Senate
19 February 1908

3^rd Parliament · 2^nd Session

PETITION
QUESTION
- MOONTA MINES POSTAL ARRANGEMENTS
QUESTION
- INDUSTRIAL AWARDS
NAVIGATION BILL
QUESTION
- VICTORIAN IMMIGRATION LEAGUE
PAPERS
SUSPENSION OF SITTINGS
DELAYED DELIVERY OF REGISTERED LETTER
CUSTOMS TARIFF BILL
EXCISE PROCEDURE BILL

The President took the chair at 11 a.m., and read prayers.

page 8153

PETITION

Senator MILLEN presented a petition from members of the Morongla Creek Progress Association, New South Wales, asking that wire netting be placed on the free list.

Petition received.

page 8154

QUESTION

MOONTA MINES POSTAL ARRANGEMENTS

Senator McGREGOR:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

askedthe Minister of Home Affairs, upon notice -

Is it a factthat at the township of “ Moonta Mines,” South Australia, the Government are. endeavouring to get the postal arrangements of that town carried out for £110 per annum, without post-office premises?

Senator KEATING:
Minister for Home Affairs · TASMANIA · Protectionist

– The answer to the honorable senator’s question is as follows : -

Yes. Applications have been invited for the conduct of a semi-official office at “ Moonta Mines,” at an allowance equal to the minimum wage, thnt being all that the revenue and business of the office at present warrant. The office at “Moonta Mines” has hitherto been conducted under the allowance s)Stem. The status has now been raised, with a corresponding increase in the expenditure.

page 8154

QUESTION

INDUSTRIAL AWARDS

Senator DE LARGIE:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister of Home Affairs, upon notice -

If he will obtain, for the information of the Senate, a statement showing the existing rates of wages in manufacturing trades,, being awards of Arbitration Courts or Wages Boards in the Commonwealth?

Senator KEATING:
Protectionist

– The answer to the honorable senator’s question is as follows: -

Wages Boards and Arbitration Courts do not exist in al! the States of the Commonwealth. Certain information is . being obtained, and copies will be laid upon the . table of th’e House when available.

page 8154

NAVIGATION BILL

Senator DOBSON:
TASMANIA

asked the VicePresident of the Executive Council, upon notice -

Is the report in the Age of the 18th February, of the remarks of the Honorable the Minister for Trade and Customs upon the criticism of the Attorney-General of England on the Navigation Bill, correct; and, if so, do Minister’s contend that the authorities in England, while admitting that the proposed legislation was within Australia’s province, ever acknowledged the justice, or fairness of the coastal clauses as applied to British ships?
As a large majority of British subjects are coloured people, is there not a danger to the Empire In discriminating against such coloured subjects even on the high seas or on Australian waters when in the absence of such discrimination no injury would ensue to the purity of the Australian race or our standard of lite?
In view of thePrime Minister’s support of Imperial Federation, do no.t Ministers believe in the policy of a sane and reasonable Imperialism ; and, if so, are not the coastal clauses of the Navigation Bill ‘inconsistent with such a policy ?
Is it the policy of Ministers to treat the ships of the Empire exactly, as they treat the ships of foreign nations, or will they extend to British ships any, and, if so, what pre- f erence ?
Have Ministers decided to submit to Parliament the coastal clauses of the Navigation Bill in their present shape; and, if so, how do they justify the exception of Western Aus- tralia from such clauses, thus giving concessions and privileges to one Stale while denying them to other States?
If it can bc shown thatthe rights and; circumstances of Tasmania, as the only Island State, justly entitle that State, equally with Western Australia,, to demand exceptional treatment, will Ministers alter this part of their policy and treat each State alike?

Senator Pearce:

– With reference to these questions, Mr. President, I direct your attention to standing order 94, which says that -

In putting any such riuestion, no argument or opinion shall he offered,’ nor inference nor. imputation made, nor any facts stated, except so far as may be necessary to explain such question, and the President may direct the Clerk to alter any question so as to conform with this order.

– I believe “ the point of order taken by Senator Pearce is whether the whole of the questions put by “Senator Dobson are in order, particularly -question No. 5. Senator Pearce alludes to standing order 94, which provides -

U putting any such question, no argument or opinion shall be offered, nor inference nor imputation made, nor any facts stated, except so far as may be necessary to explain such question, and the President may direct the Clerk to alter any question so as to conform with this order.

This matter of the putting ‘ of questions has been in my mind for some time, but I have had no desire to draw the line so strictly as to interfere with the desire of honorable senators to get the fullest possible information within reason. The question now in dispute is not the only one which might strictly and technically be ruled to go beyond the rights possessed by honorable senators in asking questions, for I have frequently noticed in questions submitted to Ministers, not only upon- notice, but more particularly without notice, requests made for information on matters of policy and matters of opinion, and not purely on matters of fact. The Senate has seen fit to assent to that practice being followed, and, therefore, I have not felt myself justified in - interfering” vsth it. But the strict reading of our Standing Orders, and the strict interpretation of the practice regarding questions, are often transgressed in this Chamber. In addition to standing order 94, quoted by Senator’ Pearce, there is standing order 93, which says-

Questions may be put to Ministers of the Crown relating to public affairs. . - . ..

The practice of the House of Commons also shows clearly what should be done. On page 248 of the last edition of May, lt is laid down -

Questions addressed to Ministers should relate to the public affairs with which they are officially connected, to proceedings pending in Parliament, or to any matter of administration for which the Minister is responsible . . , but not for an expression of their opinion upon matters of policy.

On page 249, it is stated that -

The purpose of a question is to obtain information, and nOt to supply it to the House. A question may not contain statements of facts, unless they be necessary to make the question intelligible, and can bc authenticated, nor should a question contain arguments, inferences, imputations, epithets, or controversial or ironical expressions. . . . The expression of an opinion cannot be sought for by a question, nor the solution of an abstract “ legal case, or of a hypothetical proposition. ‘

I regard those rules as being fairly applicable to our own position. Whilst it is perfectly true that it is within the province of the President to direct the Clerk to alter any question into conformity with the standing order, still it has not been the practice in this Chamber to draw the line too strictly, or many of the questions which are put would be disallowed or materially altered. It is, of course, within the competency of the Minister, when replying, to say : “ This involves a matter of opinion, or presents a hypothetical case, and is not a question that I should be expected to reply to.1’ Therefore, if such a question passes in the first instance the President and the Clerk, it becomes perfectly within the province of the Minister to give reasons why he should not reply to it. It is true that certain questions submitted by Senator de Largie and other honorable senators have been reviewed in the past, but in those cases the rule has been much more strongly violated than it has been in this instance by Senator Dobson. I think, with the honorable senators who have taken .exception to the questions now before the Chair, that Senator Dobson has exceeded the power strictly conferred upon him by the Standing Orders, and the practice of Parliament, in asking question No.- 5.

Senator Turley:

– And No. 2.

Senator Dobson:

– I am perfectly willing to submit to the standing order, and to your ruling, Mr. President. If the Clerk will alter the questions, I will ask them again on Tuesday next.

The PRESIDENT:

– Reference has also been made to question No. 2. If honorable senators are desirous that I should strictly interpret the Standing Orders, I will do so, but I wish them to understand clearly that it will very oft.en place an obstacle in the way of their obtaining information that they might reasonably expect to get.

Senator Dobson:

– I will withdraw the questions, and put them in- another form.

page 8156

QUESTION

VICTORIAN IMMIGRATION LEAGUE

Answers to Questions at Morning Sittings.

Senator NEEDHAM:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

asked the VicePresident of the Executive Council, upon notice -

Has the Federal Government given a. grant of money to the Victorian Immigration League ?
If so, from what fund has this money been paid?
If this money has been granted, how does the Government reconcile this action with the statement of the Prime Minister, in a letter to the State Premiers, that there was no land available (either Crown lands or private) on which to settle intending immigrants? .
If the Government believes that there is no available land, does it think that by granting sums of money .to Immigration Leagues it will break up the land monopoly of Australia?

Senator BEST:
Protectionist

– I shall be glad if the honorable senator will repeat the questions to-morrow. When . we meet so early in the morning it is impossible to get the answers from the various Departments. I trust that honorable senators will kindly .bear this in mind. If they could give notice of questions for a day further ahead whilst we are sitting in the mornings, it would accommodate the Departments, and enable us to supply the answers.

Senator Needham:

– I will repeat, the questions to-morrow. .

Senator Chataway:

– On a point of order, is not question No. 3, as to how the Government reconcile their action with a certain statement of the Prime Minister, argumentative ?

Senator Millen:

– And does not that apply to question No. 4 also?

