be able to get an American clothes-wringer or a mangle, but she will have to use her hard knuckles and elbow grease if she has any washing to do. This proposal, made in order to get up a little cheap sympathy, will not go down with the committee. A 20 per cent, duty will not prove a very great hardship, and in all probability a number of Senator Neild’s constituents will start making these very desirable aids for the saving of labour if this duty of 20 per cent, is imposed. I think the committee should very promptly shut down upon these fraudulent proposals, which are submitted with an outcry on behalf of the poor widow. The poor widows did duty for the distressed banks when they had a bad time in 1893. They were useful to persons in favour of sweating in opposing the Factories Act and Early Closing Act, and they are now trotted out again in the interests of the free-trade party. The party is just about bankrupt, and the widow is brought forward to save them, as she saved the banks in the past. I trust that the committee will not agree to this- proposal.

Senator STYLES:
Victoria

– When I look at the words, “Mangles, clotheswringers, and washing machines,” I think of Chinamen. A great deal of the laundry work in all the big towns of Australia is done by Chinese, and we know that John does not pay much towards the government of the country. As some one has said, lie can live for six months on a bag of rice and the smell of an oil rag, and therefore in this case even free-traders might allow the duty to stand. It will not affect a great many poor washerwomen, and it must be remembered that a woman buys one mangle to last her life. I think that John Chinaman should be made to pay duty upon every occasion : and I heard- a similar argument advanced when we were considering, the duty upon rice. If the duty is permitted to remain as it stands, John may have to contribute a little towards the revenue of the Commonwealth.

Senator Lt.-Col. NEILD (New South Wales). - Senator O’Connor pooh-poohed the idea of a lower rate of- duty upon these articles on the ground that they were tools of trade, because, on that ground, it might be urged that the pots and pans which are the cook’s tools of trade, should also be admitted duty free. Surely the honorable and learned senator knows- enough about the ordinary- affairs of life to know that cooks do not carry on their business in the private premises in which they ordinarily live. The cook goes out to work, and uses his employer’s apparatus and tools of trade, and he is not called upon to supply them for himself. How does my honorable, and learned friend reconcile his lofty scorn for this proposal on the ground that these articles are used in all households with the fact that in this Tariff sewing machines are included in the free list? The honorable and learned senator proposes to give a sprightly young woman her sewing- machine free of duty, and -to tax the poor old woman to the extent of 20 per cent, upon her mangle. It would be quite unnecessary to go through column after column of these exemptions to point the moral of what I am saying, but, while we find printing, machines of the most expensive type and a great many other articles admitted free, it does seem to me an extraordinary « thing that there should be such a desire on the part of the Government to derive Customs revenue from the poor and needy. It is all very well for Senator Styles to talk of Chinese laundry work. I suppose that in the large cities, and in some of the large towns, Chinese laundrymen are occasionally to be found, but how many are there compared with the number of white laundresses ? I suppose they would not amount to more than 1 per cent.

Senator Styles:

– Fob every two white laundresses there is one Chinese laundryman here.

Senator Lt Col NEILD:

– I am not speaking of one locality, but of the whole Commonwealth, and I should be surprised to find that even in any one locality the proportion is that stated by Senator Styles. With respect to the argument that the articles which we are now considering are used in various households, I say that sewing machines are used in quite as many households as .are mangles, and that if we go through the exemption list we shall find a number of articles which are ordinarily used in households. Therefore Senator O’Connor’s reply on that ground does not amount to much. Senator Higgs does not think that 20 per cent, is a high duty, but I venture to suggest to my volatile friend that he would consider a reduction of 20 per cent, upon a little sum of £400 per annum a considerable reduction. In that case the honorable senator would consider the proportion, a fairly large one, and after all is said and done it is a question of degree. A 20 per cent, reduction on £400 would be a sufficiently large reduction to be of some interest to Senator Higgs. If an unfortunate washerwoman has to pay £.6 instead of £5, or £12 instead of £10, for an article which she requires to use for the purpose of obtaining, her daily bread, the proportion, although it may be only £1 or £2, is still a very heavy charge. The Government might very- well give way in this instance, and if they do not, I hope that there will be a majority who will see that it is a reasonable proposal that I am making.

Senator PULSFORD:
New South Wales

– I feel called upon- to make some defence for being willing to agree to a duty of 10 per cent, on mangles, clothes- wringers, and washing machines. I hold in my hand a list of articles which the Government have agreed to make free. One of the first of them is linotype machines, which are generally owned by wealthy- firms. In the first instance, they cost about £700 each, and I believe they are sold to-day at .£500. Steam hammers, and all sorts of valuable, costly tools which are required by great engineering firms, are admitted duty free, and yet we are asked to impose a duty of 20 per cent, on mangles. These articles are used in households as well as in laundries. They are used by all sorts of people, who gain their living by mangling clothes for others.

Senator O’Connor:

– Are not 90 per cent, of them used in households ?

Senator PULSFORD:

– No. Every year it is becoming more and more usual for people to send out their clothes, and the business of washing and laundrying is passing gradually into the hands of persons who do nothing else, and largely into the hands of the charitable institutions. I feel, that I shall be open to a great deal of blame for voting, in favour of even a 10 per cent, duty. Taking no note of the Chinaman on the one hand, or of the widow on the other, 10 per cent., even as a matter of compromise, is a very high rate.. I hope that the motion will be carried by a very large majority.

Senator BARRETT:
Victoria

– The statement of Senator Styles that two Europeans to every Chinaman are engaged in this industry has been challenged by Senator Neild. I have looked up the figures for Victoria, and I find that whereas in 1900 there were US laundry establishments run by Chinese with 194 workers, in 1901 the number of establishments had increased to 140 with 242 workers: In 1901 we had 521 European1 workers in Victoria, as against 412 in 1900. The proportion of Europeans to Chinese is about two to one, and the figures that Senator Styles gave at random were perfectly correct. I believe that if the figures were worked out it would be found that the position in Victoria is a very fair reflex of the position in the Commonwealth. I am prepared to vote with the Government.

Senator PULSFORD (New South Wales). - The figures which have been given by Senator Barrett show that every year it is becoming more and more usual for persons to employ laundries to do their work. Taking Victoria alone, the figures show a very large increase in the employment in these establishments. This is- going on, I believe, in every State, and within a. certain number of years there will be no Chinese left; According to the statement made by Senator O’Connor, the bulk of the articles included in this item are used in private houses. If that were so iti would upset Senator Barrett’s argument ; but Senator O’Connor is largely wrong in what he said in that respect. These articles are very largely used in businesses which are wholly devoted to laundry work, and the industry is growing every year. Under the law of the Commonwealth, the number of Chinese workers will decrease year by year, and ultimately disappear, and then the business will be left wholly in the hands of white people.

Senator PEARCE:
Western Australia

– I am much surprised that the motion of

Senator Neild has not been to make these articles duty free. We free the tools of trade in other industries. Mangles any wringers are largely used by women who have to support their families. They are used in thousands of cottages. If they were used in only laundry establishments, I do not know that I should be so much in favour of making them duty free. When the bread-winner is taken away, the widow with a familyto support turns to washing andlaundrying as a means of earning her living. How can she earn a livelihood unless she purchases a machine 1 Yet it is proposed to place a duty of 20 per cent. on the machine she requiries. I think that a 10 per cent. duty is too high. On the free list we find linotype machines, which are used by Mr. David Syme and other great newspaper proprietors, who can well afford to pay a 20 per cent. duty. The bootmaker’s machinery is also placed on the free list, and he is given a very high protection. But the machinery of the washerwoman, who very often has to compete against coloured labour, is taxed 20 per cent. It is not the Chinaman who uses laundry machinery, because he relies on hand-labour. My experience is that it is the white man or the white woman who uses laundry machinery.

Senator O’Connor:

– What do the Chinese mangle with? They do not mangle by hand.

