Senate
26 March 1908

3rd Parliament · 2nd Session



The President took the chair at11 a.m., and read prayers.

page 9631

DUTY ON PAPER

Senator FINDLEY:
VICTORIA

– The following telegram is published in this morning’s Age-

PAPER PULP.

New Discovery

London, 25th March.

Reuter’s Agency makes an important announccment whichwill tend to dispel the Alarm that has been felt regarding a shortage in the supply of paper owing to the denudation of the forests from which the raw material for the manufacture of paper pulp has been obtained.

It is stated that Mr. Lamarre, the proprietor of the Tacarigua estates, in the Island of Trinidad, has succeeded in converting 84 per. cent, of megass into paper pulp.

He declares that it will pay to grow sugar cane for the purpose of megass alone. His sugar mills are producing fifteen tons daily. [Megass is the crushed sugar cane after it has been through the mill. Hitherto it has been regarded as refuse, its chief use being as fuel after it has been dried.] .

In view of those statements, will the Government communicate with the Government of Queensland, to ascertain the truth of the report, and if it.be found to be correct, will the Vice-President of the Executive Council propose a request for the imposition of high duties on paper, to create an Australian paper-making industry?

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

– Every honorable senator must hope that the report of this discovery is reliable. I shall have great pleasure in asking the Prime Minister if he will communicate with the Government of Queensland with the object of having the matter further inquired into..

page 9631

QUESTION

PARLIAMENT HOUSE

Accommodation for Senators’ Correspondence and Papers - Insanitary State of the. Building.

Senator STEWART:
QUEENSLAND

– I wish to ask you, Mr. President, as Chairman of the House Committee, whether arrangements have yet been made to provide adequate accommodation for the correspondence and papers of honorable senators, and, if not, when action will be taken in the matter?

The PRESIDENT:

– There has not been a meeting of the House Committee for some time, because, owing to the early sittings of the Senate on three days in the week, it is difficult to make an arrangement to suit the convenience of its members; but the matter referred to has not been neglected. As Chairman, I have had fresh plans, designs, and suggestions prepared, which I shall be happy to show to honorable senators in my room, and to consult with them there as to what may best be done in the matter.

Senator Colonel NEILD:

– I wish to bring under your notice, sir, and under that of the Senate, a matter of the gravest consequence to honorablesenators, and to the attendants - the terribly insanitary condition of the building. Thisis not a frivolous complaint. This morning, on entering by the southern door with the acting Clerk Assistant, we were both nearly poisoned by the atmosphere through which we had to force our way to reach the top of the stairs, and even the air surrounding what is known as the club-room is by no means wholesome.

Senator Millen:

– We ought to be prosecuted by the municipal authorities.

Senator Colonel NEILD:

– I should like to know whether it is not a fact that the building is allowed by the” health authorities of the State to remain in an insanitary condition merely because it is occupied by this Parliament, and whether anything can be doneto render the conditions under which we attend here less dangerous to life.

The PRESIDENT:

– Everything is done to keep the building clean and in a sanitary state, but until we have an efficient system of sewerage, there will always be unpleasantness. Honorable senators will be aware that it has been determined to sewer the building at an early date. The work would have been entered upon before now had it not been represented that it would necessarily cause a great noise and inconvenience, a representation which rendered it necessary to postpone the work until the recess. I hope that, after the recess, honorable senators will have no further cause for complaint.

Senator PULSFORD:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– Will you, sir, be good enough to cause steps to be taken in the interval to remedy matters? We shall be kept here for some weeks yet, and Senator Colonel Neild has not. exaggerated the abominable stench which arises at times.

The PRESIDENT:

– In a memorandum on the subject received from. Mr. Fletcher, the Inspector of Works, it is stated that -

The offensive odour sometimes noticeable in the two corridors connecting with the tunnel on west front is, in my opinion, chiefly due to the two earth-closets - one in each corridor, close to tunnel. These closets (and pans in same) are kept in excellent order, deodorised sawdust and carbolic disinfectant is freely used, but during close, humid weather, when there is nomovement in the air, a perceptible odour collects, and hangs about the tunnel and corridors until a breeze springs up and clears . it away. Occasionally poison is laid forrats, and it is probable that a dead rat adds to the nuisance complained of.

I examined the drains and cesspits; these are in good order, traps well sealed, no odour from same, except carbolic acid.

To remedy the trouble the earth-closets need connecting with the sewerage system.

The real remedy is an effective system of sewerage, which will be carried out during the recess. The work is to be done by the State Government, the Commonwealth paying interest on the outlay. As to doing anything in the meanwhile, I, as Chairman of the House Committee, will be happy to accept suggestions for improvement, and to put them into effect, if possible.

Senator SAYERS:
QUEENSLAND

– Could not the work of sewering the building be carried on at night ?

Senator Best:

– What about all-night sittings ?

The PRESIDENT:

– To do the work at night would greatly increase its cost, and, seeing that it is to be paid for by the State Government, we should hardly be justified in asking for that. I am doubtful, too, whether it could be done at night without great inconvenience to honorable senators.

Senator Needham:

– The Senate is sitting during the greater part of several nights each week.

page 9632

PAPER

Senator BEST laid upon the table the following paper -

Copies of the correspondence betweenthe Commonwealth and the South African Governments on the subject of additional duty on Australian sugar.

page 9632

QUESTION

POST AND TELEGRAPH DEPARTMENT

Committee of Inquiry - Mail Service . to Mitchell, South Australia

Senator SAYERS:

asked the Minister of Home Affairs, upon notice -

  1. Is it the intention of the Ministerial Committee to take evidence re the working and other complaints alleged in connexion with the Post and Telegraph Department in the various States?
  2. If so, can the Minister give the Senate any information as to when the Committee is likely to sit in the various States?
Senator BEST:
Protectionist

– The answers to the honorable senator’s questions are -

  1. It is intended that the inquiry by the Ministerial Committee shall be complete and effective. Evidence will be taken in connexion with all necessary matters affecting the working of the Department in the order of their relevance.
  2. I can give no information at present of the kind suggested, but my colleagues and I have ample material on hand relating to all the States and will take steps to obtain any further information that may be found necessary.
Senator MILLEN:

– May I ask the honorable gentleman to answer” Yes “ or “No” to the question: Is it the intention of the Committee to visit the several States in the prosecution of its inquiry?

Senator BEST:

– I cannot say at present.

Senator VARDON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister of Home Affairs, upon notice -

In view of the fact that on the West Coast of South Australia there is a mail service twice a week as far as the Hundredof Cummings and this means that some settlers have to go from twenty to thirty milesfor their letters, will the Minister for Home Affairs consult with the Postmaster-General with a view to seeing whether it will be possible to send a mail once a week as far the Hundred of Mitchell ?

Senator KEATING:
Minister for Home Affairs · TASMANIA · Protectionist

– I have already brought this matter under the notice of the Postmaster-General, and I expect very shortly to be able to consult with him as to whether or not the desired provision can be made.

page 9633

QUESTION

NAVAL OFFICERS’ REPORT

Senator NEEDHAM:

asked the Minister of Home Affairs, upon notice -

In view of the return of the Commonwealth Naval Officers who have been conducting inquiries into Naval matters in Great Britain for some months past, can the Minister inform the Senate when the report as to the result of their investigations will be available?

Senator KEATING:
Protectionist

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

The fullest information will be given the Senate as soon as the reports are available. The Minister has not had an opportunity of going fully into the matter yet.

page 9633

QUESTION

PUBLICATION OF ELECTORAL ROLLS

Senator CHATAWAY:
QUEENSLAND

asked the Minister of Home Affairs, upon notice -

  1. Is it the intention of the Government to publish new and revised Federal electoral rolls, and, if so, when?
  2. Has the Government under consideration a new subdivision of rolls ; if so, has any decision been arrived at, and what is that decision ?
Senator KEATING:
Protectionist

– This is a matter that comes under the control of the Electoral Branch of the Department of Home Affairs, and the answer tothe honorable senator’s first question is as follows -

  1. A decision has not yet been arrived at, hut in some of the States the Governments will shortly be undertaking a canvass to compile or revise the State rolls, and it is proposed to take advantage of such a favorable opportunity for a general revision of Commonwealth rolls, as by acting conjointly with the States a considerable saving in expenditure and labour will be effected. Negotiations in the matter are now proceeding.

I may say that, quite recently, a tentative arrangement was arrived at between the Commonwealth Electoral Officer and the representative officer of the State of Tasmania to give effect to a policy of this kind, and that arrangement is to receive the consideration of the Government. At the present time, the Chief Electoral Officer is in Western Australia making a similar tentative arrangement with the officer ofthat State in regard to joint action in the publication of the rolls. In further answer to the second question -

  1. The Commonwealth Electoral Act 1905 provided for the division of Commonwealth electorates into subdivisions embracing one or more polling places, and a scheme of proposed subdivisions is now under consideration, as is also the question of the adoption of subdivisional rolls instead of the existing polling place rolls.

I may add that I have already given authority in some of the States for the necessary plans to be prepared of the proposed subdivision.

Senator NEEDHAM:

– Arising out of that answer, I desire to ask the Minister if it is the intention of the Government to introduce an Electoral Act Amendment Bill?

The PRESIDENT:

– I point out to the honorable senator that he must give notice of a question of that character, since it does not arise properly out of the answer just given.

Senator Chataway:

– Do I understand the Minister to say that an arrangement has been arrived at?

Senator KEATING:

– No, but we are gathering all the necessary material in order that we may come to a decision in regard to the whole question.

Senator Sayers:

– Is it the intention of the Government to purge the Federal rolls at the same time as the States rolls are purged ?

Senator KEATING:

– The general policy, that will be followed as far as possible, is to bring about joint action on the part of the States and Federal authorities for the maintenance of common rolls, and for effective action to be taken conjointly for the purpose of keeping these rolls as pure and accurate as possible.

page 9633

QUESTION

IMMIGRATION RESTRICTION

Senator PULSFORD:

asked the VicePresident of the Executive Council, upon notice -

Referring to the proviso following sub-section a of section 3 of the Immigration Restriction Act, No. 17 of 1905, what has been done to give effect to the said proviso ?

Senator BEST:
Protectionist

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

The honorable senator is referred to section 5 of the Act No. 17 of 1905.

page 9634

CUSTOMS TARIFF. BILL

In Committee (Consideration resumed from 25th March, vide page 9580).

Schedule.

Division X. - Wood, Wicker and Cane.

Item 307 (Wicker, Bamboo, &c.) and item 308 (Brushmakers’ Woodware, &c.) agreed to.

Item 309. Tool Handles Unattached, ad val. (General Tariff), 20 per cent. ; (United Kingdom), 20 per cent.; and on and after 7th December, 1907, 15 percent.

Senator GIVENS:
Queensland

. - I move -

That the House of Representatives be requested to amend item 309 by inserting after the word “ Unattached “ the words “ including Adze and Axe Handles.”

All these handles are verysimilar, and should come within the same category and be subject to the same duty. I also desire to subsequently move that the House of Representatives be requested to increase the duties, for the reason that quite recently it has been proved that in NorthQueensland there are excellent timbers suitable for this purpose, as may be the case also in other parts of Australia. Two factories have already been established in Queensland for the manufacture of tool handles, which are being turned out on a large scale, and will probably, in the future, be produced in sufficient quantities to supply the whole of the Australian demand. Crowfoot elm is an eminently suitable timber for this purpose, being not too heavy and possessing a durability able to withstand great stress. In addition, there is, in Queensland, hickory and silk wood, also suitable for the making of handles.

Senator McGregor:

– And also bluegum.

Senator GIVENS:

– There are many varieties of suitable timber in Australia. Those engaged in this industry have gone to considerable initiatory expense, and are deserving of, at least, protection, similar to that extended in the case of other industries. This is eminently a natural industry ; and I do not ask for any extraordinary or prohibitive duty. My intention is to move that the duty in the general Tariff be made 30 per cent., and in the preferential Tariff, 25 per cent, though, as honorable senators know, I am not much of a believer in the preferential policy, and I so frame my request merely to preserve the balance of the Tariff.

Senator KEATING (Tasmania- Minis honorable senator’s request is put I think it will be necessary to insert the letters “ n.e.i.,” after the word “ handles.” Indeed, that amendment will be necessary whether the honorable senator’s request be agreed to or not.

Senator Givens:

– If that be so, I beg leave to temporarily withdraw my request.

Request, by leave, withdrawn

Request (by Senator Keating) agreed to-

That the House of Representatives be requested to amend item 309 by inserting after the word “Handles” the letters “n.e.i.”

Request (by Senator Givens) proposed -

That the House of Representatives be requested to further amend item 309 by inserting after the word “Unattached’ the words “including Adze and Axe Handles.”

Senator KEATING:
Minister of Home Affairs · Tasmania · Protectionist

– I hope that Senator Givens will not press his request that the duties be raised to 30 and 25 per cent. When the Tariff was introduced in another place, there was only one line with regard to those articles now included in items 309 and 310, and that line was “ Tool Handles, unattached,” upon which there was a duty of 20 per cent. It was considered that 20 per cent, was reasonable protection to afford tool handles manufactured in the Commonwealth, seeing that, notwithstanding the contention that many imported woods are exceptionally suitable, we have native timbers possessing the peculiar resilience necessary. In another place the duty of 20 per cent, on tool handles, unattached, was lowered, in the second column, to 15 per cent., on the casting vote of the Chairman of Committees against the Government. Subsequently, adze, axe, scythes, and bent wood handles were taken out of the item of “ Tool Handles, unattached,” and made dutiable in the general Tariff at a lower rate of duty. Under the circumstances, I think I am justified in saying that, while I cannot agree to duties of 30 and 25 per cent., I can go so far as to support a request that the original duty of 20 per cent, be restored. I think that if the House of Representatives be requested to consider a decision which was arrived at only on the casting vote of the Chairman, there may be some hope of success.

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON (South Australia) [11.30]. - I am sorry to hear the Minister say that he is prepared to acquiesce in reinserting adze, axe, and other handles in this item under a higher rate of duty.

Senator Keating:

– That is, provided the duty is not more than 20 per cent.

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:

– No doubtthe discrimination made in respect of these particular handles was prompted by the consideration that they really fall within the category of tools of trade. We know perfectly well that under this Tariff the tools of trade of mechanics are admitted free, and, consequently, it would be an extraordinary anomaly if we increased the duty levied upon parts of them.

Senator Givens:

– Parts which can be made equally well in Australia.

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:

– My honorable friend wishes to increasethe duty levied upon them, and that duty will have to be paid by the users of these particular handles.

Senator Givens:

– Not at all. They will be able to. get their adze and axe handles just as cheaply as they do now.

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:

– My honorable friend’s object in desiring to impose a duty of 20 per cent, or 30 per cent, upon these handles is to increase their price in the first instance. He is willing to rely upon internal competition to subsequently reduce their price to the normal level. But if he will look at the statistics before him, he will see that the great majority of the axe handles imported into the Commonwealth come from the United States. The reason is that the axe heads chiefly in use in Australia are of American origin.

Senator Givens:

– It will be very difficult to establish the industry if we do not extend to it effective protection.

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:

– I thoroughly understand the position taken up by the honorable senator. I merely wish to point out tohim that the axe handles chiefly in use in the Commonwealth are specially made for American axe heads which are almost universally used in the very forests the use of the timbers of which he wishes to encourage. Until these handles are made here, the effect of the honorable senator’s proposal would be to increase their price by 30 per cent.

Senator GIVENS:
Queensland

– As it appears that I am not able to get what I desire in this matter, I am willing to fall in with the suggestion of the Minister of Home Affairs. I think that the best way to give effect to his suggestion would be to include adze and axe handles in this item. I do not desire to make scythe, and bentwood handles dutiable at the higher rate, because it has not yet been demonstrated that we are turning out these; articles in any great quantity.

Senator McGREGOR:
South Australia

– I merely desire to point out the extremely illogical position taken up by Senator Symon. He has endeavoured to make Senator Givens believe that his proposal if adopted, would have the effect of increasing the price of . adze and axe handles to the axemen of Australia. The idea is perfectly ridiculous. Fancy importing an axe handle to cut the timber in the Queensland forests from which axe handles are to be manufactured.

Senator KEATING:
Minister of Home Affairs · Tasmania · Protectionist

– I take it that the desire of Senator Givens is to include adze and axe handles in this item, and to make them dutiable at 20 per cent.I am perfectly willing to adopt that course, but suppose that we alter the item in the way that he desires, and that a request is afterwards made to increase the duty–

Senator Givens:

– The Minister need not fear that. He is merely beating the air.

Senator KEATING:

– I know that the honorable senator himself will not move in that direction, but some other member of the Committee may do so. Perhaps it might be better for him to move -

That the House of Representatives be requested to insert the following new paragraph : -“ 309A. Adze and axe handles, 20 per cent.”

Senator Givens:

– The Minister is merely throwing unnecessary difficulties in the way after I have agreed to his suggestion.

Senator CLEMONS:
Tasmania

– It has been made obvious that the desire of Senator Givens is to increase the duty upon adze and axe handles by including them under item 309, and in respect of scythe and bentwood handles to allow the present duty of 15 per cent, to be retained.

Senator Givens:

– That is my intention.

Senator CLEMONS:

– I hope the Committee will not agree to that proposal. If we have to choose between the two classes of handles, I think that the duties should be reversed.

Senator Givens:

– We are making adze and axe handles in large quantities, but we are not manufacturing scythe and bentwood handles.

Senator CLEMONS:

– No witness before the Tariff Commission asked for an increased duty upon axe handles.

Senator Givens:

– It is only since the Commission terminated its labours that a plant has been laid down for their manufacture. At the present time, we are even exporting handles of this description to Fiji.