The PRESIDENT:

– I shall have questions, as they are submitted, placed under review from time to time. When I find that a matter of argument is involved, I shall send the question back to the honorable senator responsible for it, in order that he may, if possible, alter it so as to conform with the correct interpretation of the standing order.

page 8156

PAPERS

Senator KEATING laid upon the table the following papers: -

Defence Acts 1903-4. Statutory Rules 1908, Nos. ir and 12.

page 8156

SUSPENSION OF SITTINGS

Motion (by Senator Best) agreed to -

That during the remainder of the present Session, unless otherwise ordered, the sittings of the Senate or of a Committee of the whole Senate on Wednesdays, Thursdays, and Fridays, be suspended from r p.m. to a quarter past 2 p.m.

page 8156

DELAYED DELIVERY OF REGISTERED LETTER

Motion “(by Senator Givens) agreed to -

That there be laid on the table of the Senate copies of all .correspondence and papers relating to the undue delay in delivering a registered letter, containing the nomination of Mr. Myles Ferricks, at” Bowen, recently.

page 8157

CUSTOMS TARIFF BILL

In Committee (Consideration resumed from 18th February, vide page 8153) : Schedule.

Division V. - Textiles, Felts and Furs, and Manufactures thereof, and Attire.

Item 123. Piece Goods, viz. : -

Definition of Piece Goods. - When material is defined by selvedge or by pattern for cutting up into separate articles, it is not to be considered Piece Goods, but as dutiable under the heading applying to the article into which it is designed to be made. Tasselled, whipped (with or without loops), or taped curtain material, when not defined for cutting up, is to be considered Piece Goods.

Subject to rebate under the conditions specified in the Schedule hereto.

Upon which Senator Best had moved -

That the House of Representatives be requested to amend item 123, paragraph b, by inserting, after the word “ wool,” the words “not containing silk or having silk worked thereon.”

Senator CLEMONS:
Tasmania

. -I do not think that during the course of this debate I have made many references to the work of the free-trade section of the Tariff Commission, but I do think I can with regard to this item say that that section made a recommendation, which is worthy of the serious consideration of every member of the Committee. If I may be permitted, I will read it. It appears on page 125 of our report. We said, regarding the proposed new classification of apparels and textiles -

In connexion with Division V., Apparel and Textiles, it has been ma.de apparent to us, in the course of our inquiry, that a simpler and more natural classification would be an advantage, both to the Customs Department and to the public. With this object in view, we have prepared a new scheme of classification, in which the question of revenue has had due consideration, and which in our opinion would present fewer anomalies and difficulties than the existing one. .

The object of the free-trade section was, as will be seen from what I have quoted, to obtain simplicity, and to prevent many of the inequalities and anomalies that bristled in the old Tariff, and which are, I venture to say, repeated in” a more aggravated form in the present Tariff. Out report went on to say -

We have the honour to submit this scheme, together with a detailed schedule, showing how the principal articles of import fall- into our proposed classification.

Scheme of Classification. - Textiles, &c.

Wool, cotton, flax, hemp, ramie, silk, jute, straw and the like fibres, animal hair, not spun or manufactured. Furs raw, free.

That will appeal both to free-traders and protectionists. I will admit at once, in connexion with this classification, that we were considering practical politics. We made a graduated scale, attempting to bring into line, if we possibly could, both free-traders and protectionists on these very large and important items. Our report went on -

Yarns of all kinds, ad val. 5 per cent.

Between the raw material and the yarn there is an added labour cost which we recognised. We then went on -

Manufactures of wool, cotton, flax, hemp, ramie, silk, jute, straw or like fibres, animal hair, furs or skins, n.o.s., with or without printed, woven, or stamped pattern or design,, when imported in the piece, i.e. in lengths not less than twelve yards, ad val. 10 per cent.
Manufactures of textile fabrics, not being apparel and not otherwise specified, ad val. 10 per cent. #

– That, to a very great extent, destroys the possibility of our securing, in ‘respect of these paragraphs, a uniform duty at a higher rate. On several occasions whilst travelling in Australia, I have met representatives of Canadian silk manufacturers, who have always expressed surprise that the Commonwealth had not long since entered upon the production of silk. Be that as it may, I am not going to fight very strenuously in either one direction or the other, so far as this item is concerned. My main desire is that uniformity shall be secured. That is what was demanded bv the merchants who appeared before the Tariff Commission in almost every State capital. Senator Clemons will bear out mv statement that nearly every one of them urged us to make an effort to secure uniformity, saying, “Do not have so many classifications. Goods which as a rule are packed in the same cases should be subject to the same rate of duty.” I hope that we shall request another place to make liable to the same rate of duty all goods used for similar purposes.

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON (South Australia) [12.7]. - Not having heard the opening debate, on the proposal originally made, I have listened very attentively to what the Vice-President of the Executive’ Council has said this morning in regard to the proposition now before the Committee. The question that we are really dealing with is a request moved by Senator Best to introduce the words “ not containing silk or having silk worked thereon ‘ ‘ in item 123, paragraph a. My honorable friend suggested that the amendment was necessary to. get rid of ambiguity. The only ambiguity that can possibly arise in connexion with either paragraph b or paragraph c must relate to the words “ woollen or containing wool.” The moment we introduce such a classification, the complexity and want of uniformity to which Senator McGregor has referred immediately crop up. It is impossible to specify the degree in which the material other than wool shall not be introduced in fabrics coming under this paragraph, and, therefore, the words “containing wool,” lead us into a sea of investigation and complexitv. And so also with the words “ silk or containing silk.” What proportion of silk would shut out a woollen fabric from paragraph b?

Senator Givens:

– A thread.

Senator Mulcahy:

– A thread of silk running along the selvedge.

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:

-I should be prepared to go a long way with the Vice-President of the Executive Council in an effort to get rid of complexity, and to secure freedom from controversy in connexion with entries at the Customs House. But, instead of removing the existing complexities, it seems to me that the honorable senator’s request would intensify them. As an honorable senator said a moment ago, woollen piece goods containing a thread of silk would be subject to a duty different from that imposed on goods consisting entirely of wool. That is extremely undesirable.

Senator Givens:

– One might go further, and render himself liable to a prosecution for attempting to defraud the revenue.

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:

– As Senator Givens very properly points out, one would immediately land himself in a controversy with the Customs officials as to whether the goods contained silk threads or not. We all know that nowadays fabrics are so prepared that a thread ot cotton, or of some other material, may look uncommonly like silk. But the whole position in regard to the passing of entries through the Customs is made to depend upon whether they contain a single thread of silk. I shall vote against this request in the interests of the simplicity of the Tariff, and for other reasons, which have been advanced by honorable senators. The question as to what rate of duty should be imposed upon the goods enumerated in paragraphs b, c, and d, when it is made uniform, is another matter which deserves our earnest consideration. Personally, I am prepared to support the lowest duty that will recommend itself to the Committee. I would point out that, in respect of paragraph b, the duty originally proposed under the general Tariff was 35 per cent., and that under the Tariff for the United Kingdom 30 per cent. The House of Representatives reduced these duties to 15 per cent, and 10 per cent, respectively. Upon paragraph c, which relates to silk, the duties originally fixed were 20 per cent, under the general Tariff, and 15 per cent, under the Tariff for the United Kingdom. These were retained by the other Chamber, so that the articles in this paragraph are at present dutiable at a higher rate than those covered by paragraph b. It seems to me that- the original intention was that the duties, in respect to paragraph b, should be higher than those imposed upon the goods enumerated in paragraph c. When we come to ‘consider what the uniform duty shall be, I hold that silk, according to the principle underlying this Tariff, ought not to be dutiable at 15 per cent, under the general Tariff, and 10 per cent, under the Tariff for the United Kingdom, but. at lower rates.

Senator Findley:

– The original schedule was high because the Tariff Commission reported that the goods specified under paragraph b could be manufactured in the Commonwealth .

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:

– The duties in respect of that paragraph having been fixed at 15 per cent, under the general Tariff, and 10 per cent, under the Tariff for the United Kingdom, no argument can be advanced why equally low duties should not be levied in regard to the goods enumerated in paragraph c.

Question - That the House of Representatives be requested to amend item 123, paragraph b, by inserting after the word “wool” the words “not containing silk or having silk worked thereon “ (Senator

Best’s request) - put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 9

NOES: 24

– If he is in the act of crossing the floor, certainly.’ Does Senator Clemons press his objection ?

Senator Clemons:

– If I may be permitted to make a statement, I desire to say that I am quite certain of the fact that Senator W. Russell crossed the floor of the Chamber after you, sir, had named the tellers. That being . the case, in order to preserve proper decorum in our proceedings, and to maintain respect for our Standing Orders, I think that I ought not to withdraw my’ objection. There is nothing whatever of a personal character in itSenator W.. Russell can make an explanation, but I certainly think that his vote ought to be told with the “Ayes.”

The CHAIRMAN:

– My attention having been drawn to this matter, I have no alternative but to uphold standing order 169, which says -

When a division has been called for, Senators shall take seats on the side of the Senate on which they intend to vote, and shall not move therefrom after tellers have been appointed until the result of the division has been declared.

It is imperative,- therefore, that honorable senators should pass either to my right or my left before I have finished naming the tellers. Senator Clemons states that Senator W. Russell did not cross the floor prior to the tellers being appointed, and as the honorable senator does not deny the statement, his vote must be told with the “Ayes.” -

Senator W RUSSELL:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I should like to know with which side my vote is recorded ?

The CHAIRMAN:

– With the ayes.