Senator PEARCE:

– The Chinese do not use wringers, or if they do they use them very little. I have been through Chinese laundries, and horrible sinks they were as a rule; but 1 did not see much machinery. The white man’s laundry is provided with machinery of every description. I regard this duty as a tax upon unfortunate women who have to earn a livelihood for themselves and their families. I shall be very much surprised if the committee does not by a large majority agree to the motion.

Question - That the House of Representatives be requested to amend item 77, by adding the words, “ and on and after 1st August, 1902, 10 per cent.”- put. The committee divided

Ayes … … … 13

Noes … … … 7

Majority … 6

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Item 78. - Manufactures of.metals, viz., agricultural, horticultural, and viticultural machinery and implements, n.e.i., including shares and plough plates cut to shape, horse gears ; and roadmaking ploughs, scoops, horse road rollers, and machines, ad valorem, 15 per cent. . . .

Senator EWING:
Western Australia

– I move -

That the House of Representatives be requested to amend item 78, by adding to the duty “Manufactures of metal, viz., agricultural, horticultural, and viticultural machinery and implements, n.e.i. . . . ad valorem, 15 per cent.,” the words “and on and after 1st August, 1902, 7½ per cent.”

It seems to me that we have now a substantial opportunity to assist the farming community and those generally settled upon the land. It has been admitted by practically both sides of the committee that the conditions in Australia are such that it is impossible to render any substantial assistance to the farmer by the imposition of duties on his products.

Senator O’Connor:

– We say that we can render substantial assistance to the farmer by imposing duties on his products.

Senator EWING:

– There are some who believe that it is possible to render help by duties on anything, but a large section believe that no substantial assistance can be rendered to the farmer in the way I have mentioned. On the other hand, many of us think that the best way in which to assist him is to make the burdens placed upon him by the Government as light as possible. Whilst we desire to remove from the shoulders of those engaged in what are called the primary industries of the country all taxation which has a tendency to do their productions harm, we must remember that revenue has to be raised. The only reason that I have not moved that another place be requested to make the item absolutely free is because people all over Australia realise that whatever their calling may be, they have to pay something under existing conditions towards the revenue of the country. An argument in favour of the reduction of this duty is that a great deal of agricultural machinery is patented, and for that reason cannot be produced here. If we consider, first, what has been so often urged by Senator O’Connor, namely, that a duty imposed by the Commonwealth should be a fair compromise between the various States, it will be found that7½ per cent. is, as nearly as we can arrive at the figures, a compromise between the pre-existing duties. Agricultural machinery, for example, was free in New South Wales ; in Victoria it was subject to a duty of 15 per cent., reapers and binders being free ; in Queensland there was a duty of 25 per cent. on some lines, while others were free ; in South Australia the duty ranged from 15 percent. to 20 per cent., while certain lines were free ; in Tasmania, agricultural machinery was free ; and in Western Australia there was a duiy of 5 per cent. on certain lines, while others were free. If these figures are worked out, it will be found that a substantial compromise between the whole of the State Tariffs is the duty named in the motion. Looking at the matter from the stand-point of revenue, it surely cannot be urged that a reduction will decrease the revenue. The argument in favour of the imposition of the duty originally proposed by the Government was that it would directly encourage the manufacture of agricultural machinery in the Commonwealth. The duty was imposed, not as a revenue tax, but as a protective one, and it was admitted that after the lapse of a few years the revenue raised under it would be very small. It is very difficult indeed to draw any absolutely correct comparison between the number of persons actually employed in the various States in the making of agricultural machinery, except with regard to the totals of persons employed in industries of this class, because in Victoria and New South Wales the divisions under which the statistics are given are very different. For instance, the manufacture of agricultural implements stands comparatively low in New South Wales as regards the extent of labour employed, but we find that in this respect other classes of engineering works in that State stand much higher than in Victoria. I take it that the reason that there are only 169 persons shown to be employed in the making of agricultural implements in New South Wales, as against 1,151 in Victoria, is that the industry is more specialized in this State. If we look further we shall see that in the statistics relating to New South Wales figures are given not only in regard to the manufacture of agricultural implements, but under the heading of engineering generally. We have also a division relating to iron works and foundries, and other metal works, all, more or less, producing agricultural implements. The agricultural implement factories in Victoria are more specialized, and show a better result when collected under the individual heading of “ agricultural implement works “ ; but when we take the total number of persons employed in all the industries coming under the heading of “machinery and metal works “ the position is reversed. New South Wales, without any protection whatever, either in respect of agricultural implements or anything in connexion with engineering, employed, in 1900, 11,091 hands in her machinery and metal works. In Victoria, in the same year, notwithstanding the small protection - for Victoria - that was given on agricultural implements, and the extreme protection given in regard to the manufacture of many other articles, there were only 9,000 persons employed in these trades, leaving a balance of 2,091 in favour of New South Wales. These figures include engineering works, iron foundries, docks and slips, lead works, railway carriage, bicycle, cutlery, and all other works of that class. I have already admitted that on the figures Victoria has a tremendous advantage over New South Wales under the heading of “agricultural machinery “ ; but that is to be explained by the fact that, to a very large extent, agricultural machinery is manufactured in New South Wales in general engineering works. I submit that a duty of 7½ per cent. would be a reasonable one from a revenue point of view ; that as against a duty of 1 5 per cent. it would produce, if not in the immediate future, at all events ultimately,, a revenue from year to year in just about the same proportion as we shall obtain it during the next few years, while the result of a very heavy duty would be to place on the shoulders of the farmers a very great burden in connexion with man3’ classes of machinery which cannot be manufactured here. We have heard a great deal from honorable senators opposite as to what they will do for the farmer. They say that they will give him the benefit of protection. Real protection is that which will stimulate and assist an industry, whether it is by the imposition of a duty or the remission of one. We find protectionists agreeing to place on the free list tools of trade, and what are agricultural implements to the tiller of the soil but tools of trade? If we are to buy only in Australia or to pay a heavy duty upon those machines which are of the most recent invention, and which are patented, it will be impossible for many of our producers to obtain them. The patent laws prevent the most modern machines from being manufactured in Australia. The consequence will be that if the farmer wants new and modern machinery he will have topay the full amount of duty upon a machine imported from the country in which it is manufactured. Any person who really believes in the principle of enabling the producer in Australia - whether he is an artisan, a cultivator of the soil, or a miner - to produce cheaply, will, as far as the financial exigencies of the case will allow, carry the principle of free tools of trade to the length of giving also free modern machinery. If it be a good principle that workmen should be allowed to have free tools of trade, the same argument applies to the farmer and the miner ; and, as I have previously said in the course of these debates, the only substantial way in which we can help our farmers is by allowing them to purchase machines of the most modern type free of duty. We know perfectly well that in agriculture, everything depends upon cheapness of production, and cheapness of production to a great extent depends on the use of such labour-saving machinery as is from time to time invented. What has enabled America so successfully to compete in agricultural products ? Surely it is the fact that her people have invented more up-to-date machinery of their own than have the people of any other place in the world. Almost all our modern agricultural machinery has originally been invented and patented in America. No doubt improvements upon it have been made e’ w here.

Senator Styles:

– And no doubt they have pirated some of our machinery.

Senator EWING:

– Possibly. The success of an industry of this kind especially depends upon cheapness of production, when the produce has to face competition in the markets of the world. It is impossible to protect the farmer absolutely. He has to sell his produce in London. If he cannot get the cheapest machiney from America, and cannot avail himself of the most modern inventions in this respect, he will be handicapped very much in the race when he is competing with other producers. In the handling of grain, in the treatment of crops, in the tilling of the soil, in dairying, and in almost everything connected with farming, success depends upon the employment of the most modern improved machinery. If we tax that improved machinery we hinder production. The protectionists may say that we can produce those machines for which patents exist which are held by Australian firms. But there are many of the most modern appliances connected with farming the patents of which are owned in America. Any one who knows anything about patent law and about commerce is aware that patents are frequently taken out in Australia as well as elsewhere. The consequence is that we are debarred from producing the patented, machines in Australia until fifteen years have elapsed. When the fifteen years have gone by, and probably a new machine has been patented, the Australian producer will be allowed to obtain the old one free of duty ; but until that time comes he has to pay the exact amount of the duty that is placed upon the patented article that he wishes to purchase.