Senator CLEMONS:

– The only witness who appeared before the Tariff Commission in connexion with this item pointed out how heavily the duty upon axe handles pressed upon his State . We all know that axemen are very careful not only about the particular kind of axe head but also about the axe handle which they use. If Senator Givens had been present at any of the axemen’s carnivals–

Senator Givens:

– I have wielded an axe myself, and I think that I know all about it.

Senator CLEMONS:

– I do not claim to be an expert upon this matter, but I do claim to have some little knowledge of it. In my judgment, these adze and axe handles, instead of being dutiable at 15 per cent., ought to be admitted free. We ought to impose no hindrance upon the use of the axe in Australia. It is a national weapon.

Senator Givens:

– And that national weapon can be manufactured here.

Senator CLEMONS:

– But it is nevertheless a fact that axemen prefer to use American handles.

Senator Givens:

– They have had no choice until recently.

Senator CLEMONS:

– I am satisfied that if the proposed duty be agreed to it will operate as a revenue tax upon axemen for years to come.

Senator Givens:

– Nothing of the sort.

Senator CLEMONS:

– These handles have always been imported from America.

Senator Givens:

– Wood suitable for axe handles is grown in Australia.

Senator CLEMONS:

– I do not wish to decry our own timbers, but in innumerable cases we seem to be unable to put them to the uses for which they are fitted. I have very grave doubts as to whether we can put them to proper use in making axe handles. The making of axe handles in Australia would be a comparatively small industry, but their use in the Commonwealth is f arreaching and important. Honorable senators, whether protectionists or free-traders, ought occasionally to put side by side the two industriesconcerned, and to endeavour to make some sort of comparison of their value and importance. I appeal to honorable senators not to hamper in any way the operations of our timber-getters. At the proper time I shall move a request that axe handles be free. It may be desirable that adze handles should also be free, but from my point of view it is certainly most desirable that axe handles should be exempt.

Senator Givens:

– The honorable senator wants everything free.

Senator CLEMONS:

– I do not want to hamper any industry. By making axe handles free,we should help, instead of hamper, all our axemen.

Senator McCOLL:
Victoria

– I would ask the Committee to consider whether it is worth while further discussing the proposed request? Time is precious, and it seems to me that an increase of 5 per cent, in the duty would make no difference to the axe-handle industry. If the industry has been unable to succeed under a duty of 15 per cent., I do not think it will be successful under a duty of 20 per cent. I am inclined to believe that an increased duty in this case would add to the cost of the article. No class of men work harder than the axemen in our forests. They receive a very small remuneration, and there is nothing which provokes and delays them more than a faulty axe handle. We oughtto help them to obtain the very best tools that can be secured. In pre- Federation days, there was a duty of 25 per cent, under the Victorian, Queensland, and South Australian Tariffs, but it does not seem that it led to the establishment of the industry. That being so, is the industry likely to be established now? The fact that out of imports of axe handles valued at£28,000, £26,000 worth came in one year from America, seems to show that the class of handles supplied by the United States is superior to anything that can be obtained elsewhere. Having regard to all the circumstances, we ought to pass the duty as it stands.

Senator TRENWITH:
Victoria

– When Senator McColl was a member of the Victorian Legislative Assembly, a duty of 25 per cent, was imposed on axe handles. As a matter of fact, twelve years ago axe handles were being turned by a large woodworking firm, near Wesley Church, in Lonsdalestreet.

Senator W RUSSELL:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I have never seen an Australian axe handle.

Senator TRENWITH:

– I am sure that neither Senator W; Russell nor I could distinguish between an American axe handle and a hickory axe handle turned in Australia on exactly the same pattern, I am assured that we produce in Queensland wood possessing all the resisting power and elasticity of hickory, and that it is admirably adapted for axe handles. Senator Clemons said that the industry of making axe handles- would be very small as compared with that of- timbergetting. . He must recognise, however, that work would be found for a considerable number of men in turning all the handles used in Australia. : I do not think the proposed increase, would mean an extra tax. It would mean rather a ready supply of suitable and excellent ‘axe handles, made by Australian workmen out of Australian wood for Australian foresters and axemen generally. The immediate result would be, not that we should have to pay more, but that we should have to pay less. Senator McColl has urged that the proposed increase is so small that it would probably not make much difference to the wood-turning industry. In the same breath, however, he urged that it would be an additional handicap to the men who use axe handles. A duty of 5 per cent, is comparatively trifling, but added to 15 per cent, it makes a fairly considerable impost. I agree with Senator Clemons that 20 per cent, is not an adequate protectionist duty, but it is by no means “a revenue impost. I am positive that its first effect will be’ distinctly protectionist. While the industry is being developed here the dumper will be exercising his ingenuity to circumvent the duty, and it may, and probably will, be necessary in order to overcome his ingenuity, to still further increase the duty later on.

Senator MACFARLANE:
Tasmania

Senator Trenwith has given us one of his characteristic speeches, and has failed to adduce any argument in support of the contention that our bushmen should be compelled to pay a heavy duty on axe handles. . It is assumed that in Queensland suitable timber for axe .handles is obtainable. We have the same belief as to certain timber, grown in Tasmania, but one axeman after another has given up handles made of native woods for those imported from America, finding that the local article has either too- much- or not enough elasticity. Like all other workmen, axemen are always anxious to obtain tools of the best quality. When the first Federal

Tariff was under consideration, I moved a request that axe handles be. placed on the free list. That request was agreed to, but, subsequently, we had to compromise with another place, and a duty was imposed. If this duty be increased, timber-getters. in Queensland may be able to obtain a better price for certain woods, but the position of the consumer will not be improved, since the freight oh handles, from Queensland to the other States, will be more than 5 per cent.

Senator HENDERSON:
Western Australia

– The action of Senator Givens in proposing a request that the duty on axe handles be increased has led to my experiencing some difficulty in determining; how the item should be treated. I can say, from ‘my own knowledge, that we have in Australia a number of woods eminently suitable for handlesof almost every description. I have had to use handles, and have found it neces1sary in certain circumstances to forsake the hickory “for the myrtle or the watergum handle. At the time I was engaged in a class of work in which- the use of hickory handles is a serious menace to the hands. That may be news to some honorable senators. “Under certain conditions a hickory handle is inclined to become hotter than- either a myrtle or a watergum handle, and subsequently has a bad effect on the hands. Unlike Senator Givens, I have not had much experience in the use of axe handles, but I recognise that the desire of the axeman is to secure a handle combining the greatest durability with the minimum of weight. My experience is that when a man has a heavy handle in his axe, he might as well be using a hammer. The difficulty under which I labour is that I have not had an opportunity of determining the suitability of the timber to which Senator Givens has referred. Knowing that he intended to take this action, the honorable senator ought to have produced samples so that honorable senators might examine them for themselves.

Senator Givens:

– Then samples should be produced in connexion with every item.

Senator HENDERSON:

– This is a very peculiar item, and stands almost by itself.

Senator Lynch:

– What about giving them the benefit of the doubt?

Senator HENDERSON:

– If we. give them the benefit of the doubt, we may take a step in the dark,, and one for which, afterwards, we might be sorry. This,I repeat, is a peculiar item . Even Senator Trenwith has admitted that he does not know anything about this timber,and I admitthat previously I had not heard of it. But, knowing what is required for the handles of tools which have to be used in similar directions to those in which an axe is used,it makes me hesitate before I blindly cast a vote. I believe that Senator Givens has made a very sad mistake in not showing us that an axe handle can be pro- duced from Australian wood quite as durable and as light as is hickory. I can assure him that if he had afforded that proof, I should not have hesitated to give him as high a protective duty as he was prepared to ask for, since I am quite willing to take that coursein other matters. I wish that he could see his way either to submit such proof or to allow axe handles to stand as they are in the schedule.

Senator GRAY:
New South Wales

Senator Trenwith made a statement which, I feel sure, will convince the majority of the Committee that axe handles ought to be admitted duty free. He said that in Victoria they had a duty of 25 per cent, on these articles, and, although he was not quite certain, he believed that in this State there was some establishment in which axe handles were made.

Senator Trenwith:

– The honorable senator is wrong. I said that I was positive that axe handles were made here, becauseI saw a great number of them.

Senator GRAY:

– The honorable senator said that for many years in Victoria there had been a duty of 25 per cent. levied on axe handles. So far as we know, an industry has not been established here, and it appears to me that if we now impose this duty there is no probability that an industry will be established under the altered conditions. In my opinion, no more conclusive argument has been adduced in favour of allowing the articles to come in free than the statement made by the honorable senator.

Question - That the House of Representatives be requested to further amend item 309 by inserting after, the word “ Unattached” the words” including Adze and Axe Handles “ (Senator Givens’ request) - put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 14

NOES: 16

Majority2

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Request negatived.

Senator GIVENS:
Queensland

. -As I have not been able to get axe handles included in this item, I think that other handles ought to be granted a fair and reasonable protection. There is no reason why we cannot make all hammer, pick, hoe, and other handles of that kind out of Australian wood. A young industry of that sort deserves to receive as much projection as does any other industry, because it is a purely natural one.Therefore, I move -

That the House of Representatives be requested to make the duty on item 309 (imports under General Tariff), ad val. 30 per cent.

If that request.be carried I intend to move a request to make the preferential duty 25 per cent. . ….

Senator CLEMONS:
Tasmania

– I should like to know from one of the representatives of the Government whether they intend to accept a duty of 30 per cent, on tool handles when imported from countries other than the United Kingdom?

Senator Keating:

– No. When I was speakingjust now, I said that we should vote to retain the duty of 20 per cent.

Question put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 10

NOES: 19

Majority : . . . . . . 9

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Request negatived.

On and after 7th December, 1907 -

Item 310. Adze, Axe, Scythe, and Bentwood handles, ad val., 15 per cent.

Senator CLEMONS:
Tasmania

– I think that probably it would enable every honorable senator to vote on a clearer issue if I were to move a request tip make axe handles free, under a separate paragraph. I am quite willing, if it is so desired, to move a request for the insertion of a special paragraph in respect of each kind of handle included in the item. But I think I can safely assume that most honorable senators regard adze, scythe, and bentwood handles as practically coming in the same category, and, therefore, in their opinion, properly dutiable at the same rate. Obviously there is a clear divergence of opinion in the mind of many honorable senators in regard to the case of axe handles, and therefore I move -

That the Houseof Representatives be requested to amend item 310. by leavingout the word “Axe,” and adding the following new paragraph : - “ (b) Axe handles, free.”

That will afford an opportunity to every honorable senator to vote as he may think fit in regard to the duty on adze, scythe, and bentwood handles. I am merely assuming that the majority of honorable senators think that they ought to come in the same category, and should be dutiable at the same rate, or made free.

Question put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 13

NOES: 16

Majority … ….. 3

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Request negatived.

Senator CLEMONS:
Tasmania

. -I assume that I shall be in order at this stage in moving a request to make the duty on axe handles something less than 15 per cent. I wish to say that the result of the last division surprised me, because I found protectionists voting for a duty of 15 per cent., which they cannot consider a protective duty… I am,in the circumstances, placed in a difficult position, because, do what I will now, I must propose some kind of revenue duty on axe handles, and, while I should prefer that if there is to be any duty at all it should be less than 15 per cent., I regard it as hopeless to move a request for a lower duty, and will not, therefore, pursue the matter further.

Item agreed to.

Item 311. Doors of wood -

Sizes1¾-in. and over, each, 7s. 6d.

Sizes over1½-in. and under1¾-in, each, 5s..

Sizes1½-in. and under, each, 3s. 6d.

Senator CLEMONS:
Tasmania

– I speak from memory, but I believe I am accurate when I say that two representatives of the employes in this industry who came before the Tariff Commission, one in Melbourne and one in Adelaide, . gave it as evidence that the. labour cost involved in making certain doors is about 3s. 6d. each. In the circumstances, it is obvious that a duty of 7s. 6d. on sizes1¾ inches and over is an enormous duty.

Senator Story:

– I do not think it is high enough.

SenatorCLEMONS.- If Senator Story will, for the moment, assume that I am accurate in quoting the labour cost at 3s. 6d; each, will he then say that a duty of 7s. 6d. is not high enough? For what else are weseeking protection in this case, but to cover the extra cost of labour in the Commonwealth. I shall look up the report immediately, but if it can be proved by evidence, as I feel certain it can, that the duty proposed more than covers the whole of the labour cost involved in the manufacture of these doors, surely there is no need for further protection. I move-

That the House of Representativesbe requested to make the duty on item 311, “Doors of wood, Sizes1¾ inches and over,” each 3s. 6d.

Senator Givens:

– The duty must cover not only the labour cost of making the door, but also the duty on the wood.

Senator CLEMONS:

– If Senator Givens asks me to consider these duties as having a double-barrelled effect whilst they are fired from a single barrel, I am unable to meet the situation. I regard this duty as intended as a set-off to the labour cost of making these doors in the Commonwealth, and that is the reason I move this request. I should prefer these doors to be free,but I make the request because I expect from honorable senators some recognition of the actual labour cost involved.

Question put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 7

NOES: 23

Majority … … 16

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Request negatived.

Senator STORY:
South Australia

– I move -

That the House of Representatives be requested to make the duty on item 311, “Doors of wood, Sizes 1¾ inches and over,” each, 8s. 6d.

It has been pointed out that under the old Tariff, doormakers were scarcely able to compete against the importation of American doors. Ifind that, in 1906, when the duty on the raw material of the doormakers was lower than we have now made it, over 3,000 doors were imported. Some were imported from America, some from the United Kingdom, some from New Zealand, but most of them came from the United States. The material of which doors are made was cheaper under the old Tariff than it will be under this, and it is a perfectly fair thing, having increased the duty on the raw material of the doormakers, to give a slightly increased duty on the finished article.

Senator KEATING:
Minister of Home Affairs · Tasmania · Protectionist

– Although a considerable amount of evidence was taken by the Tariff Commission on this subject, the protectionist section did not see their way to recommend an increased duty. The duty under the 1902 Tariff was 7s. 6d. The Commission recommended that duty, and it is the amount now submitted to the Committee. There is no disturbance of pre-existing conditions. If there were a necessity for an increased duty, the protectionist section, having heard the evidence, would have made a recommendation. I hope, therefore, that the honorable senator’s request will not be carried.

Senator CLEMONS:
Tasmania

– I think I can give good reasons why Senator Story’s request should not be carried. I shall quote from the report of the protectionist section of the Tariff Commission . It says -

It was stated that in South Australia it cost about 9s. to make a door out of door stock, by hand labour. The cost ofmachinery is about 1s. a door in quantities. It takes a man eight hours to make a door by hand, at a cost of 9s. ; on the other hand, by milling, the labour on the machine is1s., and the cost of joining and finishing off is 2s. 6d., or a total of 3s. 6d. for labour. A Victorian witness said that the cost of making the smallest door,1½ inch and under, by milling, is nearer 2s. 6d. than. 3s. 6d. Another Victorian witness took exception to the statement that the making of 500 doors per week would employ 100 men. His firm can make 500 doors per week with twenty-six men with machinery, Door-making by hand does not pay at 10s. each. In Queensland it was stated that, taking the ordinary common door generally used for inside purposes, the machine labour cost is between 3s. and 4s. The value of labour is from 2s. to 2s. 6d., in putting together, finishing, moulding, &c, common doors; but with other doors runs up from 10s. to 12s..

That passage bears out what I said just now that the labour cost in the item we are now considering is roughly and approximately covered by 3s. 6d. Yet we are asked to increase the duty of 7s. 6d. to 8s. 6d. I sincerely hope that the Committee will not agree to it.

Senator PULSFORD:
New South Wales

.- Under the Tariff Treaty with South Africa, doors may be allowed to come in at a duty of 7s. 6d., less 25 per cent. That is to say, they may be ad- mitted at a duty of 5s. 3d. It seems rather ridiculous, therefore, to talk of making an advance on the duty of 7s. 6d. I should like honorable senators to bear in mind how small an amount of wood goes into the making of a single door. I suppose that about 20 feet would make a door. So that on the basis of100 feet we have a duty of about 37s. 6d. per 100. From whatever point of view honorable senators look at the matter, they will find that a duty of 7s. 6d. is really very extravagant. I should imagine that, taking the entire cost of a door into account, probably one of this class would be made in America for about 7s. 6d., so that the duty is really about 100 per cent.

Request negatived.

Item agreed to.

Item 312. Photograph Frames and Stands for Pictures, Picture Frames (on pictures or otherwise), ad val., 35 per cent.

Senator CLEMONS:
Tasmania

– I should like the Minister to assure the Committee that this item deals only with wooden frames. We may, I think, assume that it refers only to photograph frames made entirely of wood.

Senator KEATING:
Minister of Home Affairs · Tasmania · Protectionist

– The item is intended to deal with wooden frames, and I understand that there is a provision regarding the headings of divisions in the Tariff that those headings arenot necessarily read with the items under them. If however, it is desired to make the point absolutely certain, I have no objection to the words “woodenor of wood” being inserted.

Senator Clemons:

– It would be better.

Senator KEATING:

– I move-

That the House of Representatives be requested to amend item 312 by inserting after the word “ otherwise” the words “of wood.”

Request agreed to.

Senator CLEMONS:
Tasmania

– I move -

That the House of Representatives be requested to make the duty on item 312, ad. val., 20 per cent.

I confess that I should like to make the item free. I see no earthly reason for taxing photograph frames. I shall not move to that effect, because. I do not think that it is practical. But I shall move that the duty be no more than it was under the old Tariff. A duty of 35 per cent, is far too heavy for a revenue duty. I see.no reason for an increase beyond 20 per cent. We have agreed to protectionist items in the Tariff on which duties of 20 per cent, have been accepted. We agreed to a duty of 15 per cent, on handles, which it has been asserted all round are made in Australia.