Senator W RUSSELL:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– It was my intention to vote with the noes ; .but’ when

I entered the Chamber. I did not quite understand the position. Senator Clemons, no doubt, was out for a bit of fun.

Senator Clemons:

– I wish to secure respect for the Standing Orders.

Senator W RUSSELL:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I am not sure whether a question could not be raised with regard to the propriety of allowing the vote of an honorable senator who sat on your right.

Senator Story:

– I think that Senator W. Russell refers to me, because I crossed the chamber; but I did so as a protest againstthe discourtesy of those members of the Opposition who objected to the Government withdrawing the call for a division.

Question so resolved in the negative.

Request negatived.

Senator MULCAHY:
Tasmania

– I move- -

That the Houseof Representatives be requested to amend item 123, paragraph B, by leaving out the words, “ viz. : - women’s and children’s dress goods.”

The object of the amendment is simplification. The words whose omission I desire have in the past created a great deal of confusion in Customs administration. Now, a weight standard is to be adopted as a means of discriminating between the woollen piece goods coming under paragraph a and the goods coming under paragraph b.

Senator Colonel Neild:

– It is a very unsatisfactory method.

Senator MULCAHY:

– It is not altogether satisfactory, but it is the method adopted in the ‘United States of America and elsewhere, and, in my opinion, is the only way out of the difficulty. Its adoption’ makes the words whose omission I desire unnecessary ; but their retention will lead to the continuation of disputes between importers and the Customs authorities as to whether certain materials are or are not women and children’s dress goods.

SenatorBE ST (Victoria- VicePresident of the Executive Council) [12.29]. - I hope that the Committee will not agree to the request. Our object is to give fair and reasonable protection to local manufacturers, without, imposing a heavy duty on goods which, jf made here, cannot be freely manufactured in Australia. Various methods of discrimination have been suggested, but the best we know of - it has been adopted by other countries - is the application of the weight standard. I have the assurance of the departmental . experts that women and children’s dress goods are, generally speaking, well known, and easily recognised as such, and that if the words proposed to be left out are not retained, certain light-weight goods intended for men’s use will come in under paragraph b.

Senator Mulcahy:

– That depends upon the weight standard adopted.

Senator BEST:

– If the weight standard is increased from 5 to 7 ozs., which is the suggestion of Senator Mulcahy, and the words “ women and children’s dress goods “ are. left out, piece goods, which should be dutiable at 30 and 25 per cent., under paragraph a, will come in at lower rates under paragraph b.

Senator Mulcahy:

– No 7-oz. material suitable for men’s wear is made.

Senator BEST:

– I- am assured by the departmental experts that there is such material. I hope that the weight standard will not be increased, and that these words will not be struck out.

Senator CLEMONS:
Tasmania

– Senator Mulcahy’s amendment, if adopted, would at least result in simplification, whatever other effect it might have. If the words which he wishes to leave out are retained, it will be for the Customs official to say whether piece goods are or are not women’s or children’s dress goods, which means the continuation of that uncertainty in Customs Administration from which the Commonwealth has suffered for years, and without the removal of which the Tariff cannot be improved. It would be unreasonable to say that it shall be absolutely impossible for material for the use of men, no matter what its weight, to be imported under paragraph b. The question to decide is whether the weight standard proposed is not sufficient to discriminate between the goods which properly come under paragraph b and those which ought to come under paragraph a.

Senator Best:

– Women’s and children’sdress goods are well known and recognised as such, and men’s goods of the same weight are equally recognisable.

Senator CLEMONS:

– That is an inaccurate statement.

Senator Best:

– The honorable senator may know more than the Customs officersdo about it, but that is what they assure me.

Senator CLEMONS:

– I am not pitting my knowledge against that of the Customs; Department, but after hearing most volu- minous evidence on the subject before the Tariff Commission, I ought to know something about it. If I did not, I could not have been attending to my duty. It is conceivable that the Customs authorities may be mistaken in this .matter, hut whether that is so or not it is not desirable, in the interests of the whole community, quite apart from any fiscal or revenue question, that the sole power to decide whether a particular piece of material may or may not be used for men’s clothing should rest with the Customs Department. The decision of that question should be removed from the administration of the Act by putting the item in a far simpler form, so that the only question for the Department to decide will be as to the weight of the material. What weight should be fixed is a matter for the subsequent consideration of the Committee, and does not concern Senator Mulcahy’s amendment. I cannot understand the Vice-President of the Executive Council opposing that amendment. He will lose nothing by it if it is carried. None of his protectionist fortresses will be knocked over. No great revenue tax that he wishes to preserve will be taken away. On the other hand, he will gain simplicity. No matter who proposes it, he should accept any amendment the object of which is to promote simplicity in the Tariff. At any rate, nothing can. be lost, from Senator Best’s point of view, whether he wants protection or, as we shrewdly think, revenue.

Senator McGREGOR:
South Australia1

– I thoroughly understand and appreciate the difficulty felt by the VicePresident of the Executive Council. If he were assured that the weight would not be increased I believe that he would not raise so much’ objection to the request. It would certainly remove difficulties if Senator Mulcahy’s request were agreed to. and a great deal of misconception would be’ prevented if the reference to women and children’s dress goods were left out, and simply the. weight specified. No matter what the weight of a fabric., it is difficult for a Customs officer, or any one else, to tell whether it is to be worn by men, women, or children. I have seen children clothed in the heaviest tweeds. Their garments are- often made from their fathers’ old pants or coats. Are the Customs authorities going to trace a piece of material from father to son in that manner ? I had hoped that honorable senators opposite would give some assurance that they would not move to increase the weight limit. If they did, I should be inclined to support the elimination of these words. But, if after this alteration is made, the weight is to be indefinitely raised, the woollen industry in the Commonwealth will be seriously jeopardised. If the amendment is agreed to, I shall not vote to increase the weight. If the weight remains as if now stands, I quite agree that the amendment will greatly simplify the item, because, when the weight of the fabric is under 5 ounces it does not matter much whether it is to be worn by women or men, as it will still be subject to duties of 15 per cent, and io per cent. Those rates will be incidentally protective, until it is possible, with the proper machinery to manufacture the whole of the goods we require in Australia.

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON (South Australia) [12.40]. - The two questions that have been mixed up have really nothing in common. ‘Whether the words proposed to be left out by Senator Mulcahy should be left out is a matter that ought to be considered entirely on its own merits. I am not prepared to discuss the question of whether the weight should be 3, 5, or 7 ounces, until-

Senator McColl:

– I am afraid that the weight is the dominating factor.

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:

– Of course, but for that very reason the question of the weight ought not to affect the elimination or retention of these words, which complicate the Tariff, and are really an absurdity. There is no earthly reason why the woollen material which is to be admitted at the lower rate of duty should be restricted in its use to women and children. The determining factor is not its use by women or children, or. its non-use by men. It is absurd, when providing for the admission of woollen goods of a particular weight per square yard at a particular rate of duty, to superimpose the restriction that they shall be used only by one particular class of the community. Senator Clemons. - A restriction which cannot be carried out.

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:

– Its absurdity is fully apparent. _ There is also the argument of simplicity in favour of the request. As the item stands, _ it introduces an unnecessary qualification which can only have the effect of creating greater complexity. Neither Senator Mulcahy nor any other honorable senator is called upon at this stage to say how he will vote when the question of weight comes to be considered. The question is whether it is necessary to retain these words. If it is not, let us leave them out. Surely the Committee can trust itself to determine afterwards the question of weight.

Senator TRENWITH:
Victoria

. There has been an attempt to ridicule the idea . of prohibiting the use of this light material for other than women and children’s apparel. In view of its history, it is not open to ridicule from that standpoint. The first proposal was to put a duty upon woollens without any restriction. It was then urged that in the case of women and children’s dress material, which was of a very light character, not made here, and not likely to be made here for some time, a concession might be made. This departure from the protectionist principle, was made in deference to the plea that this particular kind of woollen material was used very largely for women and children’s dresses - articles of clothing which are an important consideration in every household. . That was the only reason for making the concession. Then it was felt that inroads might’ be made upon the ‘ protectionist principle by women and children’s dress material being brought in of such a character as could be made into men’s clothes. As a kind of. safeguard, therefore, it ‘was provided that this lower duty should apply only to women and children’s dress material not above a certain weight. The underlying principle of the concession was (0 free certain material for women and children’s clothing from some of the duties imposed upon material for men’s clothing.

Senator MULCAHY:
Tasmania

– T”e rea-l object of this provision is to admit at ‘ a lower rate of duty particular textile fabrics that we cannot make here. There is scarcely a fabric imported, woollen, silk, or cotton, that cannot and does not from time to time, whatever the weight may be, form part of man’s attire. Even stuff under 5 ounces can.be made up for men, or for little boys’ knickerbockers, if it is so desired, although it is not generally done. The real question is the fixing of a fair standard for the weight, and we are now anticipating the debate on that question. Whatever standard the Committee subsequently fix, we should first simplify the wording of this paragraph. The Vice-President of the Executive Council stated, on the authority of his Customs officers, who, no doubt, advised him in all good faith, that even if these words are left in- there will be no difficulty, because women and children’s dress materials are we’ll known- and easily identifiable.