Senator Styles:

– What patented farm implements are imported into Australia today?

Senator EWING:

– If the honorable senator does not know, I do not intend to mention them to him. He should look up his own information. I know perfectly well, from my experience of him, that all the information I could give him would not convince him. There are some people whom it is impossible to cure ! I submit that the amount of protection that has been imposed upon these goods has not had the tendency that protective duties have usually been credited with - of employing in the protectionist States a larger quantity of labour than in other parts of the Commonwealth. I look at the amount of duty to be imposed purely from a revenue point of view ; though I confess that if I had my way, and the exigencies of the case allowed me to carry my opinion to its logical conclusion, I should vote for free mining and agricultural machinery, and for permitting io be imported free everything that was necessary for the development of the primary industries of the country. But I realize that the farmer, and the miner, like every one else in Australia, has to contribute towards the revenue, and therefore, instead of proposing that the item be free, I have moved that the duty be 7-£ per cent.

Senator O’CONNOR:
Protectionist

– I do not know that there is a more important item in the Tariff than that now under discussion, and it appears to me that the honorable’ and learned senator who has just proposed the motion before the Chair has not quite grasped the full significance of the position. Before I reply to his arguments, I think it would be well that the committee should be reminded of what the proposal of the Government, as embodied in the Tariff, is. It is proposed that -

Agricultural, horticultural, and viticultural machinery and implements, n.e.i., including shares and plough-plates, cut to shape, horse gears, and road-making ploughs, scoops, horse rollers, and machines shall pay a duty of 15 per cent. The honorable senator is in error in saying that the Government first of all proposed that these machines should pay a high protective duty of 25 per cent. Their original proposal was 15 per cent., a lower duty than that borne by other machinery, for the express purpose of recognising the position in which our agriculturists stand. The desire of the Government was to make certain that no heavier duty was put upon the agriculturist than was absolutely necessary in the interests of revenue, nor than the industries affected could bear. This item must be read in connexion with the list of special exemptions. There are exempted from duty the following agricultural machinery and implements : -

Chaffcutter knives, drill wheel and hoe cultivators, huskers and shelters, ‘horse rakes, lucerne launchers, maize harvesters and binders, maize huskers and shedders, milking machines, mowers, potato raisers, rakes and ploughs combined, root cutters, straw stackers, strawsonizers, threshing machines, winnower forks (wood and steel). 39 x z

– Is not all protection bogus to the honorable senator ? Everything is bogus to him except free-trade which subtends the whole angle of his existence. He sees nothing else but free-trade, and I do not hope to convince him. To run through a few of the items in connexion with which protection has been given to the farmer, I find, amongst others, bacon, hams, butter and cheese, stearine, vegetables, and fruit of different kinds, and though it has been sought to place wheat upon the free list, the farmer is protected in respect of other grain such as barley and oats. Honey, jams and jellies, hops, dried fruits, potatoes, malt, meats, preserved milk, onions, pickles, salt, and wine are also protected. I should like to know why the farmers, who get the benefit of these duties, should not have to bear some burden in connexion with the revenue. I should like to know why the farmers, who have such a large proportion of their agricultural machinery admitted duty free, should not bear the burden, if any burden is to be borne by them, of the payment of this duty.

Senator McGregor:

– A few minutes ago Senator Gould said that the people should all go on the land.

Senator Major GOULD:

– It is much, better for people to go on the land than to go into any particular manufacturing industry. The more they are distributed in employment the better it is for the State. Senator O’Connor -pointed out that New South Wales imported £84,000 worth of machinery from Victoria ; but, practically, that is counterbalanced, by the £78,000 worth of machinery which Victoria imported from over the water. As to the imports into Riverina, it was claimed by Senator O’Connor that differential rates on the railways were established to enable the New South Wales people to get possession of that market. On the other hand, it must always be remembered that both Victoria and Queensland were sinners in the same way, and, along with differential rates, had the advantage of water communication, which New South Wales was unable to enjoy in consequence of the long distance which goods had to be carried by rail in the latter State. Senator O’Connor wanted to know why the farmers should not bear some portion of the burdens of taxation. It occurs to me that, so far as we have gone with the

Tariff, the farmer has already been called on to bear a very fair amount of taxation, as must be admitted when we remember the considerable duties which have been imposed on his wearing apparel, his hats and caps, boots and shoes, and everything he may see fit to use. The farmer is perfectly willing to pay a fair share of taxation, but it is not reasonable to ask him to bear the amount represented by the proposed duty of 15 per cent. I hope that the result of this debate will be a division in favour of reducing the duty to 7½ per cent. Indeed, it would only have been reasonable to propose that the farmer in the Commonwealth should be placed in exactly the same position as his brother in New Zealand, and get his implements free. But, viewing the whole of the circumstances, and bearing in mind the fact that by the Tariff we are endeavouring to obtain a fair amount of revenue, I suppose the farmer must be prepared to pay a modicum of taxation.

Senator BARRETT:
Victoria

- Senator Gould urges that the farmer must have someconsideration ; but I hope that he, and those who are acting with him, will remember that there are others to whom we must have regard in considering any proposal to reduce this duty. The speech of Senator Ewing was one of the lamest that I have heard in this Chamber, considering the importance of the question. By a reduction of the duty not only will the livelihood of thousands of people be imperilled, but the capital of those who have embarked in this particular industry may be lost. I hope that honorable senators will in this case, as in others, deal out evenhanded justice to all concerned. The suggestion of Senator Ewing will, if carried, deal a deadly blow to an industry which has been fostered and encouraged in several of the States, and the interests of those who now find employment in this direction should not be lightly put aside. The one cry of Senator Ewing was that we must have revenue, and he endeavoured to prove that his proposal would return a larger amount than that of the Government. Senator O’Connor, however, effectively answered that argument ; and, in my opinion, a reduction of the duty does not necessarily mean increased revenue. Neither do I think that if our market is opened to the other manufacturers of the world, the Australian farmer will get his implements any cheaper. The experience of Victoria has been rather the contrary. As soon as a duty has been lowered and a blow dealt at local industry, imported implements have been increased in price. That was so in the case of reapers and binders, which, in the absence of any duty, were sold at double the invoiced price. I have received several communications from the largest manufacturing firms in Victoria. As a rule, I do not read communications of this description, but in this connexion I believe it to be my manifest duty to allow the manufacturers to speak for themselves. They have put their case better than I could put it, and they show how, under any lower duty than 15 per cent., they would not be able to compete with the manufacturers on the other side of the world. The first letter is from Mitchell and Co., of Elizabeth-street, North Melbourne, one of the largest firms in the city, and is as follows : -

In view of the discussion which is likely to occur on the question of agricultural implements and machinery, when that item conies before the Senate, we would like to say a few words on the subject, as it affects us personally, in the hope that they will prove of some service to you. The claim we make primarily is that we are to be classed as a natural industry, just as much as farming or mining pursuits, and it should, therefore, be one of the first considerations of the Senate to afford us some measure of protection against outside competition. This industry has many manufacturers throughout the Commonwealth who are dependent on the protection afforded at the Custom-house, and it has taken them a number of years, and enormous sums of money, to bring their plants up to the requirements of the States. They have produced an article in the past that is better suited to the Australian farmer than anything that can be imported, but latterly the foreign manufacturers have turned their eyes to Australia, and are now endeavouring to their utmost to secure a monopoly of the trade at the expense of the local manufacturers. When brought into competition with them we are at a disadvantage for the following reasons : -

Our men work 48 hours per week, against the foreigners’ week of about 60 hours, whichin itself is a gain to our competitor of about 25 per cent. over us. Our seasons only last a few months in the year, and during the rest of the time we are slack, whereas the foreigner can go on making machines all the year round, because he has the markets of the world to supply, and what he misses in one he will gain in the other. Raw material of all kinds can be obtained at his own doors ata low cost, while we have to pay heavy charges on it, and in a number of cases have to pay duty also. It is contended that under the Federal Tariff we enjoy a larger field by being able to trade with the other States, and that they can and will do the same with us ; but we would point out that the cost of shipping to any port in other States of the Commonwealth is asmuch as the cost of shipping from America to the Commonwealth, so that we gain very little when we have to compete with them in the other States.