Question put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 12

NOES: 17

Majority … 5

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Request negatived.

Item 313 (Lasts and Trees) and item 314 (Buggy Shafts, bent but not dressed) agreed to.

Item 315. Buggy Shafts, bent and dressed, per pair (General Tariff), 3s. 6d. ; and on and after 7th. December, 1907, ad val., 30 per cent; (United Kingdom), 3s. 6d. ; and on and. after 7th December, 1907, ad val., 25 per cent.

Senator GIVENS:
Queensland

– I propose to ask the Committee to make the duty under the, general Tariff 35 per cent.

Senator Findley:

– Make it 3s. 6d. per pair as originally proposed.

Senator GIVENS:

– As the schedule now stands, the duty is exactly the same on buggy shafts bent and dressed as on buggy shafts not dressed. That should not be. I move -

That the House of Representatives be requested to make the duty on item 315 (imports under General Tariff), per pair, 3s. 6d.

Question put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 8

NOES: 22

Majority … … 14

Item 316. Shafts, n.e.i., in the rough, per pair (General Tariff), 3s. ; and on and after 7th December,1907, ad val., 30 per cent. ; (United Kingdom), . 3s. ; and on and after 7th December, 1907, ad val.. 25 per cent.

AYES

NOES

Senator MILLEN:
New South Wales

– It is proposed in this item to make dutiable at 30 per cent, an article which was originally free. That is not only a very alarming increase, but it makes shafts in the rough dutiable at the same rate as those which are bent and dressed. Even from the protectionist stand-point, there ought to be a difference between the two. It was argued yesterday, in the case of timber, that where much labour has been spent on an article, the duty should be increased, and where less labour has been put into it the duty should come down. But here there is the same duty on shafts which are ready to fit in with the cross-bars as on shafts in the rough. The latter might come in at a very nominal figure.

Senator Lynch:

– Why should they come in at all? .

Senator MILLEN:

– I might well have asked the honorable senator that question when we were dealing with certain mining items. My inclination is that these articles should come in at as low. a rate of duty as possible, or even free. But, as I am anxious to expedite matters, and with a view of focussing the attention of the Committee upon what I regard as a quite sufficient duty, I move -

That the Houseof Representatives be requested to make the duty on item 316 (imports under General Tariff), ad val., 15 per cent., with a view tomoving for a rate of 10 per cent, on imports from the United Kingdom.

Senator KEATING:
TasmaniaMinister of Home Affairs · Protectionist

-It is perfectly true that under the old Tariff this item was free, but the Tariff Commission recommended a specific duty of 3s. per pair. The Government proposed that rate to another place. At the same time, the Government recognised that there should be a distinction between “Shafts, n.e.i., in the rough,” and the next item, “ Shafts, n.e.i., dressed,.” and therefore proposed a duty, of 4s. per pair on the latter. However, what Senator Millen wouldbe pleased to term a compact was agreed to in another place, by which ad valorem duties were substituted for the specific duties on items 314 to 321 inclusive. It must be remembered that the value of shafts, n.e.i., dressed is greater than the value of shafts, n.e.i., in the rough, and that 30 per cent, on the latter would not return as much in the way, of actual revenue as would 30 per cent, on the former. If a specific duty were proposed, there would undoubtedly be a necessity for discrimination, but an ad valorem dutydoes not mean the same amount upon the one as upon the other. Seeing that these rates were agreed to on the voices in another place, I hope Senator Millen will not press his request.

Senator MILLEN:
New South Wales

– The Minister’s argument about ad valorem rates would apply to every item in the Tariff which is the raw material of some other item. Even protectionists ought to support the discrimination which I propose, because if it is desirable-as we all admit - to increase labour inthe Commonwealth by means of the Tariff, everything should be done to encourage the introduction of material with as little labour done on it as possible. The Minister’s argument might have been applied with equal force to saddletrees last night, but he did not urge it on that occasion. ‘ The matter is not worth arguing about, because it has been a principle generally accepted by protectionists, free-traders, and even revenue tariffists, that an article which is a raw material shouldbe subjected to a lighter duty than the finished article.

Senator Lynch:

-Yet the honorable senator voted against Senator Givens’ proposal to increase the duty on thefinished article in theprevious item.

Senator MILLEN:

– Because I regarded the proposal as too high. Having determinedon a duty of 30 per . cent, on the finished article, is the Committee prepared to fix the same duty on the article in the rough?

Senator FINDLEY:

-The Minister says that there was a compact. The honorable senator approved the other day of adhering to compacts.

Senator MILLEN:

– Whilst a compact of that kind may bind a Cabinet, which is solid, it cannot bind me.

Question put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 12

NOES: 14

Majority … … 2

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Request negatived.

Sitting suspended from 1 to 2.15 p.m.

Item agreed to.

Item 317 (Shafts, n.e.i., dressed) agreed to.

Item 318. Bent Poles, rough, each (General Tariff), 2s. 6d. ; and on and after 7th December, 1907, ad val., 30 per cent. ;(United Kingdom), 2s. 6d. ; and on and after 7th December, 1907, ad val., 25 per cent.

Senator KEATING:
Minister of Home Affairs · Tasmania · Protectionist

– I rise to ask the Committee to request the other House to alter the wording of this item so as to make it applicable toall poles, as there is some difficulty in distinguishing between bent poles and ordinary poles for vehicles. I move -

That the House of Representatives be requested to amend item 318 by leaving out the word “Bent ““and inserting after the word “ Poles” the words “for Vehicles.”

If that be carried I intend to ask the Committee torequest a similar amendment in the next item.

Request agreed to.

Senator McCOLL:
Victoria

– There is the same anomaly in this item as appears in item 316. It is not fair that the rough article should bear the same rate of duty as thedressed article, but in view of the division which was taken before lunch, I do not propose to do more than to enter a protest against it.

Item 319. Bent Poles, dressed, each (General Tariff), 3s. 6d. ; and on and after 7th December, 1907, ad val., 30 per cent. ; (United Kingdom), 3s. 6d. ; and on and after 7th December, 1907, ad val., 25 per cent.

Request (by . Senator Keating) agreed to-

That the House of Representatives be requested to amend item 319 by leaving out the word “Bent” and inserting after the word “Poles” the words “for Vehicles.”

Item 320 (Whiffle-tree Bars) agreed to.

Item 321. Shaft Bars, per dozen (General Tariff), 4s. 6d. ; and on and after 7th December, 1907, ad val., 30 per cent. ; (United Kingdom), 4s. 6d. 5 and on and after 7th December, 1907, ad val., 25 per cent.

Senator PULSFORD:
New South Wales

– Before the Committee pass this item, which is the last of eight similar items, I desire tostate that silence on my part with regard to them is not to be accepted as any approval of the duties. I have simply remained silent, as I did not wish to waste the time of the Committee. I regard the whole of these duties as extremely excessive. In my opinion, this item and the seven previous ones should be placed on the free list.

Request (by Senator Stewart) put -

That the House of Representatives be requested to make the duty on item 321 (imports under General Tariff), ad val., 35 per cent.

The Committee divided.

AYES: 10

NOES: 16

Majority … … 6

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Request negatived.

Item agreed to.

Item 322. . . . And on and after 7th December, 1907 -

Casks, Barrels, and Vats, n.e.i.,. empty, ad val.(General Tariff), 35 per cent,; (United Kingdom), 30 per cent.

Senator DE LARGIE:
Western Australia

– With a view to restoring the original proposal,I move -

That the House of Representatives be requested to amend item 322 by inserting after the letters “n.e.i.” the words “ full or.”

Many barrels which have been emptied in the canteens of ‘ India, and afterwards packed with Indian goods, have been imported into Western Australia without paying any duty. There is a very good reason why we should levy a duty on a barrel whether it contains commodities or not. We know that many tanks have been brought into theCommonwealth duty free. When it is mentioned that our coopers have to meet competition of the sort I have described, honorable senators will admit, I think, that it is quite unnecessary for me to point out the advisability of levying a duty on barrels which are brought in with com- modities for no other purpose than to escape taxation.

Senator Gray:

– What commodities do the barrels contain?

Senator DE LARGIE:

– A variety of commodities can be, and is, brought into the Commonwealth in barrels. This schedule should not be framed in such a way that Australian workmen can be displaced by the introduction of such articles. As there is a general desire to get on with the business as rapidly as possible I content myself with offering these few remarks in support of the request.

Senator KEATING:
Minister of Home Affairs · Tasmania · Protectionist

– It is obvious that the words “ full or “ appeared in the body of the proposal as it was originally submitted elsewhere. The Treasurer moved to amend the wording by the addition of some such words as ‘ ‘ intended to contain liquid,” so as to make that item read -

Casks, Barrels, and Vats, n.e.i., intended to contain liquids, empty or containing goods not subject to ad valorem duty.

That would have covered practically all casks, barrels, or vats, n.e.i., full or empty, and intended to contain liquids. After some time my honorable colleague withdrew his amendment, and announced that he intended that the Department should follow its previous policy, and charge no duty on casks, barrels, and vats when imported full. He also indicated the same thing in regard to “hogsheads, secondhand, “ full or empty,” and stated that he intended his colleague to ask the Committee, in another place, to put a high duty on the secondhand casks; barrels, and vats, and empty hogsheads, which were coming in. In the circumstances I regret that . I cannot see my way to support the request of Senator de Largie.

Question put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 13

NOES: 14

Majority … … 1

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Request negatived.

Senator LYNCH:
Western Australia

– I move-

That the House of Representatives be requested to amend item 322 by inserting after the word “ empty “. the words “ or except containing liquid. “

Senator Macfarlane:

-We have just carried a division against that.

Senator LYNCH:

– I remind the honorable senator that a cask might be imported full of solids. My object is to shut down hard on those who import casks filled with dry goods of various descriptions in order to escape duty under this item. The sworn evidence before the Tariff Commission shows that the coopering industry, if not almost extinct, is waning in Australia. There are no apprentices now being engaged in the industry.

Senator Sir Josiah Symon:

– That is not so at all.

Senator LYNCH:

– Then some of the witnesses before the Tariff Commission should be prosecuted for perjury. They certainly gave evidence to show that the industry is waning, and one of the principal reasons advanced in support of their contention was that importers of casks take advantage of the Customs Act to escape the duty under this item. I am sure it is not the desire of honorable senators to permit any one, by means of a subterfuge, to evade the Customs Act.

Senator Macfarlane:

– I should like, sir, to ask your ruling as to whether Senator Lynch’s request can be received. In my opinion, the Committee has already decided against it by the last division taken.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The previous request was for the insertion of the words “ full or.” Casks might be full of solids or of liquid. It appears to me that Senator Lynch’s proposed request is a modification of the previous request, and does not go so far as was proposed in that case. It is possible that the Committee might have no objection to the free importation of casks containing liquid, whilst honorable senators might object to the free importation of casks containing solids. I think that the request can be received.

Senator LYNCH:

– I may inform the Committee that brewers, in need of casks, instead of importing them and paying duty . on them, import goods packed in casks, and so evade the, payment of duty on the casks.

Senator Sir Josiah Symon:

– What goods ?

Senator LYNCH:

– Hops, amongst other goods. My request, if agreed to, would work no hardship on any person who is prepared to deal honestly by the coopering industry of this country.

Senator Sir Josiah Symon:

– Can the honorable senator produce any evidence that casks, required by brewers, are imported as packages for dry goods?

Senator LYNCH:

– I have given an example, and the honorable senator will admit that, if brewers wish to import hops, they can import them in tanks. I say that whenthey use casks for the purpose of. importing hops they do so to evade the duty on the casks. The natural purpose of a cask is to hold liquid, and when casks are used to import dry goods which could be imported in cases or in tanks the allegation that the Customs Tariff is evaded is proved.

Senator Givens:

– If casks are not imported filled with dry goods, why do honorable senators opposite object to the request ?

Senator Sir Josiah Symon:

– What is the request?

Senator LYNCH:

– To insert, after the word “empty,” the words “orexcept containing liquid.”

Senator Sir Josiah Symon:

– That is a very awkward way of putting it.

Senator LYNCH:

– I think it makes my intention clear.

Senator Pulsford:

– Barrels, containing cement, would have to pay duty under the honorablesenator’srequest.

Senator LYNCH:

– Decidedly.

The CHAIRMAN:

– I point out to the honorable senator that casks containing liquid are already exempt from duty under the item.

Senator LYNCH:

– My purpose is to differentiate between casks containing solids and casks containing liquid.

The CHAIRMAN:

– I think it will be necessary for the honorable senator to mention the goods which, if imported in casks, should, in his opinion, render the casks liable to duty. As under this item casks containing liquid are already free, the insertion of the words “ except containing liquid,” in the way proposed, would, in my opinion, be a duplication.

Senator KEATING (Tasmania- Minister of Home Affairs [2.45] - What Senator Lynch desires to establish is that persons shall not, under the guise of importing certain goods, put them into casks, and so escapethe duty on casks, barrels, or vats. If we could word the item so as to say that casks containing liquid shall be free, and all other casks or casks with contents other than liquid dutiable, it would achieve Senator Lynch’s object. But it would certainly go further than I think is justifiable, because casks, barrels, and vats are frequently used as the containers or outside packages of other articles than liquids. For instance, cement is imported in casks. In Canada, with which country our trade has increased inrecent years, barrels are commonly used forthe transport of apples. Fish and thick ink are also imported in casks. The object and policy of the Tariff is so to arrange the list of articles that no opportunity shall be given to persons, by such devices as have been referred to’ by Senator Lynch; to get in any article at a lower rate of duty than that properly chargeable on it. Under item 450, outside packages n.e.i., including the sole containing package in which the goods are prdinarily imported, are made free. Those words, “ in which the goods are ordinarily imported,” meet Senator Lynch’s poin’t. If casks are imported with contents which are ordinarily imported in casks they come in free. If they contain something else, they are dutiable, and the Customs will tw.sk them as dutiable. So that if a cask or a barrel came in filled with shavings or stationery, or something else that is not ordinarily imported in a cask, it would be an independent article, not a package, and would be subject to duty. Under these circumstances there is hardly any necessity for Senator Lynch to move a request.

Item agreed to.

Senator GIVENS:
Queensland

. - -I desire to have a correction made in a division list recorded in the Journals issued this morning. I find that my name is not recorded as having voted in a division on Senator Lynch’s request with which we dealt last night. Hansard records me as having- been present, and as voting. As a matter of fact, I was present and took part in the division. 1 was sitting at the ‘table. I think it only right that my name should be inserted in the division list, and that a correction should be made in the Journals.

The CHAIRMAN:

– I understand that the facts are as stated bv Senator Givens. The honorable senator was not observed by the teller. I will ask the Clerk to make the necessary correction in the Journals. According to the strict interpretation of ‘the Standing Orders, when a division takes place, honorable senators should take their places on one side of the chamber or the other. The “places” referred to in the Standing Orders are, I think, tha benches, not seats at the table or the writing desks. It is not difficult! for a teller - especially in the case of some honorable senators - to fail to notice a senator who may be seated at the table or at. one of the writing desks. If during divisions honorable senators would ‘take their seats on either side of the chamber . the tellers would see them.

Item 323. . . . And on and after 7th December, 19.07-

Hogsheads, secondhand, empty, ad val. (imports under General Tariff), 35 per cent. ; (imports from the United Kingdom), 30 per cent.

Senator FINDLEY:
Victoria

.- I move -

That the House of Representatives be requested to make the duty on item 323, each, 12s.

The Tariff Commission recommended a duty of 12s. on hogsherads, and as the schedule was introduced in another place, that also was the proposition of the Government. There are very strong reasons why there should be a fixed duty in respect of hogsheads secondhand empty. I have definite information that these hogsheads can be obtained in Calcutta for 6s. each, and when broken up into shooks, for 6s. 6d. That is not an idle statement. It is confirmed by a perusal of a circular issued by Calcutta agents to persons’ in Melbourne, stating their ability to supply an unlimited quantity of hogsheads in shooks at the prices I have mentioned. For many purposes, I am informed hogsheads and shooks, after having been once used, are better than they would be if absolutely new. There is no doubt whatever that injury is being done to the coopering trade by the excessive importation of hogsheads from India. Evidence was given before the Tariff Commission by various men engaged in the coopering trade, to the effect that in Victoria, for a long time, the business had been in a very depressed state. Mr. Robert Lynch, Secretary of the Victorian .Society of Coopers, said that there were from 150 to 200 coopers in Victoria, the average number of employes being not more than three at each cooperage. For years, he said, there had been no apprenticeship, whereas formerly there was at least one apprentice at each cooperage. He pointed out that fifty men were engaged in Melbourne and suburbs in repairing old casks. The brewers do not use. 5 per cent, of locally-made casks. Of course, coopers are employed in the breweries, but there are not so. many as there were a few years ago, owing to the fact that the breweries are importing secondhand hogsheads from India. Mr. Lynch also stated that the effect of the Commonwealth Tariff had been almost to crush the coopering industry. When my honorable friend, Senator Lynch, submitted his request a few moments ago, with a view of having a duty imposed upon casks and barrels filled with other than liquids, certain honorable senators opposite asked him to state what was placed inside these barrels. According to the evidence given before the Tariff Commission, casks are imported containing seeds, sausage skins, colour, sugar, glucose, vinegar, and many other things. It was pointed out before the Tariff Commission that between 1,500 and 2,000 beer casks, and 2,000 oil casks, and 10,000 spirit casks come into the Commonwealth every year. Another witness, Mr. J. T. O’Brien, stated that 15,000 secondhand casks arrive in Victoria every year. Whatever may be the opinions of honorable senators with regard to my request, I hope they will remedy the anomaly which exists in the schedule at present. The item before us proposes a ‘ duty of 35 per cent.. But under item 324, barrels, secondhand, are’ made dutiable at 5s. each. Another place agreed to a duty of 5s. on every barrel imported in the form of shooks. To assemble a barrel from shooks, 3s. worth of labour is employed. So that it is proposed to charge a duty of 5s. on a barrel imported in shook form, whilst the duty on a complete hogshead is to be 35 per cent, ad valorem. As there is indisputable evidence that a hogshead can be purchased at Calcutta for 6s., a 35 per cent, duty on that would amount to 2s.