Senator Best:

– I said that they are recognised trade terms.

Senator MULCAHY:

– But such difficulties occur every day. Take, for instance, the well-known woollen fabric, alpaca - a common article for both men and women to’ wear. Light alpaca is really a women’s dress material. It is imported for women’s dresses, but it is also cut into men’s summer coats, in black and other colours. The importer who honestly imports it to sell as ladies’ dress material may be confronted by a Customs’ officer with a demand for higher duty, because it can be used for men’s clothing. The officials could just as legitimately demand a higher duty on any material that comes in under the 5-oz. provision. We should simplify this line in the schedule first, and then determine the fair standard of weight, and a fair measure of protection for goods of this class.

Senator Colonel NEILD (New South’ Wales) [12.49]. - I shall support Senator Mulcahy’s amendment for the purpose of simplifying the Tariff, and avoiding the disputes which are everlastingly taking place between commercial men and officials who are always anxious to do their duty from the official stand-point - a very different thing from doing one’s duty” from the ordinary trade stand-point. ‘ Men necessarily look at a matter from the viewpoint df the position they occupy. I do not blame any Customs official for irving to get the higher rate of duty where he thinks he is right, but he is not infallible.

Senator McCOLL:
Victoria

– There is a good deal more to be considered than the mere simplification of a Tariff difficulty. At the first blush, I felt’ very much inclined to support Senator Mulcahy’s request. There might be no harm if we were going to retain the weight at 5 ounces, but if, as is probable, the weight may be. raised, we are getting perilously close to a danger to our own mills. There is much force in what Senator Colonel Neild has said - that we are placing a great deal of power in the hands of Customs House officers, who will probably give contradictory decisions, the . matter being left to the exercise of their own sweet will. But I am in clined to run that risk, .rather than permit the importation of fabrics, which will compete, alt a duty much lower than the ordinary rate, with the products of our own mills. At the same time, I am rather in favour of increasing the weight somewhat”, because I can see that, by keeping the weight so low, we are really penalizing the poor. If the weight is to remain as at present, there is no harm in the request. But if the weight be raised to 6 ounces or 6 ounces, then I feel that, in adopting the request, we shall be taking a very dangerous course. I should like women’s goods to be specified, because it is dangerous to leave this to the discretion of the officers. On the other hand, if we allow the Tariff to remain as it is, we shall not run the risk of the introduction of materials to compete with the product of our own mills. But we are not always going to import women’s dress materia). Up to the present, in Australia, there have been manufactured only tweeds for men’s clothes,, but we ought to encourage manufacturers to undertake the production of women’s tweeds, which are very much worn now. I have been informed that, with’ a reasonable duty, .it is the intention of some of the manufacturers to undertake this class of production.

Sitting suspended from 1 to 2.15 -p.m.

Senator McCOLL:

– I do not intend to continue my remarks beyond saying that, after careful consideration, I propose to vote against the request of Senator Mulcahy.

Senator MILLEN:
New South Wales

– The matter, seems to be to some extent complicated by the expression of opinion which has been given as to the way in which it is advisable to reach the goal towards which apparently every one is striving. Certain honorable senators seem . to want to reach the goal by one road,’ while others prefer to take another road. The difficulty, in my mind, is as to which road is likely to prove the more satisfactory. So far as I can see, either the adoption of the request of Senator Mulcahy, or the alteration of the weight per vard, or a combination of the two might bring about the desired result. The difficulty I am faced with is to decide how to vote, on the request, until it is known what decision the Committee may arrive at with regard to the weight. Personally, I should prefer the retention of these words if there was a possibility of increasing the weight somewhat. But I do not know what decision the Committee may arrive, at in regard to the weight. Consequently, I am faced with the alternative of voting for a request which does not altogether appeal to me, because if I were to vote against it I might lose both that and one which I desire to see adopted. For that reason I am forced somewhat against my will to vote for the request as it now stands.

Question - That the House of Representatives be requested to amend item 123, paragraph b, “ Piece goods woollen or containing wool,” by leaving out the words, “ viz., women’s and children’s dress goods “ (Senator Mulcahy’s request) - put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 15

NOES: 14

Majority … ….1

AYES

– We cannot expect that all our people will be given such wages as would enable them to buy highpriced goods.

Senator McGregor:

– Make the limit 1 oz., and they will not escape.

Senator MULCAHY:

– I have four fabrics before me. One is a fabric of British manufacture, known as Amazon cloth. Except in regard 1o its weight, it is identical with four other fabrics which I have here, and which are of French make. The article of foreign manufacture is of finer texture. The Amazons made in France are finer and lighter, just as French dress serges are finer and. lighter than British goods of the same kind. Under this proposal Amazon cloths from foreign markets will come in- at 10 per cent., while British Amazons, which are identical, except- that thev are a little heavier, will pay 25 per cent. The cheaper stuffs that we should try to enable the poorer classes to buy cheaply will also pay 25 per cent. Surely that is not just. I move -

That the House of Representatives be requested to further amend item 123, paragraph b, by leaving out the words “ 5 oz.” and inserting in lieu thereof the words “ §i oz.”

NOES: 17

Majority … … 3

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Request negatived.

Senator CLEMONS:
Tasmania

– I have heard it sufficiently indicated from all sides of the Chamber, that this is a revenue duty, to induce me to move in favour of its reduction. As a matter of fact, I think that these goods should be admitted free.

Senator Best:

– I have never suggested that’ the duty is a revenue one.

Senator Givens:

– Let us agree to the proposed duty, and then deal similarly with the next two paragraphs.

Senator CLEMONS:

– I believe it is intended to make the next two paragraphs dutiable at the same rate as is imposed upon this paragraph. Assuming that that is so, I think that as a revenue duty, 15 per cent, is altogether too high. In order to test the matter, I move -

That the House of Representatives be requested to make the duty on item 123, paragraph B (imports under General Tariff), adval., 10 per cent.

I hope it will be recognised that 10 per cent, is a stiff revenue duty. Of course, I am assuming that. the same rate will be adopted- in regard to the two subsequent paragraphs. I cannot help thinking that, as the result of being accustomed so long to duties ranging from 25 per cent, to 40 per cent., the Committee are prone to regard 10 per cent, as a mild’ impost. Personally, I think it is a very heavy tax to levy upon a man’s capital or income. Translated into terms, either of land or income, it is equivalent to a tax of 2s. in the£1 ‘ If we were required topay land tax at that rate we should think it was a very stiff impost.

Senator MULCAHY:
Tasmania

– I hope that Senator Clemons will not persist in his request. The real effect of the last division was practically to remove from this paragraph four-fifths of the materials worn by the poorer classes of the community, and to make them dutiable at 25 per cent. What we are now asked to do by Senator Clemons is to still further enlarge the anomaly that has been created.

Senator MILLEN:
New South Wales

Senator TRENWITH:

– Because the opportunity seldom happens. If we have passed two items without giving any preference, Senator Clemons will readily vote for a proposal to give preference, not ber cause he believes in it, but because he believes in reducing duties by any means.

Senator Clemons:

– Nine times out of ten I have walked out of the chamber when a vote is being taken on a proposal for preference.

Senator TRENWITH:

– Some times out of the ten the honorable senator has walked out of the chamber, but even thenhe has been, in a measure, helping his general desire. I do not condemn that desire. I do not say that it is immoral to seek to abolish all duties.

Senator Mulcahy:

– What has this to do with the request?

Senator TRENWITH:

Question - “ That the House of Representatives be requested to make the duty on item 123, paragraph b, ‘ Piece goods, woollen, or containing wool ‘ (imports under General Tariff) ad val. 10 per cent.” (Senator Clemons’ request) - put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 7

NOES: 23

Majority … … 16

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Request negatived.

Senator BEST:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · Victoria · Protectionist

– I move -

That the House of Representatives be requested to amend item 123, paragraph c, by adding after the word ‘‘thereon” the words !!, except piece goods enumerated in sub-item A.”

– It goes far beyond that.

Senator MULCAHY:

– In the past some importers have claimed that such material should be admitted at the duty charged on silk goods. This request if adopted will make the position quite clear and will not be productive of that confusion which the honorable senator anticipates.

Request agreed to.

Senator STEWART:
Queensland

– Before Senator Mulcahy submits a request to fix the duty in the general Tariff in respect of paragraph c at 15 per cent. I want honorable senators to consider a request for a duty of 5 per cent., because to all intents and purposes this is a revenue item.

Senator Givens:

– Why not wipe out the duty altogether? “ .

Senator STEWART:

– Well, to begin with, I move -

That the House of Representatives be requested to make item 123, paragraph c, free.

– - I wish to remind the Committee that this morning honorable senators rejected a request submitted by the Vice-President or the Executive Council, which had for its object the removal of difficulties arising in the Customs Department in connexion with the importation of these different materials. But they did so on the understanding that later on reductions would be made in the duties imposed. Since that we have decided that the duties on dress materials shall remain, and if we agree now to any alteration, except ‘ that mentioned and agreed to this morning, we shall be, to some extent, breaking faith with the Minister.

Senator Best:

– It would thwart the whole object in view.