Against whom have we to compete? The wealthy American firms have established branches here instead of having an agent to represent them as formerly, and when they are invoicing goods they charge them at the manufacturer’s cost price, so that the amount of duty paid is purely nominal. They have copied the locally-made ploughs and combined harvesters by sending to America sample machines, from which they make an inferior imitation, composed greatly of cast and malleable cast iron against the high-class forgings of the local article. These imitations are cheap and nasty, and must ultimately prove expensive bargains to those who purchase them. What will be the result of this unfair competition ? Simply that the local manufacturer will be forced out of the market and the numerous industries will be closed down, and consequently the thousands of men now employed throughout Australia will be thrown out of work, which will be a serious matter for the Commonwealth.

The duty on implements and machines lias for years past been at the rate of 15 per cent., which after all is purely a revenue duty, and for the last five years the importations have been increasing yearly. As a matter of fact a natural industry like this should have a fair measure of protection from foreign competition, and in asking you to agree to the proposals of the House of Representatives we think we are asking nothing out of the way. It is only a small measure of protection, and the revenue obtainable from it will mean a good deal to the Government

A valuable industry like this should receive proper protection at the hands of the senators when it is clearly proved that the locally-made article is foi.’ and away better than the imported one. The imported machine will lust for a few years only, whereas the local one will last a lifetime.

Victoria and South Australia have a .large number of factories engaged in the manufacture of implements and machinery, which were established and built up under protection. New South Wales with free- trade has only one or two factories, showing that without some protection the industry cannot prosper. With her vast territory and large natural resources there should be factories in every corner of that State, giving employment to thousands of her people. With, coal and iron on the spot, it should be the leading State in the Commonwealth so far as this particular industry is concerned, and not occupy the backward position it does to-day.

We must apologize for writing you at such length. but our only excuse is that the question is of such vital importance to us and the other makers of this class of machines that we feel, unless some attempt is made to prevent any alteration in the duty, we shall be completely worked out of the market.

That is one of the letters.

Senator Clemons:

– Is the honorable senator going to read the lot 1

Senator BARRETT:

– Yes, I am. I have explained that I consider it my duty to do so. The manufacturers have put their case very clearly, and there is so much at stake that, in my opinion, I should not be doing what is right, if I did not give this information to the committee. Some honorable senators may think they can afford to treat the matter very lightly, but if their livelihood was at stake, if they were workers in this industry, and might possibly have to look forward to the loss of their employment, they would feel as strongly as I do on the subject, and would be ready to give the committee every shred of information which they could get upon it.

Senator Millen:

– If the honorable senator proposes to read dozens of letters of that kind, he must not afterwards blame honorable senators on this side for waste of time.

Senator BARRETT:

– I propose to read four or five letters from leading manufacturers, whose names are household words in this State, and who are well known throughout the Commonwealth. The next letter I have is from Hugh Lennon and Co., a firm not only known in this State, but throughout Australia. They say -

The agricultural implement manufacturers in the Commonwealth occupy rather a unique posi– tion as regards their competition with foreignmade goods, as you will see from what we now write.

The local manufacturers have to compete against rings, combines, and powerful foreign trusts, that have established throughout the Commonwealth large distributing houses of their own. The trusts in foreign parts invoice their goods to their own people here at bottom prices. For many years these concerns devoted their- attention solely to reapers and binders, which were then absolutely duty free throughout the whole of the Australian colonies, just the same as the)’ are throughout the Commonwealth under the new Tarin;

The farmers of the Commonwealth know to their cost how “the ring,” or trusts, squeezed hundreds of thousands of pounds sterli ng out of them through this unholy combine, and the immense gross profits made out of this useful, duty-free machine have enabled them to build up a mighty organization, which now stalks or sweeps through the country, like a plague of grasshoppers, devouring all the profits of the farm. The selling organization of these trusts employs something like 1,000 travelling canvassers to rake in orders, so that the trusts may poy big dividends in foreign parts, and the “poor farmer” of the Commonwealth pays for all, and the Commonwealth is so much the poorer.

Since these trusts have become so powerful, they have practically determined that the local manufacturer has to go, and when he does go - as surely he must - Lord help the farmer !

In proof of the assertion that the binder ring, trust, or whatever name suits them best, are determined to undermine the local manufacturer, we have only to point out that samples of our best Australian inventions in ploughs, and the combined stripper - harvesters, have been sent to America to copy, and now we have on the market foreign, jerry-built imitations which are now placed in the hands of the selling organizations of the trusts for distribution throughout the Commonwealth, and sell them they will, and at big prices, too, for the foreigner will have his pound of flesh every time, and the big gross profit on his binder and the poor tools enables him to push his goods, whilst the local manufacturer has not sufficient profit to enable him to follow suit owing to the much superior quality of his product.

We” trust that you will use your very best efforts to retain the very small duty that the House of Representatives have passed.

Yours faithfully,

Chas. D. Lennon,

Manager Hugh Lennon Plough and Machine Company.

I n a memorandum attached they say - “ Advance Australia “ has ever been the motto of the agricultural implement manufacturers of Australia, and no body of men have worked harder or more loyally in the interest of agriculture than the implement men - both employer and employe -and all they ask now at the hands of the Commonwealth is a fair measure of protection to the’ industry which has done so much to make Australia what it is to-day. Had it not been for the local-made implements and machines, it is very doubtful whether half the land that is now under crop would not still have been sheepwalks, for when other implements failed, the Australian-made succeeded in opening up new territory, and therefore added new wealth to the nation.

Australian-manufactured agricultural implements have now - through their excellence - made a world-wide reputation for themselves, and the home manufacturer and his employes have proved beyond doubt that they are willing and able to fill all the requirements of the agriculturist of the Commonwealth in up-to-date high-grade implements. The Victorian (now Australian) plough leads the world as a cheap and effective implement for tilling and breaking up the somewhat hard crust of Australia.

The implement trade have by the ingenuity displayed in their manufactures, and in their power to invent successfully new machines suitable to the requirements of Australia, established their claim to the right of existence, and that right they look to the people, and more especially the farmers, of Australia to uphold.

It may come as a great surprise to many to learn that the implement manufacturers of Australia. -the people who have done so much to assist the agriculturist to open up the country at a minimum cost - are threatened with extinction of their trade altogether by the vendor of foreignmade goods. These goods are, as a rule, very inferior in design, strength, durability, and stability to the Australian-madeimplement. They are not, however, offered to the farmers at a price which can be called reasonable, considering the poor class of tool that the foreign trade sell, and the very low figure at which they are landed (duty paid) on the shores of this great Commonwealth.

It may be asked - Why is the Australian manufacturer unable to compete with this very inferior article ? - and to this the reply is - That the Australian implement is designed and built to work, last, and give permanent satisfaction to the user, and therefore costs to manufacture (in many implements) from three to four times as much as the landed cost of the poor implement offered by the vendor of foreign goods which are built “ for sale “ only.