Senator Gray:

– What amount of labour has to be expended on the hogshead when it comes here?

Senator FINDLEY:

– No labour on the complete hogshead.

Senator Gray:

– Oh, yes.

Senator FINDLEY:

– At any rate, a hogshead is purchasable at 6s., and the duty would be 2s., making the cost of the complete hogshead coming to Australia 8s., duty paid ; whereas in connexion with shooks, which certainly do provide labour, there is a fixed duty of 5s. That is an anomaly. There should at least be the same duty on the complete hogshead as upon the shook. Shooks are bundles of staves, and involve labour in turning them into hogsheads. Whether the duty on them is too high or too low, the anomaly is apparent. As these casks are obtainable at Calcutta at 6s. each, it will be a matter of impossibility, unless there is a high duty on them, for the coopering trade to prosper. I am credibly informed that it would cost at least 25s. to make a hogs- head in Great Britain, where the labour is not so well- paid as in Australia.. Yet secondhand ones are introduced into Australia at about 6s. each. Whatever the Committee decides with regard to the fixed duty of 1 2s. , which I now propose, I trust that they will recognise the undoubted anomaly that exists, and at least place the same rate of duty on the complete hogsheads as on shooks. I want the higher duty of 12s. on secondhand hogsheads, with a view to getting a duty of 10s. on the shooks, bofh of those rates being recommended by the Tariff Commission. If they are agreed to, the coopering trade will be given the protection to which it is entitled, and no injury will be done to any one in the Commonwealth.

Senator KEATING:
Minister of Home Affairs · Tasmania · Protectionist

.- The Tariff Commission did recommend a duty of 12s. each on this item, and that rate was proposed by the Government in the first instance, but they substituted for it the rates of 35 and 30 per cent., which now appear in the schedule. It is stated on page 374 of the report of the protectionist section of the Tariff Commission, that -

The following fixed duties were recommended by a conference of delegates from the Victorian Society of Coopers and the Master Coopers Association -

Beer hogsheads, new (value), 25s. ; (duty), 8s. 6d.

That works out at 34 per cent. We propose 35 per cent.

Senator Findley:

– The secondhand hogsheads are invoiced at 6s. each.

Senator Chataway:

– Then the honorable senator wants a duty of 200 per cent. ?

Senator Findley:

– I want to prohibit their importation.

Senator KEATING:

– None of the prices given on that page of the report refers to secondhand casks. I suppose their value varies considerably. . We must adhere to the rates in the schedule, which were submitted by the Government in another place” in substitution for the rate originally proposed.

Senator FINDLEY (Victoria)’ [.6I* should like an explanation from the Minister of the anomaly which I have pointed out. A duty of 35 per cent, on a 6s. hogshead amounts to about 2s. I have here a copy of a circular sent to Melbourne, firms offering to supply secondhand hopsheads at 6s. each. If the Government cannot agree to my request, surely, for the sake of uniformity and consistency, they- will agree to fix the same rate on the whole hogshead as on shooks.

Senator Keating:

– No.

Senator FINDLEY:

– Then these duties are farcical.

Senator GRAY:
New South Wales

Senator Findley falls into the error of assuming that no work is necessary on secondhand hogsheads when imported. As a matter of fact, the extra expense in putting them in order, in regard to shrinkage, &c, averages at least from 2s. to 2s. 6d. each. I acknowledge that the duty on shooks is out of proportion to this one. It is absolutely outrageous, and ought to be considerably reduced. Honorable senators opposite do not appear to realize the value even of empties to many Australian industries. I know one Australian firm whose works have been closed because they could not get barrels and small casks at a value that would enable them to continue the manufacture of oils.

Senator Trenwith:

– Hogsheads are not small casks.

Senator GRAY:

– No, but a half-ton tallow cask does not cost above 15s., and even that is 2s. or 3s. higher than the price a few years ago. To state that a hogshead is worth 25s. is to give it the highest Australian value for a new hogshead.

Question - That the House of Representatives be requested to make the duty on item 323, “ Hogsheads, secondhand, empty “ (imports under General Tariff), each12s. (Senator Findley’ s request) - put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 11

NOES: 16

Majority … … 5

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Request negatived.

Senator FINDLEY:
Victoria

.- I move -

That the House of Representatives be requested to make the duty on item 323 (imports under General Tariff), each, 5s.

That will remove the anomaly which I have pointed out by making the duty on the complete hogshead the same as on the shook.

Question put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 13

NOES: 15

Majority … … 2

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Request negatived.

Item agreed to.

Item 324 (Shooks) agreed to.

Item 325. Buckets and Tubs, -wooden, ad val. (General Tariff), 45 per cent. ; and on and after 7th December, 1907, 30 . per cent. ; (United Kingdom), 35 per cent. ; and on and after 7th December, 1907, 25 per cent.

Senator MILLEN:
New South Wales

– According to the return, which in this instance I have some reason to think is correct, under the old Tariff buckets were free, and tubs dutiable at 20 per cent. It is now proposed by the Government to take buckets from the free list, and make them dutiable at 30 and 25 per cent., which, I submit, is a fairly substantial increase. The duty on tubs has been increased by 50 per cent.

Senator Givens:

– The free-trade section of the Tariff Commission recommended a duty of 20 per cent, on buckets and tubs.

Senator MILLEN:

– That in itself ought to show my honorable friend how wrong it is to impose a duty of 30 per cent. Is it of any use to levy a protectionist duty on articles which are not likely to be made here ?

Senator Pulsford:

– Are there any made here ?

Senator MILLEN:

– There was some reason for. leaving buckets on the free list six years ago. I think that it was done because ‘“they were not being made here then. : Senator W. Russell. - They were made here twenty years ago.

Senator MILLEN:

– Unfortunately the Senate did not have the advantage of the honorable senator’s presence six. years ago. This, is not a mere question of increasing a duty by 5 or 10 per cent., but a question of removing an article from the free list and subjecting, it to a very heavy duty. I ask ‘ the Minister whether there is any particular reason for taking this departure, or. whether buckets have been included in this item, because, ordinarily speaking, buckets and tubs are grouped together, placed- on the same shelf, and sold by the same storekeeper? If that is the only reason he can assign I invite the Committee to make buckets free again.

Senator KEATING:
Minister of Home Affairs · Tasmania · Protectionist

– It is true that under the old Tariff there was no duty on buckets ; but the protectionist section of the Tariff Commission recommended that a duty of 35 per cent, should be imposed on both buckets and tubs. The Government proposal was to levy a duty of 45 per cent, under the general Tariff and 35 per cent, under the preferential Tariff. I understand that evidence was tendered to the Tariff Commission in regard to the price at which buckets could be made here and the price at which they could be imported. If my memory serves me correctly it was pointed out then that buckets imported for the purpose of holding raspberries could be sold here at is., whereas the cost of making similar buckets locally was over 2s. It was also mentioned I think by the witness that buckets of that character and fern and other tubs could be made in the Commonwealth, and if _ made would give’ a considerable amount of light employment, particularly to older workers. These reasons, amongst others, I suppose influenced the protectionist members of the Tariff Commission in making the recommendation which they did, and the Government in submitting their proposals.

Senator CLEMONS:
Tasmania

– I move - .

That the House of Representatives be requested to amend item 325 by leaving out the words “Buckets and” and inserting the following new paragraph : - “ B. Buckets, free.”

The Tariff Commission took evidence from one witness only, and he said very little indeed about buckets. Practically his evidence was based more or less on hearsay. Dealing with buckets he said - .

I am told on very good authority that one firm alone could employ ten coopers making casks, &c.

He slightly touched on various buckets that we might be using,’ and admitted -

They wanted a duty so that the old men in the trade might, if possible, have these fern tubs to make.

He went on to say -

Raspberry tubs can be bought in Melbourne for is. They can be made here for 2s. 6d. Still, we want a duty to bring them up to what we can make them for.

Senator Millen:

– He was very candid.

Senator CLEMONS:

– I. am just beginning to remember the statement which he made. He was very candid. He objected to buckets being sold at is., and wanted them to be sold at over 2s. 6d. Of course, if the Committee think that buckets ought to be sold at over 2s. 6d., and should hot be sold at is., in order to help other industries, as they do to a certain extent, it can vote for the retention of the duty. The witness stated in most clear and unqualified terms that if we put on a heavy duty the price would undoubtedly be more than doubled.

Senator Millen:

– The purport of the evidence taken on this question was- to show that nothing less than a specific duty of is. 6d. per bucket would be any good to the coopers.

Senator CLEMONS:

– Undoubtedly his evidence was that in Melbourne they could not make buckets at- less than 2s. 6d., and that they were sold here at is. He wanted the duty to be raised so that some of the coopers could make buckets. Of course the old argument immediately recurs that it would be infinitely - cheaper to the Commonwealth to pay all those persons an annual subsidy for doing nothing in order to allow the public generally to get their buckets at a reasonable price.

Question put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 12

NOES: 16

Majority … … 4

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Request negatived.

Item agreed to.

Division XI. Jewellery and Fancy Goods -

Item 326. Fancy Goods; including Card Cases; Snuff and Match Boxes; Purses n.e.i.; Wallets ; Thimbles ; Serviette Rings ; Button Hooks; Shoe-horns and Lifts; Glove Stretchers; Toys other than dolls undressed; Ivory and other ornamental figures; Feather Dusters; Paper Parasols; Articles used for outdoor and indoor games; Fishing Appliances n.e.i.; and Articles n.e.i., used for ornamental purposes, Or partly for use and partly for ornament, including fancy, ground, and cut glass bottles of over 5 drams of fluid capacity, containing goods not subject to ad valorem duty, and stoppers for such bottles, ad val. (General Tariff), 35 per cent. ; and on and after 7th December, 1907, 30 per cent. ; (United Kingdom), 25 per cent.

Senator CLEMONS:
Tasmania

– I suppose it will not be disputed . that the duties on this item are revenue duties. I am unable to see how the element of protection can be introduced into it. I venture to say that 99 per cent, of the articles which it embraces are articles which we are not making in Australia and do not wish to make here, as our work-people might be better employed. Senator Findley may contend that there are hundreds of hands in Melbourne employed in makingpaper parasols, thimbles, shoe-horns, buttons, or serviette rings, but, speaking comprehensively of the item, the duties attached to it are revenue duties, and I see no reason for them. I therefore move -

That the House of Representatives be requested to make item 326 free.

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

. I do not pretend to deny that some of the articles included in this comprehensive item are not made in the. Commonwealth, but it should not be forgotten that a very great many, such as footballs, rubber balls, cricket bats, cricketing gloves, guards, and nets, requisites for croquet, lawn, and table games, purses, serviette rings, toys, and various kinds of ornamental jewellery, are made in the Commonwealth. Even from the revenue aspect I hope that honorable senators will not forget that whilst the revenue looked very rosy in the earlier part of the year–

Senator Findley:

– The Minister should not refer to that or he will lose some votes.

Senator BEST:

– Very well,I shall content myself with pointing out’ that the item does really embrace a large number of articles which are manufactured here, and I therefore hope that honorable senators will see their way to maintain the duties proposed.

Senator CLEMONS:
Tasmania

– In order to show what the item really represents, I remind honorable senators that under it taxation is levied on the people to the extent of , £55,000. Speaking generally, these are purely revenue duties, and I hope honorable senators will vote on that understanding.

Senator Best:

– I hope they will not.

Question put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 10

NOES: 17

Majority … ….7

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Request negatived.

Senator CLEMONS:
Tasmania

– Whilst I am sorry that I could not carry a request to make the item free because it represents purely a revenue duty, I hope to be able to find the level beyond which revenue tariffists in the Committee will not go. I cannot believe that they are willing to impose a revenue duty of 35 per cent., which amounts to nearly 4s. in the £.

Senator Findley:

– Some honorable senators are placed in a difficulty because many of the articles embraced in the item are made in Australia.

Senator CLEMONS:

– I cannot believe that any honorable senator desires to tax the articles embraced in this item to the extent of 4s. in the £. In the hope of discovering that a majority of honorable senators take what I hold to be a reasonable view of taxation, I move -

That the House of Representatives be requested to make the duty on item 326 (imports under the General Tariff), 10 per cent.

Question put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 10

NOES: 18

Majority … … 8

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Request negatived.

Senator CHATAWAY:
Queensland

– I propose to move that the duty on importsunder the general Tariff shall be 20 per cent, the same as that levied under the old Tariff.

Senator Best:

– I suggest to the honorable senator that he should move a request for a duty of 25 per cent, under the general Tariff with a view to the imposition of a duty of 20 per cent, on imports from the United Kingdom.

Senator Findley:

– Why suggest to the honorable senator any reduction of the duty ?

Senator CHATAWAY:

– I accept the suggestion of the Vice-President of the Executive Council, and with a view to subsequently proposing that the duty on imports from the United Kingdom be 20 per cent. I move -

That the House of Representatives be requested to make the duty on item 326 (imports under the General Tariff), 25 per cent.

Senator CLEMONS:
Tasmania

– - I merely wish to state a reason why I shall vote in this instance as I have never previously voted in this Chamber. In the first place, I do not approve of this bargaining ; and secondly, I do not approve of putting up a duty in the first column in order to put it down in the second. While I shall vote for a duty of 25 per cent., I shall not support any attempt to lower the preference duty.

Senator GIVENS:
Queensland

– -I shall vote against the reduction proposed by Senator Chataway, because I am in favour of a duty that will be protective or of removing burdens altogether from the shoulders of the people. I do not want to have a revenue Tariff as do the alleged free-traders opposite. Such a Tariff would accomplish nothing but to take money out of the pockets of the taxpayers. When I cannot get an item free, I shall vote for the highest duty I can secure, so as to preserve the protective incidence.

Senator W RUSSELL:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– My course all through has been to support duties as they stand in the schedule. Never have I voted for an increase. I am not going to vote for a reduction of duty now.

Question put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 16

NOES: 12

Majority … … 4

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Request agreed to.

Request (by Senator Chataway) proposed -

That the House of Representatives be requested to make the duty on item 326 (imports from the United Kingdom), ad val., 20 per cent.

Senator FINDLEY:
Victoria

– I hope that the Committee will not agree to a preference duty of 20 per cent. I, and other honorable senators, supported the Government in regard to the duty in the first column. ‘ It does seem an extraordinary thing now, however, that the Government should run away from their own Tariff. It is admitted that 20 and 25 per cent, are purely revenue duties. Duties of 30 and 25 per cent, would be in a measure protective. Here we have an opportunity of giving effective protection to industries that arenot well established, but give every indication of being established early in some parts of the Commonwealth. But the Government run away from a protectiveproposal which they could have carried without any difficulty, and start to bargain with the Opposition who, from the very day when the Tariff was introduced, have vigorously and tenaciously voted against protective principles. I feel very strongly in regard to this matter. Honorable senators opposite profess to desire that these goods shall be admitted free, in the belief that they cannot be made in the Commonwealth.

But a revenue duty is neither one thing nor theother.

Senator Millen:

– Does not the honorable senator call 20 per cent, a protective duty?

Senator FINDLEY:

– It is not effectively protective. Times out of number we have been told by honorable senators opposite that 20 per cent, is merely a revenue duty. The Government are now trying to placate honorable senators who have been doing . all they can to break down the protective principle of the Tariff. Is there anything unreasonable in aduty of 30 per cent?

Senator Lynch:

– But the honorable senator is trying to protect industries that do not exist.

Senator FINDLEY:

– Cannot we make a card-case, a match-box, a purse, or a wallet in this country?

Senator Millen:

– Do we make thimbles here?

Senator FINDLEY:

– I am not certain about that. We can make serviette rings, button-hooks, shoe-horns, glove-stretchers, and many of the other articles enumerated in the item.

Senator Millen:

– Is not a duty of 4s. in the£1 enough?

Senator FINDLEY:

– It is not a protective duty. I regret very much indeed that the Government do not stand by their own proposals, which they could have carried without any difficulty.

Senator GIVENS:
Queensland

– I desire to congratulate this protectionist Government on their adhesion to revenue Tariff principles. I was in favour of wiping out the item altogether, because I did not want to have revenue duties in this Tariff. But when the Government themselves, to suit their own purposes, propose a protective duty, and then run away from it, and support a revenue duty, they cannot expect consistent support. I will have a protective duty or none at all. That is my fiscal principle. Let us have a duty that will be effectually protective if we are to have one at all.

Senator Gray:

– The honorable senator goes for prohibition.

Senator GIVENS:

– I will go as near to prohibition as I can for the benefit of Australia.

Senator Gray:

– Protection is dead.

Senator GIVENS:

– Protection is not dead. I should not like anything that I hold dear to be crushed out by any one - whether by our cousins in the Old Country or by foreigners. Therefore, I do not believe in this bogus preference policy, and shall certainly vote against Senator Chataway’s proposal to reduce the duty in the second column.

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

– I am rather surprised at the attitude taken up by some of my honorable friends in regard to this duty. The fact is that when I wanted to have the item carried in its original form, some of the honorable senators who now blame me voted against ma, notwithstanding my assurance that in several respects the item has a protective aspect. I was deserted by them, and now that I have had to make the best arrangement I could, they turn round upon me for accepting a reasonable compromise in deference to the general feeling of the Committee. If I had had the assistance of my honorable friend, Senator Givens, and other protectionists from the beginning, I should not have departed from theoriginal proposal of 30 and 25 per cent.