Senator MULCAHY:

– It would. There was a general understanding that the articles included in paragraphs b, c and d should be dutiable at the same rate, and paragraph b was passed on that understanding.

Request negatived.

Request (by Senator Stewart) negatived -

That the House of Representatives be requested to make the duty on item 123, paragraph c (imports under General Tariff), adval., 5 per cent.

Requests (by Senator Mulcahy) agreed to-

That the House of Representatives be requested to make the duty on item 123, paragraph C (imports under General Tariff), adval., 15 per cent.

That the House of Representatives be requested to make the duty on item 123, paragraph C (imports from the United Kingdom), ad val., 10 per cent.

Request (by Senator Best) agreed to -

That, the House of Representatives be requested to amend item 123, paragraph d, by leaving out the comma after the word “ Galoons.”

Senator STEWART:
Queensland

– Perhaps the Vice-President of the Executive Council will tell the Committee the value of the importations for 1906 under paragraph d of item 123?

Senator Best:

– The importations during thatyear were valued at , £576,000.

Senator STEWART:

– Then if the duty of 20 per cent, is operative it means that we should get in revenue from this item £100,000. If the duty were reduced to 15 per cent, we should get a revenue of £75,000. No one can pretend that these duties are protectionist duties in their effect or in their incidence. They are purely revenue duties. I am therefore opposed to them, and I move -

That the House of Representatives be requested to make item 123, paragraph d, free.

Question put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 6

NOES: 26

Majority … … 20

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Request negatived.

Request (by Senator Mulcahy) agreed to-

– I seem to be unfortunate in arousing contentious feelings on the part of my honorable friends opposite. The former duty on goods of this class produced a revenue of , £180,000 per annum.

Senator Stewart:

– That is the very reason why I am moving that the goods be free.

Senator MULCAHY:

– We have sacrificed the greater part of that revenue. A duty of 5 per cent, is a legitimate impost on foreign goods. It may be thought that there is not a tendency for foreign countries to send us cotton goods, but that is not correct. My experience in the warehouses for the last few years shows me that there has been a gradually increasing quantity of American and Continental cotton goods finding their way into this country. Often, singularly enough, they come to us through British markets. We can see from the returns what a vast quantity of foreign-made stuff comes through British markets to Australia. As a matter of fact, certain lines of so-called Manchester goods which are imported are ‘made in Holland and America.

Question put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 9

NOES: 24

Majority … … 15

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Request negatived. .

Senator McCOLL:
Victoria

.- I believe that denims are imported under item 123, paragraph e. I am informed that if they are plain blue they come in at 5 per cent, or free according to whether they are of foreign or British make, but that if they have a stripe or check, as is the base frequently with denims used for children’s clothing, they are dutiable at 30 . per cent, as if they were cloth. I think it is desirable to treat all denims alike.

Senator Best:

– I am informed that all denims from the United Kingdom are free.

Request (by Senator Needham) proposed -

That the House of Representatives be requested to make the duty on item 123, paragraph. E (imports from the United Kingdom), ad val., 5 per cent.

Senator STEWART:
Queensland

– This is a most astonishing proposition to come from an honorable senator who professes to believe in direct asopposed to indirect taxation. If Senator Needham’s request be carried, the - result will be to largely increase the revenue from the goods enumerated in paragraph e. For that reason I shall vote against it.

Senator CLEMONS:
Tasmania

– This is not the first time that Senator Needham has moved such a request. I should like to express in the clearest possible way what I think of it. His motion represents the attitude of a man who, from my point of view, deliberately wants to impose an . additional burden on the Australian consumer, because he, the -mover, has a hatred for England.

Senator Needham:

– That is not a fact; it is an erroneous statement of the case.

Senator CLEMONS:

– I do not know what else it can mean. If that is not the case, I will put the meaning in other words. His motion represents the deliberate intention of Senator Needham to impose an additional burden on the Australian consumer.

Senator Needham:

– I have already stated my reasons against preference, and the honorable senator knows what they are.

Senator CLEMONS:

– The motion, I say again, represents an attempt ‘ to impose an additional burden on the Australian consumer. If it does not represent Senator Needham’s hatred to England, it certainly represents a deliberate attempt to do nothing to help England.

Senator Needham:

– England does not want our help.

Senator CLEMONS:

– But I will tell the honorable senator who does want our help, and that is the Australian consumer. The honorable senator is perfectly willing to sacrifice the Australian consumer, because, as he says, England does not want our help. Whether England wants our help or not the Australian consumer does, and I have not the slightest sympathy with this sort of proposal. I think it ought to be made clear what it means.

Request negatived.

Senator BEST:
VicePresident of the Executive Council · Victoria · Protectionist

– I move -

That the House of Representatives be requested to amend item 123, paragraphF, by leaving out the words “ one or.”

Request (by Senator Mulcahy) agreed to -

That the House of Representatives be requested to make the duty on item 123, paragraph F (imparts under General Tariff), ad va!., 5 per cent. ; (imports from the United Kingdom), free.

Senator FINDLEY:
Victoria

– When we were dealing yesterday with paragraph a, the Committee agreed to a request which I . proposed that the words “ rubbered waterproof cloth of any material “ be left out. That being so, I anticipate that honorable senators will agree to the request which I then intimated my intention of moving after we had dealt with paragraph f. I therefore move -

That the House of Representatives be re- . quested to add the following new paragraph : - “C. Rubbered waterproof cloth -

Woollen or containing wool, ad’ val. (General Tariff), 35 per cent. ; (United Kingdom), 30- per cent.

Silk, or containing silk, but not containing wool, ad val. (General Tariff), 30 per cent.; (United Kingdom), 25 per cent.

N.E.I., ad val. (General Tariff), 20 per cent. ; (United Kingdom), 15 per tent.”

– When I say that the local manufacturer lives up to the full amount of the protective duty, I mean that he charges an infinitesimal amount less than that at which the imported article can be purchased. We had an apt illustration of that supplied to us the other day in. the case of matches. It was conclusively proved that certain match manufacturers in the Commonwealth lived up to the duty levied upon that article, less a small margin to enable them to sell their goods.

Senator E J RUSSELL:
VICTORIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– If a small margin exists, it -is evident that the local manufacturers do not live right up to the full amount of the protective -duties imposed.

Senator CLEMONS:

– As a rule, they live up to it within a very small fraction.

I want to know from Senator Findley what cloth is to be rubberized. Does he desire to levy duties’ of 35 and 30 per cent, upon these goods in order that imported woollen cloth may be rubberized in Australia?

A, originally read -

– I do not care what any newspaper has dubbed me. When I was discussing the weight of certain woollen fabrics this afternoonI expressed a doubt whether they could be made in the Commonwealth. I was at once assailed by my extreme protectionist friends with the statement that those fabrics can be made locally. Now if there be one fabric more than another which can be produced in the Commonwealth it is the material that is required for waterproofing. What does Senator Findley wish to do? He desires to provide indirectly for the admission of an outside article, which, upon other occasions, he seeks to exclude. If we require good waterproof coats we can get them manufactured in the Commonwealth of Australian material. If effect is given to the honorable senator’s proposal, the result will be, not the encouragement of Australian manufacture, but an increase of importation, while the extra protection conferred by the new paragraph will be hardly worthy of the consideration of those who are to receive it. There are a number of materials which could be made locally which are suitable for rubberizing. I move -

That the request be amended by leaving out the figures “35,” paragraph1, with a view to insert in lieu thereof the figures “ 30.”

Question put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 12

NOES: 20

Majority … … 8

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Amendment negatived.

Senator MACFARLANE:
Tasmania

– It seems to me that the Committee does not quite understand what it is doing. It is now proposed to make the duty on certain kinds of silk 30 and 25 per cent., although we have fixed the rate on ordinary silk piece goods at 15 and 10 per cent. Why should we make this distinction? I move -

That the request be amended by leaving out the figures “30,” paragraph 2, with a view to insert in lieu thereof the figures “ 15.”

Senator Best:

– If the’ amendment be carried, the proofing industry will receive no protection.

Amendment negatived.

Request agreed to.

Postponed item 106. Apparel and Attire - Woollen or Silk, or containing Wool or Silk - partly or wholly made up; including articles cut in to shape, ad val. (General Tariff), 45 per cent., and on and after 7th November, 1907, 40 per cent. : (United Kingdom), 40 per cent., and on and after 7th November, 1907, 35 per cent.

Senator BEST:
VicePresident of the Executive Council · Victoria · Protectionist

– I move -

That the House of Representatives be requested to amend item 106 by inserting after the word “ Silk,” second occurring, the letters n.e.i.”

Senator CLEMONS:

Senator FRASER:
Victoria

.- I have listened with interest to the remarks of Senator Clemons. - If, as he says, the consumer is mulcted in order to provide those large profits, I should recommend consumers to form a small company of their own - andI should be willing to take a few shares to encourage them - and manufacture their own clothes, thus obtaining them at prime cost.

Senator E J RUSSELL:
VICTORIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

Senator MILLEN:

– Later on I may deal with that aspect of the matter. We have been told here on an authority which I am prepared to accept that nineteen-twentieths of the clothing trade of Victoria is controlled by or is absolutely in the hands of the Flinders-lane monopolists.