The foreign implement manufacturers have for some years been making a great effort to capture the Australian trade, and. have now established in each State of the Commonwealth distributing houses of their own, and have put in immense stocks of foreign implements in anticipation of an increase of duty. This is particularly the case in the State of New South Wales. The goods handled by them, being of the cheap and nasty breed, are invoiced from their own factories to themselves here, therefore they come in at bottom prices, and the duty of 15 per cent. only amounts to a few shillings per implement, and is practically no protection to the local manufacturer whatever. The fairest plan, therefore, to protect the local manufacturer, the farmer, and the merchant who deals in machinery generally, would be on the fixed-duty basis - so much per implement - instead of on the ad valorem plan

Nearly every vendor of foreign implements throughout the Commonwealth has a reaper and binder as his leading line, and the farmers of Australia - thanks to the press - have been made aware of the existence of the binder-ring, even if they did not know it through their pocket. The reaper and binder ring has taken some hundreds of thousands of pounds out of the pockets of the farmers of Australia through the gross overcharge on this very useful machine, and it has at the same time pretty nearly crippled every implement manufacturer in this fair Commonwealth. The farmers of Australia know to their cost how they have been compelled by the binder-ring to pay from £55 to £60 for reapers and binders which have been admitted duty free landed in every State of the Commonwealth at from £20 to £22 each, and the farmers also are aware of the extravagant methods employed in selling these foreign-made, duty-free machines, and that each member of the binder-ring employs sub-agents in the country districts, territory being allotted to the sub-agent, who receives a commission on every machine that enters his district - in other words, on every machine that is sold in Australia the sub-agents collect an amount equal to 25 per cent. on the landed cost of each machine.

In addition to these sub-agents, the vendor of the foreign-made, free-trade reaper and binder employs an army of canvassers, who go through the country like a plague of grasshoppers, devouring all the profits of the farm.

Now what chance has the local-made implement against these extravagant selling organizations ? For every sub-agent and canvasser of the vendor (or ring) of the duty-free, ring-bound binder has his line of foreign -made ploughs, harrows, cultivators, horse-works, chaff-cutters, mowers, &c, &c, and now he is adding to his already extensive line a poor copy of the combined harvester, which has been invented by Australian brains, and cost many thousands of Australian sovereigns to bring it to the perfect machine it now is - a machine that will give every wheatgrower in the Commonwealth a chance of making a profit on his product, for it has considerably reduced the cost of production, to say nothing of the other advantages that it brings to the farmer.

Now the Australian implement manufacturer does not object to the foreign-made reaper and binder, or any other implement that cannot be successfully manufactured in the Commonwealth, being admitted free of duty, but he does object to the unfair competition brought on by the binder-ring of foreigners, who extort from the farmer such an immense gross profit, through the agency of their combine, that they (the binder-ring) are practically in the position to write down the prices on the other lines which come in competition with the Australian-made implements. This, however, is not the policy of the foreign traders, their policy being to extort from the farmer an immense profit on their cheap and shoddy-made implements. This profit is then used to subsidize territorial agents and other parasites, who “ toil not, neither do they spin,” but simply bleed the farmer for all they are worth.

From Messrs. T. Robinson and Company Proprietary Limited, of Spottiswoode,I have received a communication, in which they say : -

With reference to theduty on agricultural implements and machines, which we called upon you about the otherday, when you advised us to place our collective views before you as representing the trade in Australia, we have had several conferences of the trade since that occasion, but we find great difficulty in sending you a joint letter, for the reason that the matter appeals to us in different ways, probably as our interests are more or less affected. At all events, we have come to the conclusion that it will be better forus to place our individual views before you, so that you may be able to draw such pointers from them as might best assist you in any debate that should occur in the House.

Speaking generally of the plough trade, it would be necessary to bring under your notice how very well the farmers of this country have been served by the plough makers. Under the 25 per cent. duty, which had been the law in Victoria for so many years, a class of implement was developed that had no equal in the world, and this purely because the. trade was worth giving some thought to, as our home market at that time kept the factories pretty well employed all the year round. We contend, under those conditions, no farmer in the world was better supplied with suitable implements for their industry than were those of Australia. Australian requirements in this sense are perhaps different to those prevailing in the older countries, and the implement maker laid himself out to meet those requirements in the best possible way, and hesucceeded so well that only Australian implements came into general use.

Now, sir, we point this out to you, because the people or the firms with whom we are now brought into the closest competition are those whose home affairs, that is to say, the protection afforded them in their own country is very similar to that which prevailed in Victoria under the 25 per cent. Tariff, and this accounts for their being such hot competitors of ours at the present moment. The volume of home trade which they enjoy enables them to laydown the best plant possible for the cheap production of implements and machines, so that it requires no stretch of imagination to see that the few goods they send to Victoria, comparatively speaking, is putting very little extra strain on their producing plants.

It has been said that all Australian industries are small, and, comparatively, they are so, but nevertheless, sir, these small industries are catering for a small aggregate population, and as we have no hope of developing an export trade, that is, outside of Australia, these small industries become our own and our all.

The worst feature of the competition we have now to face is that theimplements we once regarded especially Australian, foreign traders are now pirating. The pirated implements and machines, which are made lighter and cheaper than the locally-built article, are being placed very largely upon this market, and without the duty we now ask for is kept in the Tariff, the competition will become large enough to absolutely crush all local enterprise. It is a fact that the lowering of the duty has had the effect of increasing importation, and with the lowering of the duty local enterprises languish for the want of business.

The gigantic trust organizations which handle the export of American goods are enabled to do business on lines which are impossible to the local manufacturer, and which on the face of it produce a most unfair state of business competition.

All the American firms have a reaper and binder, which is the basis of their business here, and from this source they have drawn enormous revenues out of the farmers in the past, and with this as their principal line still they are enabled to run in other lines of implements and machines, giving them a full list from which to sell, and enabling them, especially with regard to the implements, to deal with the farmers at such prices and terms as are sorely felt by the local makers, and which cannot be regarded as in any way fair competition.

In connexion with the combined harvesting machine, a competition which we are now threatened with also, the Australian manufacturer has done twenty years building, experimenting, developing, and perfecting this machine. We have been assisting the farmer in his operations, where it is possible for mechanical skill to so aid them, in devising a. machine to this end, and we boldly make the assertion that no farmer in the world is so well supplied with harvesting machinery, and in no country under the sun is the process of harvesting cereal crops done with such perfection and such economy as it is in Australia with a machine the product of Australian brain and Australian capital.

Not to tire you with too long a letter, we will conclude this by asking your best assistance in the Senate in seeing that the duty as passed by the House of Representatives benot disturbed, for, small as it is, it affords us at least some little protection, and without it we could not possibly stand.

The next letter I have to read is one from Messrs. Nicholson and Morrow, who have large works in Carlton, where they have been established for 25 or 30 years. Concerning the standard article they supply to the farmers, they write as follows : -

In regard to the proposed duty of 15 per cent. on agricultural implements and machinery now under the consideration of the Senate of the Commonwealth, which will come on for discussion very shortly, we desire to say that we wish the rate of duty as proposed by the House of Representatives to be confirmed by the Senate for the following reasons : - (1). Because we consider it to be areasonable duty.

It will be recognised by all interested in the trade that this rate of duty cannot by any means be considered as protective. It is a purely revenue duty, and on this ground alone it should commend itself to both sides of the House. While it will not protect the agricultural implement manufacturing industry throughout the Commonwealth, it will afford manufacturers some little help in enabling them to compete with the unfair competition from foreign manufacturers. (2). Because the manufacturers in the Commonwealth have to cope with unfair competition from foreign manufacturers.

It is a well-known fact in the trade that Australian manufacturers are called upon, in the prosecution of their business, to face unfair competition on the part of foreign manufacturers, more especially American. This unfair competition is due to the fact that certain American manufacturers have pirated the best ideas of Australian designed agricultural machinery (which have been built to suit the requirements of the Australian farmer), and have manufactured them in America, and have sent them out to compete with the original and genuine article in these markets.

We can cite many instances of this, but the most notorious is the case of the complete harvester ; this is a machine of purely Australian invention, which has occupied the attention of at least one firm for over twenty years, during which time they have given it their sole attention, and have expended a very large amount of money and energy in bringing it to a state of perfection.