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

– Does not the Minister think that he should recognise what is due to those who did stand by him ?

Question put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 15

NOES: 9

Majority … … 6

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Request agreed to.

Item 327 (Dolls, undressed), agreed to.

Item 328. Combs (toilet), arid Shaving Sets not included under item 387, ad val. (General Tariff), 25 per cent.; (United Kingdom), 25 per cent. ; and on and after 7th December,1907, 20 per cent. …

Senator GIVENS:
Queensland

– This is a revenue duty pure and simple. Of the total amount of these articles sold in Australia fully 95 per cent, are imported. I do not think that any combs, or shaving sets, which include razors, are made in Australia.

Senator Trenwith:

– Razors are made in Victoria-street, Collingwood, by a razor maker from Sheffield. I have bought and used them.

Senator GIVENS:

– Probably that is only a mere by-way of industry in Australia so far, nor is it likely to be established as an industry here. Shaving sets also include mirrors.

Senator Trenwith:

– Mirrors, shaving pots, and shaving brushes are made here.

Senator GIVENS:

– Although some of the articles may be made in a by-street in Melbourne, this is purely a revenue duty, That is proved by the fact that this protectionist Government, although they generally go up as high as 40 per cent., for really protective duties, propose only 25 per cent, in this case. The free-trade section of the Tariff Commission recommended 20 per cent, on combs, and 15 per cent, on mugs and brushes, or almost as much as the protectionist Government propose.

Senator Findley:

– Why not move for 35 per cent. ?

Senator GIVENS:

– Because I see no prospect of developing the industry in Australia in the near future. I move -

That the House of Representatives be requested to make item 328 free.

Senator TRENWITH:
Victoria

– - This is in some measure a revenue duty, . but, so far as it is such, it is excusable, as it applies to some articles of luxury, such as silver backed and jewelled combs and brushes, and shaving sets of a high class, which are imported. Shaving sets are made here. The articles of luxury upon which this is a revenue duty are used by persons who are well able to contribute more than is ordinary to the revenue-. But even where the item is at present revenue producing, it is incidentally protective, because it is encouraging our local people into industry after industry. The 2 5 per cent. duty proposed against the world, while not as completely effective for protection as I should like on many things, is as much as we ought to impose on articles that we are only just beginning to produce, especially as we are only producing some of those covered by this item.

Senator Findley:

– What articles in this item are we not producing?

Senator TRENWITH:

– High-class combs, jewel-backed brushes, and things of that sort.

Senator Givens:

– Are we producing any comb’s at all?

Senator TRENWITH:

– I do not think we are, but there is no reason why we should not. If we were making the whole or nearly the whole of these articles, or likely to make them in the near future, I should say that the duty should be higher, but as we are making some, although possibly not nearly all, of them, and as many of them are articles that are not often required to be bought, and that in certain degrees of quality are luxuries, the duty proposed is reasonable.

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

– In many respects this is a protective item. It may incidentally include revenue items, but it is mainly protective. We produce shaving brushes, mugs, and sets. The duty recommended by the Tariff Commission was 25 per cent. We propose 25 per cent, (general Tariff) and 20 per cent. (United Kingdom). I hope the Committee will adhere to the schedule.

Request negatived.

Item agreed to.

Motion (by Senator Best) agreed to -

That items 329 (Pencils) and item 330 (School Pen and Pencil Sets) be postponed until after item 364.

Item 331. Paint Boxes of all kinds when completely fitted, free.

Senator FINDLEY:
Victoria

.- Are these paint boxes to be admitted free because we cannot make them here, or because we cannot fill them with the necessary paints? Are they the paint boxes ordinarily used at schools by children? Does the item mean that the contents are to be admitted free?

Senator Best:

– Yes.

Senator FINDLEY:

– Is it not a fact that we make some of these paints in different parts of Australia? Senator St. Ledger laughs. This empty laughter of a nti- Australians tends to make one irritable. Every time a question is asked regarding Australia, some honorable senators seem to derive amusement from it. Is there anything wrong in asking whether these boxes or paints can be made in Australia?

Senator Millen:

– Does the honorable senator want to tax the boxes, or the paints ?

Senator FINDLEY:

– I want to know first from the Minister whether it is not possible to have the boxes or the paints made in Australia.

Senator BEST:
Vice President of the ExecutiveCouncil · Victoria · Protectionist

– The item refers largely to the children’s paints well known to all of us.

Senator Findley:

– Does it refer exclusively to paints for schools?

Senator BEST:

– Not exclusively. The boxes have to be filled. They could not come in free of duty if they were not filled. They are filled with the common paints, some oil and others water colour, chiefly water colour.

Senator Findley:

-Those are madein Australia, are they not?

Senator BEST:

– No.

Senator ST LEDGER:
Queensland

– In order to explain the hilarity which apparently offended Senator Findley, I may state that this item includes artists’ colours. Some of the great artists in Great Britain have had to go to Winsor and Newton’s, and other leading paint manufacturers, to superintend operations, in order to get the particular colour which they require. Of course, those paints could be made in Australia. We could make diamonds in Australia, but it would not pay. Why should not our artists have the advantage of getting the best paints that are produced? The cause of my hilarity was because I thought that Senator Findley was thinking of paints required for the back-yard fence.

Item agreed to.

Item 332 (Shells, &c.) and item 333 (Jewellery unfinished, &c.) agreed to.

Item 333…… And on and after 7th December, 1907 -

Jewellery unfinished, being settings and mounts for Bracelets, Brooches, Necklets, and Rings, unset or set with imitation stones, ad val. (General Tariff), 40 per cent.; (United Kingdom), 35 per cent.

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

. -I move -

That the House of Representatives be requested to amend item 333 to read as follows : - “Jewellery unfinished, namely, unset Bracelets, Brooches, Necklets, Rings, and other articles, prepared for setting, or such articles set with imitation precious stones.”

That is an exceedingly important item, because it affects most seriously one of our most valuable industries. These unfinished articles are made up very cheaply abroad and introduced here, thereby preventing work which could naturally and most easily be done locally. This question has been considered very carefully, and it is proposed to make the unfinished article liable to a higher duty. In the circumstances duties of 40 per cent, and 35 per cent are not equal to the protection, and I think the very reasonable protection, which was asked for by the workers in the industry.

Request agreed to.

Item 334. Jewellery, commonly known as. rolled gold ; and jewellery under9-carat, ad val. (General Tariff), 40 per cent. ; (United Kingdom), 35 per cent.

Senator Colonel NEILD (New South Wales) [4.20]. - Forty -per cent, seems to be an extravagant duty to levy on an article which cannot possibly be classed as a luxury, and which is used by persons who are not perhaps sufficiently well off to provide themselves with articles of better quality. I think, sir, that we might as well have a quorum. [Quorum formed.] Rolled gold supplies the place of the real article to many persons. I think that the duty might reasonably be reduced on an article which cannot possibly be regarded as a luxury, and which is in very general use amongst the toilers and others whose bank accounts are not over large. I move -

That the House of Representatives be requested to make the duty on item 334 (imports under General Tariff), ad val. 30 per cent.

That request, if carried, will give me an opportunity of moving a request for a reduction of the preferential duty from 35 to 25 per cent. My object is to fix the same rate of duty against the United Kingdom as has hitherto obtained, and to impose an additional duty on the imports from other countries. I hope that the Minister will see that this is a reasonable suggestion.

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

– I remind my honorable friend that rolled gold and jewellery under 9-carat is looked upon as being practically “ Brummagem “ stuff, by means of which the public are deceived. Rolled gold articles are imported on cards, then removed from the cards and palmed off on the public as genuine articles. Of course the general mass of the people are not sufficiently alive to the fact that they are being imposed upon. They believe that they are buying a genuine article in a shop, whereas, in fact, they are buying “ Brummagem “ stuff. As it displaces the real and genuine article it is our duty to discourage its importation in any form.

Senator Vardon:

– Are these goods stamped ?

Senator BEST:

– In some cases the goods are stamped, and, if I remember rightly, commerce regulations have recently been promulgated to insure that they should be stamped. The ordinary purchaser, however, does not look to see whether an article is properly stamped and marked, and probably, if it were stamped and marked he would not understand what it meant. We should have no hesitation in discouraging the importation oft his “Brummagem” stuff, particularly when it is recollected that it displaces the genuine article. I think that the protectionist section of the Tariff Commission recommended a duty of 35 Per cent. I suggest that in the circumstances Senator Neild should not persist with his request.

Request negatived.

Item agreed to.

Item 335. Jewellery, being machine made Chain in the rough (known as Brunswick pattern Foxtail, or Lace Chain); Gallerie; Beads; Catches and Joints for. Fins; Clasps n.e.i.; Points; and Brooch Pins, ad val. (General Tariff), 20 per cent.; (United Kingdom), 15 per cent.

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

– I move -

That the House of Representatives be requested to amend item 335 by inserting after the word “ Gallerie “ the word “ Coronets.”

All the articles enumerated in this item constitute the raw material of the jewellers, including partly manufactured articles. A coronet is, to some extent, a manufactured article, and its inclusion in this item is desired.

Request agreed to.

Item 336. Jewellery, n.e.i., including Bolt and Split Rings; Swivels; Ear Wires; Bars and Stampings used in manufacture of jewellery ; Medals and Medallions of Gold and Silver;’ Links and Studs of all kinds ; Buckles, Badges, Clasps, Slides, Buttons, and other Ornaments of Gold or Silver for Attire; Combined Bracelets and Watches; Gold, Silver, or Plated Safety Pins ; Gold or Silver Bags and Purses ; Alberts of all materials; and all articles n.e.i., partly or wholly made of gold or silver, including gold and silver lace, ad val. (General Tariff),30 per cent. ; (United Kingdom), 25 per cent.

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

– I move -

That the House pf Representatives be requested to amend item 336 to read as follows :- “‘336. Jewellery, n.e.i., including Bolt and Split Rings ; Swivels ; Ear Wires ; Bars and .Stampings used in manufacture of jewellery ; Medals and Medallions of Gold and Silver; Buckles, Badges, Clasps, Slides, Buttons, and other Ornaments of Gold or Silver for Attire; Combined Bracelets and Watches; Gold or Silver Safety Pins; Gold or Silver Bags and Purses; Lace, Braid, and Cord, and all articles n.e.i. partly or wholly made of gold or silver, ad val. (General Tariff); 30 per cent. ; (United Kingdom), 25 per cent.”

Links and studs of all kinds, if deleted from this , item, will fall under item 334,” because for the most part they are made of rolled gold, while the genuine links and studs will fall under “ Jewellery n.e.i.” in this item. “ Request agreed to.

Item 337 (Imitation Jewellery) and item 338 (Bullion and Coin) agreed to.

Item 339. Watches, Clocks, and Chronometers, n.e.i., and parts thereof; Time Registers . and Detectors ; Opera, Field, and Marine Glasses j Pedometers ; and Pocket Counters and the like, ad val. (General Tariff), 30” per cent.; (United Kingdom), “ 20 per cent.

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

– - When we dealt with item 159, we decided to request the House of Representatives to include in that item time registers and detectors, and in moving the request I ‘ indicated my intention to move that they should be left out of item 339. I therefore move -

That the House of Representatives be requested to amend item 339 by leaving out the words “ Time Registers and Detectors, and the semicolon.” “

Request agreed to.

Senator Colonel NEILD (New South Wales) [4. 35]. - I have here what purports to be a copy of a petition that was presented to the Senate asking for a material reduction of the duties on this line. A number of communications have also reached me suggesting that the duties on watches particularly should be materially reduced, chiefly on the ground that they are not made in the Commonwealth and are not likely to be made here, and that the proposed duties represent heavy taxation. But in view of. the fact that the duty proposed on imports from the United Kingdom is the same as the duty under the old Tariff, arid in view also of the disposition of the Committee, as shown by one or two divisions on previous items,’ I feel “ that it would be perfectlyhopeless to expect to carry a request for a reduction of these duties..

Senator CHATAWAY (Queensland [4.36]. - I wish to ask the Minister whether the Government have taken into consideration -a suggestion which has been made to impose a special duty ‘ on watch cases, in order that work may be provided for Australian workmen in putting together the parts of watches and casing them. 1 understand that that can be done, and is largely done in the Old Country, where it represents a large industry apart from the manufacture of the works of watches. The suggestion came to me from, a well-known watch manufacturer in Sydney, and he in. formed me that the matter had been, .mentioned to the Treasurer.

Senator Best:

– There have been no representations made to me on the subject.

Item 340. Watch and Clock Main and Hair Springs ; Compasses of all kinds except for external wear and except those of gold or silver or mounted in gold or silver ; Ships’ Chronometers, Patent Logs, and Sounding Machines; Microscopes ; Telescopes ; Barometers and Thermometers except advertising, ad val.’ (General Tariff), 5 per cent. ; (United Kingdom), free.

Senator Colonel NEILD (New . South Wales) [4.38]. - The- original Tariff provided that microscopical instruments and accessories and microscopes should be free, irrespective of .the country of origin. That. I believe is in accordance with a recommendation of the Tariff Commission. Under the revised Tariff I understand that microscopical instruments are still to be admitted free, whilst a duty is imposed, on microscopes under the item now before the Committee. I do not see how we can differentiate between microscopes’ and microscopical instruments. Microscopes are used in many important industries in Australia, and it seems to me that it would be proper to leave them- out of this item, and place them with microscopical instruments. I am prepared to move a request in that direction.

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

– Before the honorable senator submits -.a request perhaps he will permit me to explainthat all scientific instruments and apparatus for scientific purposes for the use- of universities, colleges, schools, public hospitals, or other public institutions arealready free under departmental by-law. I suggest that that provision practically meets all that he desires. ‘ ‘

Senator Colonel Neild:

– I accept the honorable senator’s suggestion, and will not move any request on the item.

Senator CHATAWAY:
Queensland

– Honorable senators will remember that some time ago. when we were dealing with another division, I carried a request to put certain articles of glassware on the same footing as to duty as manufactures of glassware n.e.i. I now propose to move a request for the omission of the words “ Barometers and Thermometers except advertising “ with the object of bringing them automatically under item 253, Glassware, n.e.i. I need not repeat what I previously said on the subject, but I remind honorable senators that they have all seen illustrations of barometers and thermometers manufactured in Brisbane, and that I was informed by the Brisbane firm on whose information I took action that they could give me the names of a number of other firms manufacturing these articles in other parts of the Commonwealth. I move -

That the House of Representatives be requested to amend item 340 by leaving out after the word “Telescopes” the semicolon and the words “ Barometers and Thermometers/ except advertising.”

Senator Best:

– I have no objection to the request.

Request agreed to.

Item 341. Kinematographs, Bioscopes, including sensitized and exposed films; Kinetoscopes, n.e.i-.j ad val. (General Tariff), 35 per cent.; (United Kingdom), 25 per cent.

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

– I move -

That the House of Representatives be requested to amend item 341 by leaving out the words, “including sensitized and exposed films.” and the semicolon, with a view to the insertion in lieu thereof of the word “and”;, by leaving out the letters “ n.e.i.” ; and by adding the following new paragraph: - “b. Sensitized and exposed films for Kinematographs, Bioscopes, and Kinetoscopes, free.”

These sensitized films are not made in the Commonwealth, although the films used for kodaks and for ordinary photographic purposes are made here.

Senator Findley:

– Does the Minister say that bioscope films are not made here?

Senator BEST:

– Yes. Sensitized and exposed films for bioscopes, kinematographs, and kinetoscopes are not made here. The request proposed will not affect the films used for ordinary photographic purposes which are made here.

Request agreed to.

Item 342. Talking Machines, Graphophones,. Gramaphones, Phonographs (commercial or business), including all accessories, ad val. (General Tariff), 35 per cent.’; and on and after 7th December, igo/, free; (United Kingdom), 25 per cent.; and on and after. 7th December, 1907, free.

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

– I move -

That the House of Representatives be requested to amend item 342 by inserting ‘ after” the word “accessories.” the .words “except, horns.”

Under the old Tariff, those engaged in themanufacture of the horns - used with most’ of these machines - enjoyed a protection from the duty imposed on manufactures of metals n.e.i. When they had established their industry, for some reason which is not known to them, these horns were transferred to the ‘ free list. I know of no justification for extending protection to an industry in order to establish it, and then withdrawing that projection. There is no attempt to make a new item, but simply to retain the protective duty as it is stated in the old Tariff. No good reason actuated those who re-drafted the Tariff in putting these articles upon the free list. In ‘ Australia, we use something like 20,000 of these horns annually. They are made in a variety of patterns, mostly of tin, japanned in various colours. They sell for something like 5s. 6d. each. - All other forms of tinware enjoy protective duties of 30 and 25 per cent., and there is no sound reason for discriminating in this’ case.

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

– I have no hesitation in accepting the request. As a matter of fact, I am aware that there are three makers of these particular horns, whoare working not far from Parliament House. They manufacture some thousandsof the articles. The effect of putting in the exception would be that the articles would pay duty under item 170 at 30 or 25 per cent.

Request agreed to.

Item 343. Spectacle cases of all kinds, not being partly or wholly of gold or silver or gold or silver plated, ad val., 15 per cent.

Senator Colonel NEILD:
New South Wales

-52]- - This is an item as to which no British preference is given. The articles, however, are largely made in England. I have this fact on excellent authority. As we are giving a preference to Great Britain in respect of many articles, I think that we should do the same here.