– No; from the evidence.

Senator MULCAHY:

– Senator Clemons as Acting Chairman of the Tariff Commission cross-examined the witness in question as follows : -

You gave us just now an instance in which you expended 8s. 6d. on labour and trimmings. To what did that refer? - To the manufacture of a suit of clothes.

On that suit of clothes you would have an expenditure bv way of wages to your employes of Ss. 6d., less the amount paid for the trimmings? - Yes, about one-third would represent the expenditure on trimmings.

Shall we say 3s. or 2s. 6d. for trimmings? - Say 3s.

The witness did not say that the cost of the trimmings was 3s. His words were, “ Say 3s.,” or in other words about 3s.

Then you have a complaint about the duty you pay on those trimmings? - Yes.

You have told us what that complaint is. The balance .of the 8s’. 6d., namely, 5s. 6d., would represent wages? - Wages and profit.

The figures are those given by the honorable senator as Acting Chairman.

Senator Clemons:

– They were given by the witness.

Senator MULCAHY:

– The examination continues -

YOU get your material from a wholesale housie ; you put into that material labour to the extent of 5s. 6d. in making a suit of clothes, and you add trimmings to the value of 3s. Will you give me approximately the average cost to the wholesale house of the material of a suit of clothes?-

To that question the witness answered very properly -

I would rather not answer the question. I could not give you the information correctly. The price might vary.

The cross-examination proceeded as follows -

It would vary considerably: but give me some sort of middle estimate. lt will hot commit you to anything? - The cost would be between 7s. and 8s.

That is what the wholesale house would have to pay for the material it s;nt to you to be made into a suit 0 £ clothes ? - Yes ; I am speaking now of a low-quality material, and the matter is one upon which I should like to be certain before making a statement. There are so many variations that it is somewhat difficult to decide upon u fixed price.

I do not ask you to settle upon any price, but to give me an approximate estimate. I will take your own figures ? - Then, we will say 9s. ; that would be about a mid-estimate.

Senator Clemons:

Question - That the House of Representatives be requested to make the duty on item 106, “ Apparel and Attire - Woollen or Silk ‘ ‘ (imports under General Tariff), ad val. 25 per cent. (Senator Clemons’ request) - put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 9

NOES: 17

Majority … … 17

Majority … 8

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Request negatived.

Request (by Senator Chataway) put -

That the House of Representatives be requested to make, the duty on item 106 (imports, under General Tariff), ad val., 35 per cent.

The’ Committee divided.

Question so resolved in the negative.

Request negatived.

Senator FINDLEY:
Victoria

.- I move -

That the House of Representatives be requested to amend item 106 by adding the following new paragraph : - “B. Corsets, ad val. (General Tariff), 20 per cent. ; (United Kingdom), 15 per cent.”

Before Federation, in New South Wales these articles were free; in Victoria there was a duty of 35 per cent. ; Queensland 25 per cent. ; South Australia either 25 per cent, or 10 per cent., mixed up in a general way; Western Australia 15 per cent. ; and Tasmania 20 per cent.

Senator Clemons:

– Why does the honorable senator now propose 20 per cent. ? Is that protective?

Senator FINDLEY:

– The old Victorian 35 per cent, duty was expected by the framers of the State Tariff to enable the industry of corset making to be established, but that it did not have that effect is shown by the Chief Inspector of Factories in his annual report. There were four factories, and forty-two females employed in them, in Victoria under the 35 per cent. duty. Since . Federation the duty has been considerably reduced, the factories have not increased, and the number of employe’s has decreased from fortytwo to thirty-four. I am reliably informed that the corsets made in those factories are of a special kind, and special prices are paid for them, while the corsets worn by the masses are not made in any. part of Australia. ‘ Although facilities have been given for the establishment of the industry of manufacturing these articles, no effort has been made in that direction. No evidence was given -before the Tariff Commission in . favour of a high duty. No desire has been expressed for it by people who might be regarded as interested in the establishment of the industry. Consequently I see no advantage, even from a protectionist point of view, in imposing a duty of. 40 or 45 per cent, merely for revenue purposes.

Senator Millen:

– Why any duty at all, then ?

Senator FINDLEY:

– Because it may be protective in its incidence. I am not wedded to the figures I propose. If honorable senators admit corsets free, I expect that they will receive the blessings of many thousands of Australian women, and I do not know that I will not vote with them.

Senator MILLEN:
New South Wales

– For a protectionist, above all a Victorian one - the ultra brand - to come forward as the chnmp’on. of reduced duties is so rare a spectacle that I accept it’ as a solemnobligation to do all’ I can to assist the reformation of the honorable senator. It was with, some fear and trepidation that I gathered from his remarks that he, a bachelor, had been deputed to champion the cause of this particular article. Senator Findley admits “that this will not be a protective duty. I can understand that he is travelling with somewhat hesitating steps in the right direction, but let me invite him to take the whole plunge at once. He need not be afraid of its being said that’ Senator Findley, a “Victorian protectionist, moved an item on to the free list. This will be a revenue duty only. He also said that those who helped to place the article on the free list would receive the smiles and benedictions of thousands of the ladies of Australia. Surely more potent than any argument which I can address to the honorable senator upon the fiscal question will be that appeal, which he himself addresed to the Committee. I move -

That the request be amended by leaving out the words “ad val., 20 per cent.,” with a view to insert in lieu thereof the word “ free.”

Question put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 12

NOES: 13

Majority. … … 1

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Amendment negatived.

Senator McCOLL:
Victoria

.- I desire that the duty shall be 15 and 10 per cent., and I move -

That the request be amended by leaving out the figures “ 20,” with a view to insert in lieu thereof the figures “ 15 “

Question put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 13

NOES: 12

Majority … … 1

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment (by Senator McColl) agreed to -

That the request be further amended by leaving out the figures “ 15,” with a view to insert in lieu thereof the figures “ 10.”

Senator GIVENS:
Queensland

– I object to the request of Senator Findley, as amended, being agreed to. The Committee had no idea that the Government were going to accept a reduced duty on this article, and consequently, in the first instance, some honorable senators voted against the article being made free who otherwise would have voted in the opposite direction, rather than vote for the imposition of a very small duty, which isonly a revenue duty, and is not a protective duty in any way. I object to being, deceived in that way. I assert that the Committee, including myself, were grossly deceived in that particular direction. Fortunately, it is not too late for us to effect a remedy, because we can now negative the request. So far we have decided that the duty on corsets, shall be 15 and 10 per cent. These are revenue duties pure and, simple.

Senator Millen:

– The honorable senator helped to make them revenue duties.

Senator GIVENS:

– No; I voted: against the article being made free, because I had no idea that the Government would weakly cave in and allow revenue duties to be imposed.

Senator Best:

– We did not vote for revenue duties.

Senator GIVENS:

– The Minister hashis remedy, and I invite him to join with me in voting to negative the request.

Senator Turley:

– That will not make the article free.

Senator GIVENS:

– No: but it will make the duty protective. I am opposed root and branch to any revenue duty when it can be avoided. I intend to vote against the request for the insertion of this new paragraph, because I much prefer to have an effective protective duty rather than a revenue duty, which will ‘ accomplish nothing. I invite protectionists - not north and south protectionists - to join with me to place corsets again under the protective segis of the Tariff.

Question - That the House of Representatives be requested to amend item 106 by adding the following new paragraph : - “ b. Corsets, ad. val. (General Tariff), 15 per cent. ; (United Kingdom), 10 per cent. (Senator Findley’s request, as amended) - put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 15

NOES: 11

Majority … … 4

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Request, as amended, agreed to.

Postponed item 107. Apparel and. Attire, n.e.i., for the human body, partly or wholly made up made of any material not containing wool or silk including materials cut into shape therefor, ad val. (General Tariff), 40 per cent., and on and after 7th November, 1907, 35 per cent.; (United Kingdom), 35 per cent., and on and after 7th November, 1907, 30 per cent.

Senator GIVENS:
Queensland

– I move -

That the House of Representatives be requested to make the duty on item 107 (imports under General Tariff), 40 per cent.

Request, by leave, withdrawn.

Senator MILLEN:
New South Wales

– I intend in this case to ask the House of Representatives to revert to the old duties of 30 per cent, and 25 per cent. I point out to honorable senators that whereas the people who make up articles coming under item 107 had previously a protection of 10 per cent, only, they will now be given, even if my request be agreed to, a protection of 30 and 25 per cent. That must be admitted to be a very substantial increase upon the protection they had under the 1902 Tariff. For that reasonI have confidence in asking the Committee to favorably consider my proposal. I move -

That the House of Representatives be requested to make the duty on item 107 (imports under General Tariff), ad val., 30 per cent.

Question put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 9

NOES: 17

Majority … … 8

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Request negatived.

Request (by Senator Givens) proposed -

That the House of Representatives be requested to make the duty on item 107 (imports under General Tariff), ad val., 40 per cent.