The American manufacturers, watching the development of this machine with a jealous eye, have purchased some of the machines, sent them to their works in America to be copied, and facsimile machines are now being landed in various parts of the Commonwealth. This action on the part of the American manufacturers is a distinct attempt to capture the Australian trade in this machine, as it should be remembered that the complete harvester is totally unsuitable for the American farmers, consequently there is, at the present time, no sale for these machines in America.

Another important fact, which we wish to emphasize, is that the American manufacturers have established branch offices of their businesses in the various States of the Commonwealth, and in sending out their goods to their Australian offices they invoice them at manufacturer’s prime cost, and the duty paid upon them is only nominal.

. At no time has there been a combine or ring between the Australian manufacturers to keep up prices.

It will be readily conceded that the American method of conducting business differs very largely from that of other people. In America huge trusts and combines are formed for the purpose of monopolizing trade in every branch of industry. In Australia, happily, this state of affairs does not exist, but we believe an attempt is being made by some wealthy American combines (especially in agricultural machinery) to secure the Australian market, in order that they may have an outlet for their surplus manufactures.

By lowering the rate of duty below 15 percent. it would, undoubtedly, enable these trusts to achieve the object that they have in view, and when it is remembered that Australian manufacturers have sunk an exceedingly large amount of capital in establishing their industry, by erecting works and putting down expensive plants, it will be admitted that it would be very unfair, indeed, to them.

Another potent factor to be considered is that the lowering of the duty would affect a very large number of mechanics and work people - probably some 20,000 throughout the whole of the States - and it is clear that if the duty is lowered to a point that will prevent Australian manufacturers from being able to place their machines on the market, there will be no work for the tradesmen referred to. Compared with American manufacturers, it is admitted that Australian makers of agricultural machinery are very small, but they are large enough to meet the demands of the, Australian farmers, and, therefore, are entitled to the full consideration in the matter of duty.

. By keeping the trade within the bounds of the Commonwealth the money is circulated amongst the community, and other industries are benefited in a greater or lesser degree ; while, if the money with which the farmer purchases his implement to enable him to till the soil is sent out of the country, it leaves nothing behind, and the community is poorer in consequence.

. The Americans themselves havestrenuously pursued this line of protective policy, and at the present time a very heavy rate of duty is imposed upon all foreign machinery of every description coming into the United States. By these means their industries have been firmly established, and it has placed them in a position where they can practically command the trade of the world.

For the above reasons we would respectfully ask that the duty be not lowered, but every facility should be given to Australian manufacturers to establish their industries in the Commonwealth.

There is only one other quotation which I wish to make. A few months ago the whole of the organizations connected with the agricultural implement industry conferred together, and as a result of that conference the circular letter was drawn up which I am about to read. They desire that the duty shall be increased from 15 to 30 per cent., but as the committee know the present proposal is that the duty of 15 per cent. fixed by the Government shall be reduced by one-half. This is what the men engaged in the industry have to say in regard to the matter -

The most critical stage in the history of the agricultural implement and machinery industry has now been reached, and it is in the power of the Federal Parliament to make or mar it. Agriculture is one of the staple industries of the Commonwealth, and we, as the makers of the implements and machinery used by the farmers in tilling the soil and reaping the harvest, are essentially allied to the agriculturists, and hence our industry is also a vital portion of the Commonwealth. We desire for both the farmers and the makers of their implements that protection which is necessary to maintain both industrieswhich ina young country are open to injury from the older countries, with cheaper labour, cheaper money, and the means of commanding the markets of the world. The makers of agricultural implements depend solely upon the Commonwealth for their trade, and it is patent therefore that foreign importation seriously cripples this industry.

We desire to point an important feature in connexion with the whole question. Foryears the Australian makers have been seized with the fact that there are wants peculiar to the Australian farmers, and also that in order for the Australian to compete against foreign agriculturists, it was necessary to provide them with implements exactly suiting their requirements and enabling them to till and harvest their crops at the least possible cost. After years of study, experiment and labour, and the expenditure of large capital in machinery and plant, the Australian makers have succeeded in doing this. But now, when the reward for this outlay is likely to be received, the foreign firms, seeing the prospects of appreciation by the farmers, seek to reap a harvest without any of the study, labour or expenditure, and simply by copying our sole inventions from machines purchased here and taken to their works, are now making extensive preparations to swamp our markets with our own inventions, and thus ruin one of the staple industries of the Commonwealth. This is particularly the case with the harvester, a machine that strips, cleans, and bags the grain at one operation. A 15 per cent. duty is altogether inadequate to maintain the industry, and considering that a large quantity of the material used in the manufacture of the implements and machinery is dutiable from 10 to 25 per cent., it is only just that our request should be granted. In order to show how purely Australian-invented articles have made it possible for the Australian farmer to maintain their industry along with a reasonable protection, it is only needful to compare the difference in the cost of tilling and harvesting the crops : to take, for example, the harvesting alone, - the reaper of twenty years ago averaged per acre, as the total cost, 12s. 6d. ; and then came the stripper and winnower, total cost per acre 4s.; and now we have the harvester doing the work at a total cost per acre of1s. These facts are beyond disputation. The industry is a large one ; many firms in the Commonwealth have extensive works and machinery, and there are over 2,000 men employed, whose average wage per week of 48 hours is 44s. Not included in this 2,000 are a large number of workmen employed in their various works preparing material for use in the construction of the articles made in the agricultural shops. Then there is a large quantity of Australian timber used, and probably shortly iron. Thus in the case of the Australian made articles the bulk of the money remains in the Commonwealth; but in the case of the foreign import the bulk leaves the Commonwealth.

Statistics prove that in the Commonwealth the farmers of Australia have a market for oats and barley beyond their present growth, and that with a reasonable protection, and the machinery already proved to produce crops as cheap as the foreign grower, that as they have thus a wide field for the disposal of their produce, while the makers of their machinery are restricted to the home market that the fear of crushing the farmer is groundless, especially when it can be proved that the additional increase of duty asked for will in no case increase the price of the article to the farmer.

James A. S. Brown,

- Mr. Kennedy, I am sure, would not express any opinion in which he did not absolutely believe. Senator Millen spoke about the producer ; but I ask whether a man who makes a plough or harrow is not equally a producer with the man who uses the implement? All the people engaged in this industry - and there are a good many of them - are producers. What could farmers do without these manufacturers ? It is only a question of whether we shall send the money to America or spend it amongst our own people. Senator Ewing referred to the matter of patents but I challenge him to mention one. I believe that there is one little patent, but reapers and binders are not patented, and can be made here in any quantity, as I was informed by the manager for Messrs. Robinson and Co. Senator Ewing said there were 11,091 people employed in the metal trades in New South Wales. I dare say that figure is correct, but included in that number are 3,339 smelters, which at once reduces the figure to 7,752. If the honorable senator, when dealing with themanufacture of agricultural implements, had not available the figures as to the number of persons employed, he should not have said anything on that aspect of the question. We were told by Senator .Gould that the Riverina trade has been captured by Victoria and South Australia.

I wonder how that can be. These machines are made chiefly in Melbourne, Bendigo, and Ballarat. Melbourne is about as far from the Riverina as Sydney ; it is 200 miles from Melbourne to Albury and 386 miles from Sydney to Albury ; but the Riverina is not at Albury by a long way, and we get wool from the Riverina 100 miles from Albury.

Senator Pearce:

– There is a more direct route to Swan Hill.

Senator STYLES:

– It is 216 miles from Melbourne to Swan Hill by rail. I am pointing out that that consideration cannot have much to do with the matter, and Senator Millen proved it when he said that, although they had not got many of these factories in the metropolis of New South Wales, they were producing agricultural machines in almost every country town in that State. There are 55 of these factories in Victoria, producing agricultural implements alone. They employ 1,051 hands ; the value of the materials used in 1900 was £108,000, and the value of the output of the factories no less than £245,000, whilst the value of the plant employed in the industry was £128,000. We have heard a good deal about what the farmers like and do not like, and I propose to read what the farmers themselves say upon the subject, and especially what the farmers of Queensland say, though Senator Gould told us just now that there are no duties upon agricultural machinery in that State. I quote from the Age of 24th June, 1902-

Farmers on Protected Implements.