Senator Best:

– If the honorable senator will move that the duties be 20 and 15 per cent., . I will accept the request.

Senator Colonel NEILD:

– I cannot move to increase a duty.

Request (by Senator McGregor), negatived -

That the House of Representatives be requested to make the duty on item 343 ad val. 20 per cent.

Request (by Senator Colonel Neild) put -

That the House of Representatives be requested to make the duty on item 343 (imports from the United Kingdom), ad val. 10 per cent.

The Committee divided.

AYES: 11

NOES: 15

Majority … …. 4

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Request negatived.

Item agreed to.

Item 344….. and on and after 7th December, 1907, Spectacles and Spectacle Frames (not being gold) and Glasses for Spectacles, ad val. 10 per cent.

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

– I move -

That the House of Representatives be requested to amend item 344 by leaving out the words “ and Glasses for Spectacles,” and inserting in lieu thereof the words “ and Spectacle Glasses and Lenses in a finished state.”

The object of the request is to make the finished article liable to a general duty of 10 per cent. The unfinished article will then fall under item 254, Lenses, n.e.i.

Senator Colonel Neild:

– I had intended to. move a request to the same effect. Indeed, it was generally agreed upon when we were engaged upon an earlier part of the Tariff.

Request agreed to.

Senator GIVENS:
Queensland

.- I fail to see why any duty whatever should be imposed on spectacles and spectacle frames, finished or unfinished. Even the protectionist members of the Tariff Commission recommended that the item should be free. These goods are not made in Australia.

Senator Trenwith:

– Glasses are ground here.

Senator Best:

– They are ground in Australia.

Senator GIVENS:

– Sometimes. Children and old people have to wear glasses and why should they be taxed, when purchasing an article which admittedly cannot be made in Australia, simply because their eyes are not as strong as those of the majority of people?

Senator McGregor:

– The article can be made in Australia.

Senator GIVENS:

– It cannot be, and is not made in Australia. The honorable senator was a member of the protectionist section of the Tariff Commission, which recommended that the item should be free. The honorable senator now asserts that this is only a preference duty. I do not want the people who have the misfortune to have weaker eyes than have others to be taxed for the benefit of manufacturers in Great Britain any more than for the benefit of manufacturers in other parts of the world. This is a ridiculous duty. These articles are free if imported from Great Britain, but the pebbles come mainly from Brazil, and many lenses are made in other countries than England. We are to be taxed 10 per cent, for a bogus preference.

Senator Vardon:

– It is a tax on the old and afflicted.

Senator GIVENS:

– That is all it is.I move-

That the House of Representatives be requested to make item 344 free.

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

Senator Givens is making a serious mistake. The condition of the trade at present is that the glass comes in in the rough. I have specimens of it here. There are factories established in Australia to do the grinding and other work necessary to make the glasses conform to the prescriptions of Australian oculists.

Senator Givens:

– Why should these articles be free when they come from Great Britain?

Senator BEST:

– Because the glasses in the rough come chiefly from America. The item deals with other articles than glasses in the rough. Our own oculists prescribe particular kinds of glasses, and if there are not established in our midst works for grinding the glasses in accordance with those prescriptions, patients will be put to the expense of sending abroad for them.

Senator Givens:

– Will the honorable senator agree, to protect the industry as against Great Britain by a 5 per cent, duty ?

Senator BEST:

– I am quite satisfied with the item as I have proposed to amend it.

Senator Givens:

– Then the honorable senator’s protection is merely bogus.

Senator BEST:

– Nothing of the kind. The industry is satisfied with the protection afforded. It would be a mistake to wipe the industry out, because that would be punishing our own people by .putting them to the expense of sending abroad for the glasses prescribed for them.

Senator VARDON:
South Australia

– These glasses are really the raw material for the men who are working here. That is all the more reason why’ they should be admitted duty free.

Senator Best:

– Lenses in the rough are

Senator TRENWITH:
Victoria

– - Senator Givens stated, as did Senator Vardon by interjection, that this is a tax upon the afflicted. I venture to speak as one of the afflicted. Glasses are an absolute necessity for me. If I were to lose mine I could not find my way home. It is therefore extremely important to me, and to hundreds, and possibly thousands, like mc, that we should have developed in our midst the skill and capacity to make the glasses prescribed for us.

Senator Givens:

– Then will the honorable senator protect the local workers against Great Britain?

Senator TRENWITH:

– No. Great Britain pays in this highly scientific work very nearly, if not quite, the same rates of wages as we do. It is not work that an apprentice can do. The common shilling glasses - the culls, which are the experimental field of the apprentice - are practically not affected by this duty. I should be glad to see them prohibited from every part of the world, because I believe more eyes are ruined by them than we have any conception of. In this country, either eye difficulties are on the increase or else wc know very much more about the subject than we did years ago, because it is extremely common to see children of tender years compelled to wear glasses. The ‘ glasses they should wear ought to be scientifically and accurately ground to measurements prescribed by clever specialists, and therefore ought to be ground upon the spot. They have to be ground, not for general, but for specific cases, which differ in almost every instance. It is extremely important, in view of these facts, that we should develop on the spot the skill necessary to meet the continually growing necessities of our people.

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON (South Australia) [5.10]. - There was no “occasion for all Senator Trenwith’s noise and declamation on a matter that seems very simple and plain.

Senator Trenwith:

– It is a matter of national importance.

Senator McGregor:

– Then the duty is not high enough.

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:

– That is exactly what I was going to point out, but Senator’ Trenwith, when he gets on the senatorial stump, does not very much consider what the facts are..

Senator Trenwith:

– I have had to study them for thirty years

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:

– We had better keep the personal element out altogether. The necessity for grinding these glasses in Australia did not arise yesterday. I had glasses ground in Australia fifteen years ago and .more. The pair which I put on now - the strongest that I wear, the bi-focal lens - were prescribed and ground for me six or seven years ago.

Senator Givens:

– The optician takes finished glasses to grind them.

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:

– LV doubtedly. The science of the oculist, as well as the mechanical skill of the optician, has grown in Australia in the last twenty years. Senator Trenwith in his flights of eloquence forgets the important fact that until now these articles have all been free.

Senator Trenwith:

– And a lot of people have been blinded with cheap glasses.

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:

– Nonsense. Prescriptions have been written and glasses have been ground accordingly under a Tariff which admitted these articles free from everywhere. We should continue that policy if we wish to give effect to Senator Trenwith’s excellent humanitarian sentiment. I entirely agree with Senator

Givens that if a duty is to be imposed against the rest of the world, there is no reason for admitting them free from Great Britain. If Senator Trenwith’s purpose is protection, the duty should certainly be against England.

Senator Findley:

– Why does not Senator Givens move it?

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:

– Because he has more sense and has some humanitarian principles. In that respect he follows the lead of Senator Trenwith, who desires that people with defective or weak eyesight should have assistance as freely as possible from every quarter of’ the globe from which they can get it . But Senator Trenwith is utterly illogical in advocating a duty under the general Tariff, and making the item free as regards the United Kingdom. Spectacles are imported from England to the extent of more than threefourths of the entire importation to Australia, and to the extent of about one-half so far as thecountry of origin is concerned. I agree with every word Senator Givens has said as to the necessity of admitting these articles free, because there is nothing so terrible for any man as to have his eyesight injured or impaired.

Senator Trenwith:

– They cannot come in in the condition required, and that is the objection which I have.

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:

– There are plenty which come in in the condition required. I am told that any number of graded or varied lenses come in, and that persons with defective eye-sight can get them very much more cheaply than they could procure glasses prescribed by an oculist. All of us who are afflicted, unfortunately, ought to have opportunities of getting these aids to eye-sight - it is really giving sight to the blind - at the least expensive rate. I hope, therefore, that Senator Trenwith will see the expediency of agreeing with Senator Givens to make these articles freeas before.

Senator STORY:
South Australia

.- I intend to support the request, because there is not the slightest doubt that 10 per cent, is a revenue and not a protectiveduty. Ihave voted consistently against the imposition of revenue duties. So far as the Government is concerned, this talk of giving British preference is all humbug, because on many occasions they have deliberately forsaken their proposal for a British preference for the sake of securing a higher revenue duty. Spectacle glasses are a necessity, not only to old people, but also to very many young persons. I was delighted at the eloquent appeal which Senator Trenwith, who really is a good protectionist, made on behalf of the Government - probably he feels bound to do that kind of thing –to retain that which is and always will be a revenue duty.

Senator GRAY:
New South Wales

– I cordially support the request, and appeal to the Government to give way, now that it has been made manifest to them that the feeling of the Committee is in favour of these glasses being admitted free. I have in my possession three pairs of glasses, and I have had to wear spectacles since I was four years old. I can scarcely see to read except during daylight, and in Australiathere are thousands of persons who, from one cause or other, are in perhaps a more unfortunate position than myself. Not only those persons, but also growing children should have an opportunity to secure glasses of the proper quality as cheaply as possible, in order to retain their eye-sight. I think that Senator Vardon hit the nail on the head when he said that the imports represent simply raw material. Senator Trenwith’s argument was strongly in favour of the request if he could by any means get away from the bias of his fiscal opinion. He made a grand free-trade speech, but he did not’ happen to know that. We should do all in our power to enable poor persons to get the best material to enable them to maintain their eyes in a healthy and strong condition. This duty if retained means the addition of 10 per cent, to the value of the raw materials from which spectacles have to be made.

Senator CLEMONS:
Tasmania

– The Committee need not trouble as to whether this is a revenue or protective duty. It is clearly a preferential duty. Probably the Government wanted the articles included in this item to be free, but having come to that conclusion they said, “ We will make that freedom apply to Great Britain only - it will furnish a splendid opportunity for usto give a preference.” Why should the Committee vote for a purely preferential duty?

Senator W RUSSELL:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– We have the numbers.

Senator CLEMONS:

– Then I hope that the item will be made free. It affords another instance of the humbug, farce, and pretence of preferential duties and of how they are applied.

Senator Colonel NEILD (New South Wales) [5.23]. - I was very much struck at the first blush with the speech of Senator Trenwith, who is undoubtedly quite correct asto the great mischief which is being done in many cases by unsuitable glasses being supplied. I have no doubt that the vendors of glasses should be placed under a law just as much as medical men and. dentists are. Unauthorized, unqualified, ignorant persons should not be allowed to sell glasses to anybody, according to their own fancy. I recognise that for many years glasses have been ground and fitted in Australia. I have here a pair of glasses which were made for me as long ago as 1895, and, thank God, I have not had to get them altered since then. These, however, are very different glasses because of a slight accident I met with. An ordinary pair purchased in the shop would not do me the slightest good; it would only injure me. Therefore I quite sympathize with the view of Senator Trenwith. On the other hand, if we carried his arguments to a logical conclusion, we should find ourselves insisting upon high duties on drugs, because otherwise people might not have the right ones prescribed to them. I admit that that is a proposition which is not likely to be supported by any one. If the right things are here we must hope that sufferers, whether in the matter of sight or health generally, will be supplied with them. I have shown fairly well that I am strongly in favour of British preference, But I tell the Committee, on the strength of about as competent and as high a trade authority as exists in Australia, that these cheap glasses are not made in England. I think that I am justified in making a short quotation from a letter which was written to me last November.

All cheap spectacles of this nature are of foreign manufacture. The poor class are the purchasers. Preference to England is a farce, as there are no manufacturers of cheap spectacles in England, consequently, the duty is payable upon all cheap spectacles, and is a burden to the public withouta benefit to any section of the community.

I shall be glad to assist Senator Givens in voting to make this item free.

Senator ST LEDGER:
Queensland

– On this occasion I find myself able to support the request of Senator Givens, and, as regards British preference, in the same camp as Senator Symon. To my mind the idea of taxing the human sight is monstrous. In asking for this duty of 10 per cent, the Government are seeking to get revenue from a source from which it ought not to be obtained. We could get no more powerful proof of how the question of British preference has been used both here and elsewhere than is here afforded. If we wanted any evidence of the real intention of the Government in that regard it is furnished by this item. When we began to consider the Tariff I declared that British preference was being used by Ministers for the purpose of obtaining higher duties. Ought not this item to satisfy any reasonable person that it is being used by them simply as a vehicle for securing high duties? On this occasion 1 shall vote very cordially with Senator Givens, and also with Senator Symon.

Question - That the House of Representatives be requested to make item 344, “ Spectacles and Spectacle Frames,” free (Senator Givens’ request) - put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 24

NOES: 5

Majority … … 19

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Request agreed to.

Division XII. - Leather and Rubber. -

Item 345. Boots, Shoes, Slippers, Clogs, Pattens, and other footwear (of any material), n.e.i.; and Boot and Shoe Uppers and Tops ; Cork, Leather, or other Socks or Soles, ad val. (General Tariff), 35 per cent.; (United Kingdom), 30 per cent.

Senator MILLEN:
New South Wales

– Honorable senators will notice that in the j 902 Tariff, infants’ boots were made dutiable at a- much lower rate than those of larger size. Whilst, perhaps, the conditions of the industry have altered slightly since that Tariff was passed, there is still strong reason for differentiating in favour of these smaller sizes, which, if made here at all, are not made extensively, and the larger sizes, which are being made here extensively. I intend to propose that infants’ boots and shoes of sizes o to 6 should be dutiable at 20 per cent.

Senator Colonel NEILD (New South Wales) [5-36]. - I see no good reason why so very high a charge should be made upon one of the necessities of the people, especially in view of the fact that the Government are unable to find more than half a pair of boots for each of the citizen soldiers of the country. They supply the citizen soldier with either a right or- a. left boot. I do not know which, and he has to provide the balance for himself. It occurs to me that this state of affairs in the Defence Department must be due to the abnormally high taxation imposed by the Government on boots. I propose to ask some questions on the subject to-morrow, but in the meantime I wish to move to reduce the duty on imports under the general Tariff to 30 per cent. that, the Government may be in a position to supply the citizen soldier with the other boot.

Senator Sir Josiah Symon:

– Why not 25 per cent. ?

Senator Colonel NEILD:

– Because I do not think I should have the smallest hope of carrying such a duty. The Tariff Commission recommended a duty of 30 per cent., and under the old Tariff the duties imposed were 30 and 25 per cent. I move -

That the House of Representatives be requested to make the duly on item 345 (imports under General Tariff), aci val. 30 per cent.

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

– I hope the Committee will agree to the item as printed. It should be noted that under the old Tariff a duty of 15 per cent, was imposed on infants’ boots of sizes o to 6, and duties of 30 and 25 per cent, on the larger sizes.- The Tariff Commission took a great deal of evidence in connexion with the lower duties imposed on infants’ boots, and the result of their investigations was a recommendation that all should be subject to the same duty, viz.. 30 per cent. What the Government have done has been to submit that rate of duty on imports from the United Kingdom, and to provide for a pre ference of 5 per cent., making the duty on imports under the general Tariff 35 per cent. So far as the imports are concerned, I wish to inform honorable senators that in 1905 we imported from the United Kingdom boots of sizes other than infants’ to the value of ,£87.259, and infants’ boots to the value of £44,454, or a total import valued at £131,713. From other countries we imported the larger sizes of boots to the value of .£85,761, and infants’ boots to the value of £3,588, or a total import from countries other than the United Kingdom valued at £89,349. That is to say, that in 1905 our importations from abroad amounted in value to £221,062. In 1906 the importations from the United Kingdom were valued at £.146,749, a substantial increase on. the imports for the previous year, and from places other than the United Kingdom they amounted to £85,774, or a total importation valued at £232,523. When we bear in mind the enormous development of the boot-making industry in the Commonwealth and its importance in each of the States, we may well ask whether it is really necessary that we should continue these importations. They were made in the face of a 30 per cent, duty previously prevailing, and in the circumstances the proposal now made to impose a duty of 35 per cent, under the general Tariff and 30 per cent, on imports from the United Kingdom against boots of all sizes is reasonable.

Senator Sir Josiah Symon:

– Does not the honorable senator think that the importation will continue very much the same, because it depends on the class of the goods?

Senator BEST:

– It may for a time, but when we bear in mind the keen competition and the development of skill in the industry in Australia—

Senator Sir Josiah Symon:

– Rather the development of boot-making machinery.

Senator BEST:

– I was going to add the continual development of machinery; we have a right to hold that the local industry is entitled practically to command the whole of the Australian market. In the circumstances, to accept the lower duty proposed by Senator Neild would- be unreasonable, and I ask the Committee to pass the item as it stands.

Question put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 11

NOES: 18

Majority … … 7

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Request negatived.

Senator MILLEN:
New South Wales

– We should put the smaller sizes of boots under a duty such as operated against them under the 1902 Tariff. I move -

That the House of Representatives be requested to amend item 345 by adding the following new paragraph “ b. Infants’, sizes0 to 6 ad val. 15 per cent.

Senator TRENWITH:
Victoria

– I think that honorable senators should know something about the history of this matter before they vote. There was a time in Australia when it was a wise thing that infants’ boots,0 to 6, should be free. They are largely made from cuttings from establishments where larger boots are made. Whenwe had not many bootmaking establishments in Australia, and when there were scarcely any where the finer kinds of boots were made, the material for the production of infants’ boots was not available. But as we developed our factories, and made more and better men’s and women’s boots, we began to have available the material for the cheap production of infants’ sizes. Now there is a high standard of production all over Australia. We have a considerable amount of material, excellent in character, that is not large enough for the making of the larger sizes of boots, but is available chiefly for the production of infants’ boots. The making of them finds profitable employment for people of not very robust physique. It is pleasant and light employment. We are now making infants’ boots of great variety, excellence, and cheapness. Therefore I hope that Senator Millen’s request will not be agreed to.

Question put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 10

NOES: 19

Majority … … 9

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Request negatived.

Item agreed to.