Senator Colonel NEILD (New South Wales) [9.34]. - I cannot hold my peace in this matter any longer. A little time ago, when this Tariff was very much before the people of New South Wales, at the time of a State election the leader of the party to which the mover of this request belongs, and of which he is so distinguished an ornament, came over in hot haste to New South Wales to cajole the people by promises that they would cut down the Tariff. But what do we find to-day? The election over, up goes the Tariff again !

Senator BEST:
VicePresident of theExecutive Council · Victoria · Protectionist

– I desire to say, with regard to the proposal now before the Committee, that honorable senators opposite have frequently pointed out the necessity . for simplifying ‘ the Tariff. There are no two items in the Tariff in connexion with which there is so much trouble and difficulty as in regard to items 106 and 107. As to the three items with which we dealt this morning, I do not think that the difficulties which arise are anything like so great as those which occur in connexion with items 106 and 107. I should, of course, be satisfied with the Tariff as it stands; but as the Committee has already by its voice emphasized the necessity for the amalgamation of items with a. view to simplification, and as that has involved a reduction of duties, surely it is not unreasonable now, when for the same purpose of simplification an increase of 5 per. cent’, is proposed -just as- on the other occasion a decrease of 5 per cent, was involved - that it should be agreed to. Under the circumstances, I have no compunction whatever about supporting the request.

Senator W RUSSELL:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– Is it a protective dutv ?

Senator BEST:

Senator -Givens.- That is exactly what the item says at present.

Senator Best:

– “ Containing wool or silk.”

Senator Givens:

– The honorable senator does not like being bowled out.

Senator Colonel NEILD:

– If the honor- able senator knew as much about the’ things he talks about as he thinks he does, his remarks would be more apt and more useful to the debate. I cannot believe that the Customs officers are as destitute of knowledge as the Minister has informed us that they are. I cannot for a moment believe that there is any necessity to increase an already shockingly high duty in order to obviate some unknown and impossible difficulty of determination as to what the character of goods is. When we take the 40 per cent, that is proposed now, and remember that that 40 per cent, is calculated not only upon the cost of the goods, but on 10 per cent, added, it will be seen that 40 per cent, is calculated not upon’ £100 worth of goods, but upon £110 worth. Consequently the duty payable to the Department is really 44 per cent., and not 40 per cent. Every one knows that, and I cannot understand how any honorable senator could dream of proposing such a duty on a pinafore for a little child. We had put before us, only yesterday, figures showing that in the clothing factories of Victoria and New South Wales alone some 30,000 persons are employed. That industry has been expanding under duties of only 25 per cent., and prior to their imposition, in New South Wales at all events, under free-trade. Now, forsooth, we must have a. duty of 44 per cent, clipped on the unfortunates who are not sufficiently well-to-do to have their clothing made specially for them. Any one who has to purchase ready-made articles of wearing apparel is to be sweated in this manner, for what purpose goodness knows. The transactions of the manufacturers are large enough to show that they are not working unsuccessfully. This is not one of the struggling industries that wants to be coaxed and coddled in their infancy. It is a strong, healthy growing, largelyconducted industry, but one, unfortunately, in which, perhaps, more than in any other, sweating is carried on. To benefit one of the sweating industries of Victoria and New South Wales, of which we have heard so much, and heard with condemnation, properly enough, we are to have an increase of duty to fill the pockets of the sweaters. I am surprised and shocked that such a proposal should emanate from those who profess to be the friends of the workers, but who are showing themselves to be the toilers’ most deadly enemies.

Senator MACFARLANE:
Tasmania

– I should like to point out to the Committee, and more particularly to the Minister, that items 106 and 107 were specially subdivided by the Minister in charge of the Tariff in another place, and that he also agreed to a. reduction of 5 per cent, in respect of the duty on item J07. For what purpose are we to request that the duty be increased, and thus to bring ourselves into conflict with the general opinion of honorable members of another place?

Senator McGregor:

– To secure uniformity.

Senator MACFARLANE:

– If that were the original object, a request should ‘ have been moved to reduce the first of the paragraphs in this item. I should have voted for such a request, believing that the simplification of the Tariff would more than compensate for a loss of 5 per cent, in re- spect of any duty. I repeat that the Minister in another place agreed to a subdivision and re-arrangement of the duties.

Senator MULCAHY:
Tasmania

– The duties of 35 per cent, and 30 per cent, appearing in the schedule in respect of this item are in all conscience high enough, and I should be very loth to support a request for an increase, but I know that, as a matter of fact, it will not result in any additional burden on the people, and that it will secure that simplification of the Tariff of which Senator. Givens has spoken. Nearly all the garments to. which this item relates are made in Australia. Although we hear occasionally of sweating, it cannot be said, so far as Melbourne is concerned - and I do not think that Sydney is behind it - that it takes place in factories in which sewing is carried on. The law is decidedly against it, the spirit of the people is opposed to it, and the Factories Acts regulate the rates of pay and bring about fair conditions of labour. As a matter of fact, this particular industry has been captured, and the garments covered by this item are all made in Australia. If any honorable senator is in doubt as to whether protection reduces or increases the price of these goods, he .can easily ascertain the facts for himself.” Let any honorable senator who has the good fortune to have a wife capable of judging the value of children’s garments, working men’s shirts, and other goods coming within this item, take her to a draper’s shop in Melbourne where they are sold, and she will tell him that they are offered at very reasonable prices. In ninety-five cases out of a 100 they are manufactured in Melbourne. Therefore the effect of the requested increase, so far as the imposition of any additional burden on the people is concerned, will not be what Senator Neild fears.

Senator W RUSSELL:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– The remarks of Senator Neild have brought me to my feet. I hope that when next he addresses the Committee he will use language that honorable senators can understand, and not try to limit our powers. If we have power to request another place to reduce’ duties we have power to request them to increase them. I take this opportunity of explaining why I voted, against the Government, in favour of a reduction of the duty on corsets. I was given to understand by some of the most prominent and intelligent protectionists in the Senate - by no less an authority than Senator Findley himself - that it was a revenue duty.

The CHAIRMAN:

– We have dealt with that item, and the honorable senator cannot now discuss it.

Senator W RUSSELL:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I was simply referring to it by way of. illustration. Had I known sooner. I should have voted for a request that that item be free. As to the item immediately under consideration, I may say at once that, believing as I do, and always have done, that the policy of protection is a sound one, I intend to vote for effective protection, and to support the request for an increase.

Senator Colonel NEILD (New South Wales) [9.54]. - The speech which we have just heard is most instructive. The honorable senator told us that, as a protectionist, he was going to fight for duties on every occasion.

Senator W RUSSELL:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I did not say that.

Senator Colonel NEILD:

– The honorable senator does not know what he is talking about. He made that statement immediately after explaining to the Committee that it was because of a misapprehension that he did not vote for a request to do away altogether with the duty on corsets. My honorable friend musthave been asleep, and have just awakened. As to the item before us, I -would point out that the duties as they stand in the Bill were proposed in another place by Dr. Maloney, and were accepted by the. Government, and agreed to withouta division, after proposals to reduce the duties below 35 and 30 per cent, had been unsuccessfully pressed to divisions. These duties were proposed by a member of the very party which now seeks to increase them, and were accepted by the present Government, which also desires their increase. Thank goodness, this is a kind of Ministerial see-saw the like of which we do not often see. I think it my duty to draw attention to the game that is being played by the Government and a certain section of their supporters.

Question - That the House of Representatives be requested to make the duty on item 107, “ Apparel and Attire n.e.i.” (imports under General Tariff) ad val. 40 per cent. (Senator Givens’ request) - put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 15

NOES: 9

Majority … 6

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Request agreed to.

Request (by Senator Givens) put -

That the House of Representatives be requested to make the duty on item 107 (imports from the United Kingdom), ad val., 35 per cent.”

The Committee divided.

AYES: 15

NOES: 9

Majority … 6

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Request agreed to.

Postponed item 108. . Articles, n.e.i., partly or wholly made up from textiles, felts, furs, or feathers, not included under items 107 or 134, and including materials cut into shape therefor, ad val. (General Tariff), 30 per cent.; (United Kingdom), 25 per cent.

Senator BEST:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · Victoria · Protectionist

– I move -

That the House of Representatives be requested to amend item 108 by leaving out the word “ furs.”

This word has been wrongly included in this item. Honorable senators will see that it is specially mentioned in item 119.

Request agreed to.

Senator Colonel NEILD (New South Wales) [10.5]. - I wish to ask whether the exemption under this item should not also include the articles- covered by item 117? There is at present a dispute as to whether the covering for chairs and couches known as saddlebag comes properly under this item or under item 117. In my opinion, it should come under item 117.

Senator Mulcahy:

– It would come more properly under item 115.

Senator Colonel NEILD:

– It should certainly come under item 115 or item 117 rather than under item 107, and if the Minister has no objection. I shall make a proposal later on to bring it under one of those items.

Senator Macfarlane:

– Do towels come under this item?

Senator Best:

– No; they come under item 11 7.

Senator Macfarlane:

– The Treasurer undertook to place on the free list many of the articles previously coming under item 108; has that promise been carried out?