It is very amusing and not a little instructive to note how the farmers repudiate their free-trade champions. During the debates on farming implements, foreign traders had nothing but sarcasm for the Australian - made machines. It was held that a tax on the foreign makers meant a tax on the fanners. The Queensland farmers join with the Victorian in repudiating this. There was held recently in Toowoomba the annual conference of Queensland farmers. Mr. D. H. Dalrymple, Minister for Agriculture, presided over 120 delegates. One of the members, Ml”. W. D. Lamb, read a paper on agricultural implements and machinery. It was an eloquent testimony to the inventive genius and practical skill of the Australian manufacturer and his workmen. Mr. Lamb said that a man need only look over the list of Australian farm implements to be convinced that inventive talent in Australia is well worth encouragement. He pointed in support of this statement to the stripper, the complete harvester, the disc plough, the stumpjump plough, disc harrows, and travelling chaffcutters. These implements have revolutionized agriculture iu Australia, and they are Australian inventions. But if the foreigner were permitted free ingress to our markets, these discoveries would have no encouragement. So Mr. Lamb says - “ I think that our farmers should not be too eager to purchase new imported implements ou testimonials of what they have accomplished in other countries. Agricultural conditions differ so much that we cannot trust solely to experience elsewhere.” The free-trade senators, especially men like Mr. Fraser, might very well listen to the voice of this practical Queensland farmer, who tells them - “Also I am of opinion that our State farmers should take more interest in proving the worth of new machines and publishing results. It is as essential to know the right sort of tools as it is to know the right sort of seed. I would say in conclusion, from my experience of English, American, and Australian machines and implements, that as far as Australia has gone in the agricultural manufacturing business she is able to hold her own, and. I trust that the time is not far distant when Australian implements are used on every farm in this great country. I would like it to go forth from all the farmers of this State that we have a patriotic desire to encourage the manufacture of such machinery and implements within our own and other States, where the manufacture of such machinery employs so many artisans. We should receive such reciprocal support as will nullify any attempt to prejudice the primary producers of wealth from the soil, as that contained in the proposal to remove the groin and fodder duties.

That is from a Queensland farmer, and I have no object in reading it but to assist those who are least able to help themselves. That is what protectionists are always striving to do. Free-traders would send these men on to the land, and ask them to work with their hands, or with the ancient Egyptian plough - a forked stick tied to the tail of a bullock. The very best agricultural machinery is produced in Australia, and honorable senators opposite ask that it should be shoved aside by implements made of inferior material, and sent here to swamp the Australian market. We desire, on the other hand, to keep the Australian market for Australian manufacturers and their operatives.

Senator DOBSON:
Tasmania

– I desire, first of all, to correct one or two misstatements which have, no doubt, unconsciously been made by previous speakers. Senator Styles seems to think that the primary producers or farmers do not outnumber by thr.ee to one those who are engaged in factories. I believe they do. The honorable senator tried to show that the 11,000 persons mentioned by Senator Ewing as engaged in metal work in New South Wales, included 3,000 smelters. I may be permitted to tell the honorable senator that the 11,000 does not include a single mau engaged in smelting. Senator Barrett talks of 20,000 persons being imperilled if ‘this duty is cut down to 1 per cent. Senator O’Connor told us that there are 1,051 persons engaged in making agricultural implements in Victoria, and under 200 in New South Wales. I take it that in the whole of the Commonwealth there are not more than about 3,000 persons engaged in this industry, and not the 20,000, who according to Senator Barrett are going to be imperilled. This debate has brought out some of the worst features of the doctrine of protection. We have to consider the class of persons between whom the fight is going to range. There are the primary producers or farmers throughout the Commonwealth on the one hand, and the few men engaged in the manufacture of agricultural implements on the other. If there is to be any attempt to do justice and to make a fair compromise in this Tariff, we should lean a little in favour of the farmers. But we have heard only the same commonplace arguments which have been repeated over and over again by honorable senators who are protectionists. They take no account whatever of the debate and no account of the men whom this duty will affect. But, because there is such a doctrine as protection, they believe that it must be applied for the benefit of every factory and industry known throughout the Commonwealth.

Senator O’Connor:

– The honorable and learned senator has taken pretty good care of the Tasmanian farmer.

Senator DOBSON:

– In Tasmania we took care of the farmer by admitting agricultural implements free. There was a revenue duty upon agricultural implements for a long time in that State ; but finding that, if we were to have a policy worthy of the name, we should stick to the men by whom Tasmania pays her way, the hopgrower, the potato-grower, the farmer, and the f fruit-grower, the Legislative Assembly of Tasmania made agricultural implements free. Speaking of what the previous duties were, I remind Senator O’Connor that agricultural implements were free in New South Wales and Tasmania, free, and 5 per cent, in Western Australia, and if we go to New Zealand to get a hint, they were free there also.

Senator Clemons:

– And they were practically free in Queensland.

Senator DOBSON:

– Then all I can say is that Senator O’Connor was wrong when he argued that a duty of 7i per cent, would not be a fair compromise. We have been told that in New Zealand there was a duty of 5 per cent., but I have been informed by one of the largest merchants in the Commonwealth that there has never been a single penny of duty imposed upon agricultural machinery in that colony, and yet there are 34 factories engaged there in making agricultural implements, 581 persons are employed in them, £44,000 a year is paid in wages, and the annual output of the factories is valued at £102,000. But, notwithstanding these facts, New Zealand imports more agricultural machinery than does either New South Wales or Victoria. Why ? Because the farmer of New Zealand is a skilled, cultured man, who understands his business, and insists upon having the best machinery he can obtain from the old country, America, and Canada. To say that the producers in the Commonwealth are not to have the best machinery that money can buy, and that they are to be put on one side for the sake of 3,000 agricultural implement makers is perfectly monstrous. I asked Senator Barrett to give us a bare idea of the cost of importing these machines, and he told me that Senator Styles would dive into Coghlan and tell us. I am not sure that Cog/dan tells us about the cost of import. We have to go to the merchants to get that information. I can understand that the bare import charges must be 20, 30, 40, and in some cases 50 per cent. Therefore, with a 1 per cent, duty and the import charges, we shall give to the agricultural implement makers more protection than we have given to any manufacturers so far, and I challenge Senator Barrett to contradict my statement. The way to deal with this question, I think, is to ask ourselves where is this prosperity, about which we all talk, to come from ? Senator Styles tries to answer that question by asking - Is not a man who makes a plough quite as important, and as much a producer, as a man who tills the soil ? Most undoubtedly he is not, and cannot be. Supposing for a moment that the farmer ceased to till his land for twelve months. Where would the Commonwealth be? The plough-maker would not be thought of. To lease the farmer with his hands tied behind his back, would be perfectly monstrous. All through the consideration of the Tariff we have been trying to get in free the tools of trade and the raw material of the manufacturer. Why should the man who is the back-bone of the whole community have his implements taxed, while every manufacturer is to have his tools of trade free ?. How are my protectionist friends to answer that argument ? I can see no answer to it. Some of us - all of us, I believe - have been trying to make a fair compromise between revenue, and free-trade New South Wales, and last, but not least, the manufacturers, who have been induced to invest their capital in industries under a policy which has been deliberately adopted, whether it be right or wrong. These men are entitled to our sympathy. I sympathize with the men who wrote the inconsistent letters which have been read, but I have more sympathy with the men from whom we get our wealth, and who pay the wages of the very persons on whose behalf Senator Barrett is so eloquently appealing. Does he not know that we cannot have a prosperous town without having a prosperous country, that the whole wealth of the Commonwealth comes from the soil ? Senator O’Connor asks, “ Does Senator Smith mean to say that a reduction of the duty to 7£ per cent, will lead to an increase in the area under cultivation?” But that is not quite a fair -way of putting it. It can be shown by the statistics in Coghlan that a policy which does help the farmer, and which encourages him only to the same extent as the industries of Victoria have been encouraged, will most materially increase his prosperity and will most unmistakably enlarge the area under cultivation. When I am asked to vote for a 7£ or a 15 per cent, duty I ask - Am I, as a matter of justice, to go back upon the policy of my own State. Tasmania is going to live and prosper by her mining and her farming. If we prevent her from doing that, federation will be a curse instead of a blessing to her. The Parliament of the State took off the tax on these implements, and when I have a chance of reducing the federal impost from 15 to 7^ per cent. I should be failing in my duty and wanting in common sense if I did not support the motion with all the earnestness I possess.