Item 346 (Goloshes, &c) agreed to.

Item 347. Slipper Forms and Royal Cord in the piece ; Prunella, Lasting, and Stuff for boots, shoes, and slippers, ad val. (imports under General Tariff), 10 per cent. ; (imports from the United Kingdom), 5 per cent.

Request (by Senator Best) proposed -

That the House of Representatives be requested to amend item 347 by leaving out the comma after the word “ Prunella,” and inserting the word “and” in lieu thereof; and by leaving out the words “and Stuff.”

Senator FINDLEY:
Victoria

– Is it desired that “ Stuff!’ shall be dealt with under item 123, and dutiable at 35 per cent, and 30 per cent. ? If so, I am opposed to Senator Best’s request. I understand that the word “ Stuff “ in this item means felt, the raw material required by those engaged in the manufacture of slippers. The finished article is dutiable at 35 and 30 per cent.

Senator Best:

– If it were cotton it would be dutiable at 5 per cent, and free. But “ Stuff “ is a very indefinite term, and that is the reason why we desire to leave it out.

Senator FINDLEY:

– I want to make it definite. I do not want to have any ambiguity. Would the Minister agree to the insertion of a new paragraph - “ Slipper felt, free.”?

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

– The departmental officer explains to me that the words “ and Stuff “ are so indefinite that it is very difficult for the Customs to interpret them. Consequently what issuggested is that the word should be left out. If the stuff imported for slipper making is wool, it will be liable to the duties imposed on other woollens ; if it is cotton material, it will be dutiable at the same rate as other cotton, namely, 5 per cent, and free.

Senator CLEMONS:
Tasmania

– I do not see why we should impose any duty on this item. It relates to the raw material of the slipper-makers. Can Senator Best tell us on whose authority the word “Stuff” was first inserted in the item ? I admit that it is a very ambiguous term, but surely it was introduced at the instance of the Department itself. Who is responsible for it?

Senator Best:

– I cannot say who introduced the word originally, but at one time there was a material known as “ Stuff.” Now there seems to be a doubt, and the trade are seeking to enlarge upon the use of the term.

Senator CLEMONS:

– I do not want to fix the responsibility upon any one in particular. For us the responsibility rests on the Minister. I do not believe that it is impossible to get over the difficulty. I cannot think that the Customs would be unable to. separate “Stuff “ used in the manufacture of slippers or boots from stuff that might be used for some other purpose. I see no reason for taking” Stuff “ out of the item and making it dutiable at 30 per cent., and I hope that the Committee will refuse to delete the word. Later on I intend to move that the whole item be free.

Senator Best:

-I propose to reduce the duty to 5 per cent., in accordance with what we have done with regard to item 123 e.

Senator CLEMONS:

– I wish, modestly, to go 5 per cent, lower than, the Minister. I cannot be accused of injuring any protected industry. This is obviously the raw material of an established industry. By striking out the word, honorable senators will be making this “ Stuff, “ dutiable at 30 per cent., though it is a raw material used in the manufacture of boots.

Question - That the House of Representatives be requested to amend item347 by leaving out the comma after the word “Prunella” and inserting the word ‘ and ‘ ‘ in lieu thereof - resolved in the affirmative.

Question - That the House of Representatives be requested to amend item 347 by leaving out the words “ and Stuff “ - put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 17

NOES: 11

Majority … … 6

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Request agreed to.

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

– I propose to move a request for the reduction of the duty on imports under the general Tariff from 10 to 5per cent, in order to bring the item into harmony with what we have already done in regard to item 123 paragraph e where cotton goods are dutiable at 5 , per cent, (general Tariff) and free (United Kingdom).

Senator CLEMONS:
Tasmania

.- It is not necessary for me to give reasons why I desire to make the item free in both columns. I move -

That the House of Representatives be requested to make item 347 (imports under General Tariff), free.

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON (South Australia) [6.5]. - There is no analogy be- tween this item and item 123, paragraph e, which relates to cotton, linen, and other piece goods.

Senator Best:

– I am assured, departmentally, that it will create a most unfortunate anomaly, unless the duties are harmonized.

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:

– There will be no anomaly if this item is made free. Five per cent. is reallya contemptible duty. The great bulk of these articles come from England, and a 5 per cent, duty under the general Tariff is a pure sham. The whole of these articles are the raw material for boot and shoe manufacturers. It seems absurd for the Government to impose a 5 per cent, duty on the raw material of an industry which they propose to encourage with a heavy duty of 35. per cent.

Senator BEST:
VicePresident of the ExecutiveCouncil · Victoria · Protectionist

– Slipper forms, royal cord, prunella, and lasting are all cotton piece goods. As . we have already determined to make “ Cotton piece goods n.e.i.” dutiable at 5 per cent, and free under item 123, paragraph e, we must, to harmonize the Tariff, make the rates on this item the same.

Question put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 16

NOES: 10

Majority … … 6

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Request agreed to.

Request (by Senator Clemons) agreed to-

That the House of Representatives be requested to make item 347 (imports from the UnitedKingdom), free.

Item 348. Boots, Rubber, viz. : - Gum and Wading Boots, ad val. (General Tariff), 5 per cent. ; (United Kingdom), free.

Request (by Senator Clemons) proposed -

That the House of Representatives be requested to make item 348 (imports under General Tariff), free.

Senator BEST (Victoria- Vice-Presi

I can only say that this is a preference item. As we have adopted the system of preference throughout the schedule, we should continue it here.

Question put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 16

NOES: 12

Majority … … 4

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Request agreed to.

Item 349. Rubber and other Hose, ad val. (General Tariff), 25 per cent. ; (United Kingdom), 20 per cent.

Senator CLEMONS:
Tasmania

– I should like to ascertain whether, through the medium of the Tariff Commission or otherwise, any facts have been submitted regarding the manufacture of rubber hose in the Commonwealth? I am sorry to say that at the present moment, owing to the item having been reached so quickly, I can only express my opinion that it is not made here.

Senator Story:

– Yes, it is.

Senator CLEMONS:

– An enormous quantity of the article is imported, and that means that this is purely a revenue duty. I do not believe that rubber hose in any quantity has yet been made satisfactorily in the Commonwealth.

Senator Best:

– They make miles of rubber hose here.

Senator Millen:

– Did those who make miles of rubber hose go before the Tariff Commission ?

Senator CLEMONS:

– No.

Senator Best:

– Yes, they did, and asked for a further duty.

Senator CLEMONS:

– I shall be pleased if the Minister willfurnish some particulars about the local manufacture of rubber hose.

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON (South Australia) [6.19]. - I should like the Minister to state what reasons there are for increasing the duty by 10 per cent. Under the old Tariff, it was 15 per cent., and now it is proposed that it should be increased to 25 per cent. If the manufacture of rubber hose has been established in the Commonwealth, it must have been done with a duty of 15 per cent., which, as Senator Best has said, has enabled the manufacturer to produce miles of it. I take it that this item deals with the sort of hose which is used for irrigation and gardening generally. It seems a very hard thing that a duty of 25 per cent, should be imposed on a tool of trade. We know that now-a-days, there is nothing more essential in gardening and producing various crops, than irrigation. Where the water cannot be taken on to the ground by gravitation, it has to be applied with the aid of sprinklers. On the hills near Adelaide, there are a hundred sprinklers used to-day, where ten years ago, or perhaps less, not one was used. The consumption of rubber hose is very large ; and, considering the hardships which market gardeners have to undergo, and the toil which they have to undertake in many cases for a very small profit, it is very hard indeed that this duty should be increased so heavily as is proposed.

Senator Trenwith:

– If the honorable senator has bought any hose lately, he knows that he has paid less than he did previously. At any rate, I know that I have done so.

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:

– I am not paying less for rubber hose than I used to do, and as the honorable senator knows, it does not last very long. I invite the Minister to state first why this great increase in the duty should be made, if the industry has been established, and, secondly, whether, seeing the use to which hose is put, he thinks it is a fair thing that the duty should be increased at all.

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

– At the present moment, I cannot put my finger on the place where it is stated that witnesses came before the Tariff Commission.

Senator Clemons:

– Because they did not come.

Senator BEST:

– But I can refer my honorable friend to the recommendation of the protectionist section -

Indiarubber or other hose, and manufactures n.e.i., in which indiarubber forms a part; including cycle and vehicle tires and canvas or tire fabric made waterproof with indiarubber, ad val. 20 per cent.

Senator Clemons:

– That recommendation was made without any evidence having been taken.

Senator BEST:

– It is very difficult for me to believe that it was made without any evidence having been taken.

Senator Clemons:

– I can quote from their report a hundred instances where a recommendation has been made without a tittle of evidence having been taken.

Senator BEST:

– The Government accepted the recommendation of the A section of the Tariff Commission, and put that rate in the preferential column. It is a matter of common knowledge that india-rubber hose is made in the Commonwealth. I hold in my hand a copy of Dunlop’s price list, and they represent, by means of illustrations, the particular classes of hose which they manufacture, and are ready to sell at specified prices. I have purchased hose from the firm. Every honorable senator who has made the slightest inquiry must be aware that the article is made in the Commonwealth. Surely that is a good and sufficient reason why its production should be encouraged ?I admit that a considerable quantity of rubber hose is still imported ; but the object of this duty is to discourage importations and encourage the local industry. I ask the Committee to accept the duty, which is a very moderate one.

Senator McGREGOR:
South Australia

.-It is practically correct to say that no evidence was taken by the Tariff Commission in connexion with the manufacture of rubber, but it must be recollected that shortly after it was appointed, and when witnesses were beginning to attend to give evidence, or send in theirnames asintending witnesses, there was a very big disturbance in the arrangements connected with the manufacture of rubber inAustralia. Nobody came before the Tariff Commission, because it was not any one’s direct interest to attend. At the same time it was the duty of the members of that body, particularly the protectionists, to find out, even though persons did not attend to give evidence, how the industries of Australia were being affected by the existence or the want of duties.

Senator Millen:

– Does the honorable senator mean to say that if the representatives of an industry did not come to the Tariff Commission it was the business of its members to go to them?

Senator McGREGOR:

– Whether I am a member of a Royal Commission or not, it is always my business to go and find out all that I possibly can. If the honorable senator wants to act justly and intelligently towards the whole community, it is also his duty to take that step. When I learned that the rubber industry was carried on inVictoria, I took the train to Montague railway station, where I found a rubber works employing over 500 persons in the production of rubber goods under the most favorable conditions, so far as the workshop and other accommodation were concerned, that I have seen any where. I learned that they were manufacturing, not only rubber rings and rubber heels, but all kinds ofrubber goods. I also found that they were labouring under very considerable difficulty, owing to the competition from other parts of the world. The very name of thecompany - the Dunlop Rubber Company - may convey to the minds of honorable senatorsa suggestion which is not correct. I ascertained that the company had bought the interest of the Dunlop Rubber Tyre Company of Great Britain, and are carrying on the works on their own account with Australian capital and Australian people, so far as they possibly can. They manufacture every article from garden hose to the smaller articles I have mentioned. Even sanitary gloves are made there out of the finest rubber. I have used rubber hose for the last twenty-five years, and I know that since this company commenced operations the price has decreased by considerably more than onethird, and that was not because the price of the raw rubber had decreased. I suppose that everybody knows that owing to the numerous uses to which it has been put theprice of raw rubber has steadily advanced, so that that could not have been the cause of the reduction in the price of rubber goods.

Sitting suspended from 6.30 to 7.45p.m.

Senator MILLEN:
New South Wales

– Honorable senators have been informed by Senators Trenwith and McGregor that not far from this building a large establishment has been built up for the production of the articles covered by this item. Senator McGregor informed the

Committee, as the result of a personal inspection, that he was able to vouch for the fact that the proprietors of the establishment referred to employed 500 hands. That is certainly evidence of the establishment of a substantial industry; but I remind the Committee that the development referred to has occurred under a Tariff of 15 per cent. Every remark which has been made by honorable senators on the other side has shown that a duty of 15 per cent, affords ample protection to this industry. Those interested in it did not approach the Tariff Commission with any complaint that they were suffering from outside competition or any other cause, and we are entitled therefore to assume that it was because they believed they were making satisfactory progress under the old Tariff. That being so, I am not disposed to give to this industry a higher measure of protection than has been shown to be ample. Both Senator Clemons and I regard the proposed rate of duty as too high. The honorable senator, I suppose, wishes to reduce it to 15 per cent., the duty levied under the old Tariff, but I remind him that in the Committee there are certain honorable senators who, rightly or wrongly, believe in a preferential duty, and I therefore suggest that he should propose to make the duty on imports under the general Tariff 20 per cent., since if that is done honorable senators who believe in preference may be induced to agree to the old duty on imports from the United Kingdom.

Senator STORY:
South Australia

– Honorable senators opposite have asked why this duty should be raised from 15 to20 and 25 per cent. I think the answer is to be found in the Customs returns, which show that the value of the importations of rubber goods in 1906 was £167,439.

Senator Sir Josiah Symon:

– That includes many articles of rubber besides hose.

Senator STORY:

– That is so; but the rubber manufactures which the importations for 1906 cover are practically all being made in the local factory. Like Senator McGregor, I have had the advantage of an inspection of the works of the Dunlop Rubber Company, and I know that they manufacture almost every article of rubber that is in general use.I therefore say that the value of the importations of rubber in 1906 is a sufficient reply to those who ask why this duty should be raised to 25 per cent, and 20 per cent. If we. wish to increase the manufacture of rubber goods in Australia, it is clearly necessary that we should impose a higher duty on these articles than that imposed under the old Tariff.

Senator CLEMONS:
Tasmania

– - My main reason for suggesting a reduction of this duty is that the item rubber and other hose covers an article which is almost entirely used .by gardeners; by the ordinary householder, and also bymarket gardeners generally. I think that the duty proposed is too heavy a duty to impose upon such .an article. With regard to the factory established in Melbourne and the remarks which Senator McGregor to a large extent directed to me as a member of the Tariff Commission, I should like to say that I never considered it my duty .as a member of that Commission to make a personal investigation of the establishments or factories of any persons carrying on business in Australia. I venture to say that few, if any other, members of the Commission, with the exception of Senator McGregor, consider that to be their duty. The appointment of the Commission was advertised broadcast, and an invitation was extended to every manufacturer who considered that he w-as suffering any hardship by the imposition of an unfair or a low duty to come before the Commission and state his case. Senator McGregor must agree with me that the only proper method by which the Commission could arrive at any conclusion was by the taking ‘of evidence on oath. The honorable senator must know that the impressions derived’ from a personal inspection by members of the Commission would not be evidence of any value in a Court of law, and would-not have any real value for a Tariff Commission. We have been told that 500 people are employed in- the Dunlop factory, but I have no doubt that Sena: tor McGregor will admit that only a very small percentage of that number is- employed in the manufacture of rubber hose. At the works referred to, a great quantity of .rubber goods is manufactured that is not covered bv the item now under discussion: To that extent. Senator McGregor was not intentionally, but actually, misleading the Committee, when he induced honorable senators to believe that this item represented the labour of 500 people. It probably does ‘not represent the labour in the factory referred to of more than, perhaps, twenty at the most

Senator McGregor:

– I did not mislead the Committee either intentionally or unintentionally, because I mentioned what the 500 people were doing. I was dealing with rubber goods.

Senator CLEMONS:

– We are dealing with item 349, “ Rubber and other hose,” which is separated from the great bulk of rubber manufactures. The next item, 350, covering rubber manufactures, has undoubtedly a very wide scope.

Senator Story:

– But it bears the same rates of duty.

Senator CLEMONS:

– I notice that’ it does, now that Senator Story has. drawn attention to the fact, and I naturally ask why, in the circumstances, the two items have been separated. Possibly, the reason i; that the use to which rubber and other’ hose is ‘ applied can be defined pretty clearly, whilst rubber manufactures cover a very great variety of articles made of rubber. The people who manufacture these goods had ample opportunity to ap- pear before the Tariff Commission, if, in their opinion, the duty under the old Tariff is not sufficiently high, and they suffered any injustice on that account. L do not believe for a moment that they considered that they were suffering any injustice, or that they could not manufacture these goods to any extent they pleased under the old rate of duty. . But I do say that if the duty is increased as proposed the effect undoubtedly will be to increase the price of rubber hose.

Senator McGregor:

– On the contrary, the effect has been to reduce the price. I bought rubber hose within the last month.

Senator Sir Josiah Symon:

– So did I, and the price has not been’ reduced by oni farthing. - Senator CLEMONS.- If honorable senators are to give personal experience?, I can say that within the last six months 1 bad to buy a lot of this hose, and I paid the same price for it as I paid two -years’ before.

Senator Story:

– In spite of the increased duty.

Senator CLEMONS:

– - No; at that time the Tariff was not tabled in another place.

Senator Story:

– It was purchased since the Tariff was tabled.

Senator Best:

– The Tariff was tabled on the 8th .August.

Senator CLEMONS:

– I ani perfectly certain that I bought my hose before the Tariff was introduced in the House of Representatives. ‘ It was for use in the cur- rent summer, and the price, I venture to say, was that which I have always paid. But does Senator Story mean to assume that if this duty is increased imported hose will be sold to the purchaser at the same price ?

Senator Story:

– The honorable senator has been showing us that he did not pay any more for the “hose which he bought.

Senator CLEMONS:

– I did not say anything of the kind. I said that I bought it before the Tariff was tabled in the House of Representatives.

Senator Story:

Senator McGregor has bought some since.

Senator CLEMONS:

– If he got it for a lower. price he was lucky. But I do not care for these personal experiences, because they are not of much value. Putting the matter on general grounds, will any one deny that if an increased duty is imposed the price of imported hose will be higher ?

Senator McGregor:

– Not necessarily..