Senator Best:

– Item 108 originally covered -

Articles, n.e.i., including Dusters, n.e.i. ; Cleaning Pads; Kettle Holders; Polishing, Tea, Glass, Kitchen, Sponge, Counter,, and Crumb Cloths; Scapular Prints; Canvas Water Holders; Animal Clothing; Horse and Body Rollers; Saddle Cloths; Sleeping Sacks; Tracing Colli with designs’; Hair Curlers- and Wavers ; Adhesive Labels, and Letters (textile) ; Hangers, Labels, Bands, and ‘Ribbons, with woven name or design thereon ; Scourers and other articles of a like character.

I am informed that some of these minor articles have been placed on the free list.

Postponed item 109 (Feathers, undressed) agreed to.

Postponed item ‘110. Feathers, dressed, ad val., 30 per cent. .

Request (by Senator Colonel Neild) put -

That the House of Representatives be requested to make the duty on item no (imports from the United Kingdom), ad val., 25 per cent.

The Committee divided.

AYES: 9

NOES: 15

Majority … … 6

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Request negatived.

Item agreed to.

Postponed item 11 1 (Diving dresses) agreed to.

Postponed item 112. Bags and Sacks of Calico, Hessian, n.e.i., and Linen, and Meat Wraps, whether partly or wholly made up ; and Hags and Sacks, n.e.i., ad val., 15 per cent.

Request (by Senator Colonel Neild) put - .

That the House of Representatives be requested to make the duty on item 112 (imports from the United Kingdom), ad val., 10 per cent.

The Committee divided.

AYES: 9

NOES: 15

Majority … 6

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Request negatived.

Item agreed to.

Postponed item 113. Bags, Sacks, Packs, and Bales for Bran, Chaff, Compressed Fodder, Potato, Onion, Ore, Coal, and Wool ; also Sugar Mats, and Corn and Flour Sacks, free.

Senator MILLEN:
New South Wales

– I wish t0 include in this item salt, gypsum, manure, and sugar sacks. I understand that the “design of the authors of the Tariff was to make dutiable, under the previous item, those coverings and bags which are being made, or likely to be made, in Australia - bags of lighter material, such as calico, hessian, and linen - and in this item to include bags made of heavier material, such as ‘jute, but which are not being made in Australia. The division, however, is not quite perfect. I shall not move now the request I have indicated, as I understand that a prior one is to be moved. When the question was being discussed in another place, the Minister of Trade and Customs said that he regretted that he had not accepted the suggestion to make these sacks free. Apparently, all the information was not available when the decision was arrived at. There is a difference between a salt bag and a salt sack. The bag is of lighter material, and is made in Australia. I am not proposing to put it on the free list. The heavier salt sack, which I wish to make free, is necessary where salt has to be sent long distances by rail, and sometimes by teams. The lighter bag, covered by item 112, is suitable for short journeys and for town trade.

Senator CHATAWAY:
Queensland

– I move -

That the House of Representatives be requested to amend item 113 by inserting after the words “ Sugar Mats and “ the word “ Sugar,”.

Roughly, about 2,000,000 sugar sacks are used in the year in connexion with the sugar industry of Australia. A sugar sack is very much the same as a corn or flour sack. I believe the Government intended that sugar sacks should.be free, and the practice of the Department at present is not to charge duty upon them. They are put on the same footing as corn and flour sacks. It will be safer to make the amendment I now propose, in order that no difficulty may arise in the future through a change of Ministers or varying interpretations of the Tariff.

Senator Best:

– There is no objection.

Request agreed to.

Senator MILLEN:
New South Wales

– Seeing that the request of Sena tor Chataway which has just been adopted includes sugar sacks, I shall simply move-

That the House of Representatives be requested to further amend item 113 by inserting after the words “Flour Sacks” the words “Salt, Gypsum and Manure sacks.”

It was represented by Mr. Glynn that salt bags and sacks are not made in Australia. This statement, however, is totally in error. Our firm in its Sydney factory not only makes large quantities of small bags for salt out of calico and hessian, but also large quantities of salt sacks, -some of which are used for salt and some for other purposes, but all of which are practically identical with the salt sacks imported from Calcutta.

They go on to say -

Should the statement be again made that salt sacks are not manufactured within the Commonwealth, it may be well to give you the following details for your information.

Senator Millen:

– Is the honorable senator quoting from a circular sent round to honorable senators generally ?

Senator STEWART:

– Yes.

Senator Millen:

– It is a curious thing that Joyce Brothers did not send a copy to me in order to give me a chance to look into their statements.

Senator STEWART:

– At any rate, here is a copy of the circular -

During last year we supplied from our Sydney factory between 25,000 and 30,000 salt sacks to the Cheetham Salt Company, Geelong, and are now negotiating with them for further supplies for the coming’ year. We have also been making large quantities of salt sacks in our Sydney factory, which’ are used for packing oil cake. For one firm alone we supplied between 90,000 and 100,000 during last year for this purpose. These are, to all intents and purposes, salt sack?, and should the duty be taken off we would lose this trade, as our customers would use the imported sacks. ‘

Then, with regard to South Australia, they say -

We have not previously catered for the South Australian trade,* having no factory further south than Sydney, but we are negotiating with the Castle Salt Company, through their buying agents, Messrs. Henry Berry and Co., Melbourne, with a view to taking their contract for the supply of salt sacks, and if successful in securing this would make arrangements for the bags to be made in Adelaide, as the extra cost of freight to Adelaide would handicap the business if the bags were ‘made in Sydney. The writer saw Messrs. Henry Berry and Co. when in Melbourne, and was informed that the Castle Salt Company had supplies on hand sufficient to la’st for some months, so that there was no prospect of immediate business, but we trust to be successful in securing their order ‘when they are ready ‘o place another.

Seeing that these sacks are being manufactured in Australia, I think the Committee will be wise if it refuses to agree to the request.

Senator MILLEN:
New South Wales

Request negatived.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Do I understand that Senator Stewart desires to move a request for a duty ?

Senator Stewart:

– No, I shall not do so.

Progress reported. .

page 8221

EXCISE PROCEDURE BILL

Assent reported.

Senate adjourned at 10.48 p.m

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 19 February 1908, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1908/19080219_senate_3_43/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant

Senate19 February 1908

PETITION

QUESTION

MOONTA MINES POSTAL ARRANGEMENTS

Senator McGREGOR:SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Senator KEATING:Minister for Home Affairs · TASMANIA · Protectionist

QUESTION

INDUSTRIAL AWARDS

Senator DE LARGIE:WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator KEATING:Protectionist

NAVIGATION BILL

Senator DOBSON:TASMANIA

Senator Pearce:

Senator Best:

Senator de Largie:

The PRESIDENT:

Senator de Largie:

The PRESIDENT:

Senator Colonel Neild:

Senator Best:

Senator Colonel Neild:

Senator Millen:

Senator Best:

Senator Colonel Neild:

The PRESIDENT:

Senator Turley:

Senator Dobson:

The PRESIDENT:

Senator Dobson:

QUESTION

VICTORIAN IMMIGRATION LEAGUE

Senator NEEDHAM:WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator BEST:Protectionist

Senator Needham:

Senator Chataway:

Senator Millen:

The PRESIDENT:

PAPERS

SUSPENSION OF SITTINGS

DELAYED DELIVERY OF REGISTERED LETTER

CUSTOMS TARIFF BILL

Senator BEST:VicePresident of the Executive Council · Victoria · Protectionist

Senator Clemons:

Senator BEST:

Senator Mulcahy:

Senator BEST:

Senator Mulcahy:

Senator BEST:

Senator BEST:

Senator Givens:

Senator BEST:

Senator McGregor:

Senator BEST:

Senator Givens:

Senator Millen:

Senator BEST:

Senator Millen:

Senator BEST:

Senator Millen:

Senator BEST:

Senator Mulcahy:

Senator BEST:

Senator Mulcahy:

Senator BEST:

Senator Millen:

Senator BEST:

Senator Sir Josiah Symon:

Senator BEST:

Senator Sir Josiah Symon:

Senator BEST:

Senator Sir Josiah Symon:

Senator BEST:

Senator MULCAHY:Tasmania

Senator Best:

Senator MULCAHY:

Senator Sir Josiah Symon:

Senator Givens:

Senator MULCAHY:

Senator McGregor:

Senator Best:

Senate
19 February 1908

Senator McGREGOR:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Senator KEATING:
Minister for Home Affairs · TASMANIA · Protectionist

Senator DE LARGIE:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator KEATING:
Protectionist

Senator DOBSON:
TASMANIA

Senator NEEDHAM:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator BEST:
Protectionist

Senator BEST:
VicePresident of the Executive Council · Victoria · Protectionist

Senator MULCAHY:
Tasmania

Senator FINDLEY:
Victoria

Senator GIVENS:
Queensland

Senator CLEMONS:
Tasmania

Senator McCOLL:
Victoria

Senator McGREGOR:
South Australia

Senator W RUSSELL:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

Senator W RUSSELL:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

Senator W RUSSELL:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

Senator W RUSSELL:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

Senator W RUSSELL:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

Senator MULCAHY:
Tasmania

Senator CLEMONS:
Tasmania

Senator McGREGOR:
South Australia1