– That is only the honorable senator’s conclusion. If he would confer with the farmers he would discover that generally they are protectionists, and that while their productions are protected they are willing to pay a certain amount of duty on imported agricultural implements, trusting to the very many implement-makers throughout the Commonwealth to supply them with a cheaper article. The farmers of Queensland are, as a whole, protectionists. Certainly,a Government in Queensland thought it desirable, for’ some reason or other, to make agricultural machinery practically free, but I do not think that it was in the interests of the community as a whole, or at their desire, that such a course was adopted. It was due, probably, to some political move. I have been trying to understand what some honorable senators propose to do with those who are likely to be thrown out of employment in the various industries which they have affected by their actions right along the line. I suppose they are to go on the land, and grow wheat in competition with farmers of the Argentine and other places. Whether it is an industry of two men and a boy, or one such as this, giving employment to some thousands of hands, it is immaterial to some honorable senators. They scorn to dismiss the matter in a very airy fashion, and think that the implement makers will find employment elsewhere when this protection is removed. Where will they find it ? I presume that some honorable senators, being very largely interested in the importing industry, believe in encouraging it. They wish to make as much as they can in their time, and it does not matter what may happen afterwards. We protectionists arc the true patriots. We are looking to the future. We desire to see this country properly settled by a large farming population, which will be supplying cities equal, I suppose, to any in the civilized world, and cities giving them employment in return. This ideal which we protectionists have set up will not be assisted by the carrying of this motion. When honorable senators talk pi compromise they should be reminded that a compromise has already been affected in another place. The Tariff was discussed for seven months in the House of Representatives, where a compromise was agreed upon. Now we propose further to interfere with the result of their long labours, and to what purpose? If we succeed we shall only do a wrong, and if we do not we shall have wasted valuable time which might have been devoted to a better purpose.

Progress reported.

page 14056

ADJOURNMENT

Sugar Duties

Motion (by Senator O’Connor) proposed -

That the Senatedo now adjourn.

Senator CLEMONS:
Tasmania

– By leave, I should like to ask the Vice-President of the Executive Council if it is true, as reported in the press, that he proposes to interfere with the discussion of the Customs Tariff Bill by adverting to the Excise Tariff Bill with the view of dealing with the excise duty on sugar)

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

– A question has arisen which may render it necessary to make some alteration in the order of dealing with the Tariff. It appears that the sugar-growers in Queensland are beginning to produce a sugar crop with white labour, under circumstances which would entitle them to the rebate, if that rebate were completely authorized according to law. The Minister for Trade and Customs finds it necessary now to prepare regulations to put the matter in such definite shape that the sugar-grower producing sugar grown by white labour shall know exactly what his position is. It is thought, therefore, to be desirable, if possible, to have some indication of the view of the Senate before the regulations are completed. It is only in regard to that particular question that any difficulty has arisen. I have not yet determined what course will be taken, but I shall probably intimate it to the Senate tomorrow.

Senator CLEMONS (Tasmania).- With the permission of the Senate, I wish to ask another question. Are we to understand that the difficulty arises from the possibility that this Chamber may refuse to accept the provisions in the Excise Bill with regard to the rebate on sugar grown by white labour?

Senator O’Connor:

– Hear, hear.

Senator CLEMONS:

– If that is so, I anticipate no difficulty whatever.

Question resolved in the affirmative. .

Senate adjourned at 10.15 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 30 June 1902, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1902/19020630_senate_1_11/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant

Senate30 June 1902

ASSENT TO BILLS

SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT

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

QUESTION

SUNDAY LABOUR

Senator CLEMONS:TASMANIA

Senator O’CONNOR:Protectionist

CUSTOMS TARIFF BILL

Senator PEARCE:Western Australia

Senator HIGGS:Queensland

Senator BARRETT:Victoria

Senator Pearce:

Senator BARRETT:

Senator DAWSON:QUEENSLAND · ALP

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

Senator Pearce:

Senator O’CONNOR:

Senator Higgs:

Senator O’CONNOR:

Senator Styles:

Senator O’CONNOR:

Senator McGREGOR:South Australia

Senator Pearce:

Senator McGREGOR:

Senator Pearce:

Senator McGREGOR:

Senator Pearce:

Senator McGREGOR:

Senator McGregor:

Senator DAWSON:QUEENSLAND · ALP

Senator O’Connor:

Senator McGregor:

Senator DAWSON:QUEENSLAND · ALP

Senator STYLES:Victoria

Senator STANIFORTH SMITH:Western Australia

Senator O’Connor:

Senator STANIFORTH SMITH:

Senator O’Connor:

Senator STANIFORTH SMITH:

Senator Barrett:

Senator PEARCE:

Senator CHARLESTON:South Australia

Senator STYLES:Victoria

Senator O’CONNOR:Protectionist

Senator PULSFORD:New South Wales

The CHAIRMAN:

Senator PULSFORD:

Senator HIGGS:Queensland

Senator O’Connor:

Senator HIGGS:

Senator Lt Col NEILD:New South Wales

Senator Pearce:

Senator Lt Col NEILD:

Senator O’CONNOR:Protectionist

Senator HIGGS:QUEENSLAND · ALP

Senator STYLES:Victoria

Senator Styles:

Senator Lt Col NEILD:

Senator PULSFORD:New South Wales

Senator O’Connor:

Senator PULSFORD:

Senator BARRETT:Victoria

Senator PEARCE:Western Australia

Senator O’Connor:

Senator PEARCE:

Senator EWING:Western Australia

Senator O’Connor:

Senator EWING:

Senator Styles:

Senator EWING:

Senator Styles:

Senator EWING:

Senator O’CONNOR:Protectionist

Senator Pulsford:

Senator O’CONNOR:

Senator Ewing:

Senator O’CONNOR:

Senator Ewing:

Senator O’CONNOR:

Senate
30 June 1902

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

Senator CLEMONS:
TASMANIA

Senator O’CONNOR:
Protectionist

Senator PEARCE:
Western Australia

Senator HIGGS:
Queensland

Senator BARRETT:
Victoria

Senator DAWSON:
QUEENSLAND · ALP

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

Senator McGREGOR:
South Australia

Senator DAWSON:
QUEENSLAND · ALP

Senator DAWSON:
QUEENSLAND · ALP

Senator STYLES:
Victoria

Senator STANIFORTH SMITH:
Western Australia

Senator CHARLESTON:
South Australia

Senator STYLES:
Victoria

Senator O’CONNOR:
Protectionist

Senator PULSFORD:
New South Wales

Senator HIGGS:
Queensland

Senator Lt Col NEILD:
New South Wales

Senator O’CONNOR:
Protectionist

Senator HIGGS:
QUEENSLAND · ALP

Senator STYLES:
Victoria

Senator PULSFORD:
New South Wales

Senator BARRETT:
Victoria

Senator PEARCE:
Western Australia

Senator EWING:
Western Australia

Senator O’CONNOR:
Protectionist

Senator Major GOULD:
New South Wales

Senator BARRETT:
Victoria

Senator MILLEN:
New South Wales