Senator Story:

– The importers will knock a Dlt off their profits.

Senator CLEMONS:

– Tf honorable senators dispute that, it is of little use offering any argument whatever. I certainly remain of the opinion that if an increased duty is put on, someone will have to pay an increased price for the imported article; and nine times out of ten the consumers pay.

Senator McGregor:

– A few years ago hose cost as much per foot as it now costs per yard.

Senator CLEMONS:

– In the manufacture of innumerable articles in this Tariff, enormous strides have been made in England, Germany, and elsewhere, in lessening the cost of production. The world does not stand still in these matters. Hundreds of things which we buy are cheaper than they used to be. That cheapness does not depend on any Tariff. It is due to the perfecting of means of production. It is because I feel that this duty will mean placing an increased burden on a class of people . who ought not to be asked to bear it, and because the people in Australia who manufacture hose have not asked for an increased duty, and have apparently done fairly well under the lower rate, that I think that it is a fair thing to go back to the duty of 15 per cent. I therefore move -

That the House of Representatives be requested to make the duty on item 349 (imports under General Tariff), ad val. 15 per cent.

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON (South Australia) [8.5]. - I wish to’ thank Senator Story for calling my attention to the imports for 1906, under the heading of rubber hose and other manuf actures of rubber. But the information which he has so kindly supplied does not solve the difficulty. It does not show in any respect that an increase of 10 per cent, in the duty is required.

Senator McGregor:

– Nothing would convince the honorable senator. The startistics are evidence to other people.

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:

– The honorable senator, with his cast-iron .unreceptive mind, must not measure my corn by his bushel. I am perfectly prepared to be convinced when evidence of a convincing character is brought forward. But what Senator Story has stated would not convince anybody, however ready he might be to accept the assurance, that there is reason for increasing the duty by 10 per cent.

Senator Trenwith:

– It has convinced Senator Story.

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:

– I do not think that it has, because it is quite possible that an enormous quantity of the importations is due to the extensive use of rubber tyres.

Senator Story:

– There is nothing to show that.

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:

– Yes, there is. . Under item 350, all the expensive manufactures of rubber are included. The articles include, first of all, surgical goods, and then- we come down to rubber tyre fabric, tyre rubber, tyres not ‘ accompanying cycles or vehicles, and tubes, valved or unvalved. We are all aware of the enormous extent to which rubber tyres have come into general use in recent years, and we must know that a great proportion of these importations are due to the use of rubber tyres.

Senator Story:

– There is nothing to show that a considerable proportion of the importations are not rubber hose.

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:

– My honorable friend is perfectly .well, aware that, owing to the increased use of bicycles and motor cars during the last few years, the importation of rubber tyres has increased from I may say nothing to hundreds of thousands of pounds worth. We know the enormous cost of these things.

Senator Best:

– That .is one of the principal items ; but the other principal- item, estimated to be equally large, is rubber hose.

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:

– Will my honorablefriend show from the statistics how he arrives at that conclusion?

Senator Best:

– I say it on the authority of the Customs officials.

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:

– My honorable friend ought to be able to give us some basis upon which his statement is founded.

Senator Chataway:

– We exported £31,000 worth of these goods, all of Australian manufacture.

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:

– It is obvious from what Senator Chataway has been good enough to say, that Australia is an exporter of rubber hose. Of course, in the absence of definite information, it is impossible for us to be certain. We cannot say how much is represented by hose. But when we consider the extent to which the importation of tyres has necessarily gone on, we must certainly attribute a very large proportion to the use of these things. The fact that we have been exporting under a 15 per cent, duty is a reason why we need not increase it.

Question - That the House of Representatives be requested to make the duty on item 349, “ Rubber and other Hose” (imports under General Tariff), ad val., 15 per cent. (Senator Clemons’ request) - put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 11

NOES: 19

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Request negatived.

Request (by Senator Millen) negatived -

That the House of Representatives be requested to pake the duty oh item 349 (imports under General Tariff), 20 per cent.

Item agreed to.

Item 350. Rubber, Manufactures, n.e.i., and Articles, n.e.i., in which Rubber forms a part; including Bandages, Elastic Stockings, Leggings, Knee Caps, Thigh-pieces and Wristlets; Hatmakers’ Press Bags and Rings; Gas Bags: Soles, Pads, and Heels; Cash Mats; Rubbered Tyre Fabric ; Tyre Rubber ; Tyres, not accompanying Cycles or Vehicles; Tubes, valved or unvalved; Rubber Stoppers or Corks, ad val. (General Tariff), 25 per cent. ; (United Kingdom), 20 per cent.

Senator CLEMONS:
Tasmania

– I desire to propose the omission from this item of certain articles, with the object of making them free. The articles are enumerated in the recommendations of the B section of the Tariff Commission. The reason for their omission is fairly obvious to every one. They are used by invalids, being practically all medical appliances. They are surgical bandages, elastic stockings, leggings, knee-caps, thigh-pieces, and wristlets. I propose to ask the Committee to take those articles from the item with a view to making them free. I therefore move -

That the House of Representatives be requested to amend item 350 by leaving out the words “ Bandages, Elastic Stockings, Leggings, Knee Caps, Thigh-pieces, and Wristlets,” and adding the following new paragraph : - “ B. Surgical Bandages, Elastic Stockings, Leggings, Knee Caps, Thigh-pieces, and Wristlets, free.”

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

– There is no just or good reason why those articles should be omitted from the item.

Senator Macfarlane:

– They are medical comforts.

Senator BEST:

– Medical comforts can be supplied within the Commonwealth.

Senator Sir Josiah Symon:

– They are surgical appliances.

Senator BEST:

– Surgical appliances can be manufactured in the Commonwealth. Are we never to encourage our own people to make these articles? They are all part and parcel of the one industry. We should not provide that they shall be imported. Rather our duty is to give the utmost encouragement to the manufacture in Australia of every class of rubber article.

Senator Colonel NEILD (New South Wales) [8.17]. - If the Minister had turned over the page to the next item he would have seen that there is no base for, or substance in, his argument, because in the next item it is proposed to make free a large number of articles that scarcely come within the limits of medical appliances, or at least are not nearly so closely allied to the healing arts as are those articles which Senator Clemons desires to make free with them.

Senator Best:

– The reason they are made free is that we certainly cannot make them here.

Senator Colonel NEILD:

– Does the honorable senator say that we cannot make air cushions here, but can make elastic stockings and other articles that, so far as I know, are not made in the Commonwealth, and are not nearly so easy to make as many of the articles included in the next item? The honorable senator has entirely overlooked the contents of item 351. If he intends to oppose Senator Clemons’ request to make free these articles in item 350, he will be in duty bound, to his own credit or discredit, to propose to make all the articles in item 351 dutiable. I hope to goodness that he will not do that.

Senator MILLEN:
New South Wales

– I entirely agree with the VicePresident of the Executive Council when he says that he sees no reason why these articles should be placed on the free list. Under this Tariff we tax the human being from the moment he is born, through life, and even after he is dead. In order to keep the Tariff on uniform lines, and avoid anomalies, we ought certainly to tax him when he is sick or crippled.

Question put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 13

NOES: 17

Majority … … 4

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Request negatived.

Senator McCOLL:
Victoria

.- I propose to move in quite a different direction with regard to some of the articles in this item. I move -

That the House of Representatives he requested to amend item 350 by leaving out the words “ Tyres, not accompanying cycles or vehicles ; Tubes, valved or unvalved “ ; and inserting the following new paragraphs : - “b. Completed Covers for Pneumatic Tyres, ad val. (General Tariff), 35 per cent. ; (United Kingdom), 25 per cent.” “ c. Inner Tubes for Pneumatic Tyres (a) valved, ad val. (General Tariff), 35 per cent. ; (United Kingdom), 25 per cent; (b) unvalved, ad val. (General Tariff), 30 per cent. ; (United Kingdom), 20 per cent.”

I propose this increase because the importation of these articles has very largely increased during the last year or two. They are somewhat incongruous in this collection and should be dealt with in a separate way. We have just been authoritatively informed by Senator Symon that the importations have largely increased, because he said that the bulk of the importations in the last year or two had been mainly of these tyres. The rubber industry is capable of very great expansion, and may with proper care become one of our leading industries, affording employment to a very large number of people. There has not only been an increase in the importations of late years, butthere has also been a decrease in the number of hands employed. According tothe Victorian Year-Book there were employed in 1904 in Victorian rubber factories 499 males and 199 females. These diminished to 446 males and 158 females in 1906. The rubber imports in 1902 were as follow: - British, £157,572; American, £18,076; German, £8,692. These increased in 1906 to: - British, £290,926; American, £23,057; and German, £33,058, showing an increase during the four years of - British, 84 per cent. ; American, 27 per cent. ; and German, 280 per cent. Consequently the importations have been overtaking the local production, showing that the support given to the local manufacturers was not sufficient. The trade and finance returns show that the imports of rubber goods were in November, 1906, £33,108 worth, and in November, 1907, £42,405 worth. For the first eleven month’s of 1906 they were £322,724 worth, and for the first eleven months of 1907 they had increased to £355,905. According to the very latest figures which I can get, the imports for December, 1906, were £24,671 worth, and for December, 1907, £35,130 worth, showing an increase of over 42 per cent, for that one month alone. While it may be urged that the duty has been increased, I believe that with a further increase we shall stimulate the industry to a much greater extent. It may be argued that this will raise the price, but the additional duty that has been put on has not had that effect. In fact, during the last three years - from 1905 up to the present - prices have substantially decreased in the case of the Continental and Wyngeel tyres, and the Dunlop and Oceanic tyres. On the other hand, the promise of higher duties has started new factories. Where there were only one or two before, there are now six in the Commonwealth. There may be others, but those six are the Dunlop Rubber Company, Barnett Glass, Wallace, and Commonwealth Rubber Company in Victoria ; and in New South Wales the Continental Rubber Company, and Perdriau. It may be contended that motor tyres are not being made here; but the Dunlop Rubber Company have just engaged an expert who is going to manufacture a variety of these articles, especially motor rubber tyres. To show that confidence is felt in the work of the firm, I may mention that they are engaged in making tyres for the motors to be run in the great road race from Adelaide to Melbourne. Chauffeurs and others, who have to risk their lives, and those who own the machines, certainly would not put their business into the hands of a local firm unless they could turn out a good article which would suit their purpose. Considering these various points, I think it is only right that we should give the industry the support that it requires. I believe that, if we do, it will become one of the leading industries in the Commonwealth. At the present time, the greater portion of the rubber has to be imported from South Africa and South America; but it is now being grown largely in Ceylon and Java, and plantations are being laid down in New Guinea, so that in the course of a few years our supply of rubber will be produced very much nearer to us than at present. In view of the importance of the industry, its great capacity for expansion, the large number of employes, and the amount of capital that will be invested therein, I ask the Committee, with confidence, to increase the duties on these items to the amounts I have stated.

Senator BEST (Victoria- Vice-Presi am desirous -of submitting a request for the omission of the words “ not accompanying cycles or vehicles,” but, in the event of Senator McColl’s request not being carried, I should be prejudiced. I therefore suggest to him that he should test the sense of the Committee regarding his request on a proposition to omit the word “Tyres,” and then, if it is carried, he can submit a request for the omission of the other words and the insertion of the new paragraphs.

Senator McCOLL:
Victoria

– With the consent of the Committee, I shall amend my request, as the Minister has suggested.

The CHAIRMAN:

– That is not necessary, as I have not yet stated the question.

Senator McCOLL:

– Then I move -

That the House of Representatives be requested to amend item 350 by leaving out the word “ Tyres.”

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

– I listened with some interest to the statement of Senator McColl, but I point out to him that the protectionist section of the Tariff Commission considered that 20 per cent, would be a reasonable and sufficient duty: The Government, as the result of their own inquiries, . adopted that recommendation, and proposed a duty of 20 per cent, in the preferential Tariff, and 25 per cent, in the general Tariff. In these circumstances, I find myself called upon to adhere to the rates as proposed by the Government and as they now appear in the schedule.

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

– I support the proposal for the omission of the word “ Tyres.” I regret that the Government cannot see their way to support its omission, because, if protection is to be worth anything; it should be effective ; that is to say, it should enable the local manufacturer, if not to secure the bulk of the trade, at least to hold the balance as against the importers. It is quite apparent that even the existing protection is not sufficient to enable the local manufacturers to cope with the enormous increase in- the importations.

Senator Millen:

– This is an increase of 100 per cent, on the old duty.

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

– Even, if it were an increase of 1,000 per cent., and imports continued to come in, it would prove conclusively that no matter how high the duty was, it was not effective in preserving the local market to our own manufacturers.

Senator Millen:

– We have had no experience of a 25 per cent. duty.

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

– We have had a little experience of it. During last December, as compared with the previous December, there was an increase of ever £11,000 worth in the importations, show-ing that the duty is not sufficiently high. A lot of ridicule has been heaped upon those protectionists who at some time or other have said that we had starving industries. If this is not a starving industry it is certainly not one which is hold-j ing its own. For instance, in Victoria last year we had an increase of about) 11,000 hands in our various manufacturing industries, but in the rubber .industry we had a decline of over 200 hands.

Senator Millen:

– And they have gone to Sydney to start works there.

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

– Good luck to them, because Sydney is in the Commonwealth. I have no prejudice against that city.

Senator Millen:

– The honorable senator quoted the decrease as proof that the industry is strangled, whereas there has merely been a change in the location where it is carried on.

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

– This cannot be described as a two-men-and-a-boy industry. I am glad to say that it is or.e of the few industries which employ a very large number of adult males in proportion to the child labour. Although they are not receiving wages as high as I should like them to get, still if we take the 499 men, women, and children engaged in Victoria,’ we find that they average £1 6s. 10d. per week,, showing that the industry is paying reasonable wages. When we compare that average with the rates paid in various countries, we can easily perceive in what way our manufacturing industries are handicapped. It is always said, particularly by honorable senators on the opposite side, that whenever a protective duty is imposed upon a commodity it is a tax upon the consumer. I wish to cite a few facts in order to prove that in the rubber industry protection has been the cause of bringing about a decrease in the price of the article,’ and strange to say the higher the amount of protection the greater. has been the fall in the price. For instance, in the season 1904-5 the Dunlop Rubber Company charged 47s. and 18s. 8d. for tyres, and 5s. for tubes, but in subsequent seasons the prices were 40s. and 15s. for tyres, and 5s. for tubes. I am quite pre pared to go through the catalogues issued by the various firms to prove beyond a doubt that as the protection has been raised in this industry’ the price has ‘decreased accordingly.

Senator Gray:

– Is not the price of an article regulated -by the price of the raw. material ? . .

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

– Not always. The price of rubber has-, advanced considerably the world over- but despite that fact, and the imposition of an additional duty, in Victoria the price of the finished commodity has decreased to a considerable extent. Seeing that the effect of a little protection has been to establish, to a certain extent, the rubber industry, that it i? giving employment to a considerable, number of persons, and that it has decreased the price of the commodity to the consumer; what more can even the most ardent free-trader desire? The protection of the industry has had a- very beneficial effect throughout the Commonwealth, and the imposition of a higher duty will secure to our manufacturers an increased ‘ command of the home market, enable them to give further employment, thereby increasing the wage fund, and also, owing to their larger -turnover, to reduce the price of the article to a far’ greater .extent . to the consumer. . -

Senator Gray:

– The honorable senator is assuming- that the .higher the duty the less is the cost of living.

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

– Yes, and a higher duty on rubber goods will reduce the price of locally-made articles to the consumer. Why ? . Because if we reduce the volume of importations,- the local manufacturers will be able to buy their raw material at cheaper rates, employ their plant more fully, and consequently will be able to sell their product at even lOwer prices than they do. It must be clear to any- one who is open to reason,- as I trust Senator Gray is, that that is a fact. I hope- that this- industry, which .has . been going backward, as -is shown by the. fact that .the number of employe’s -engaged in it has decreased, within the last three years, will be given an opportunity for full development in order that a good- class of work may be given to our own people in -the production of rubber goods in this country.

Senator LYNCH:
Western Australia

– I must say that I regret very much that the Government have not seen their way to support Senator McColl ‘s request. The figures which the honorable senator quoted should influence any one who has any regard for the future of this industry. They show that during the past three or four years, whilst we have been increasing our imports of rubber goods, the number of employes in the local industry has been decreasing.

Senator Gray:

– Is not the industry in a thriving and healthy condition?

Senator LYNCH:

– I am sure that even Senator Gray will not suggest that the industry is in a satisfactory position when it is shown that the number of hands employed in it has been reduced by over ninety during the last three years.

Senator Millen:

– Does the honorable senator want a debate or a division ?

Senator LYNCH:

– I want a victory. We find this industry in a struggling condition.

Senator Gray:

– What dividends does it pay?

Senator LYNCH:

– It does not pay dividends as high as are paid in the businesses of the importers whose cause Senator Gray consistently champions in this Chamber. In view of what we have heard from honorable senators opposite about the improved position of industries throughout the Commonwealth, it is sad to reflect that the rubber manufacturing industry has been decreasing the number of its employes. That is certainly a proof that the industry is on the wane. What is the remedy proposed? It is to give an additional protection of 5 per cent. That is what is proposed to bring about a more satisfactory condition of affairs in this industry than has prevailed in the past. We have to arrest the downward tendency of the industry, and to start it on the up-grade, and an additional duty of 5 per cent, is quite inadequate for that purpose. I remind honorable senators that in the Bounties Act we grant a maximum bounty of £30,000 for the production of the raw material of this industry, and when, in the face of that fact we find that the Industry itself is in a declining position, it is our duty to give it the assistance it requires. It is for this reason that I am prepared to support Senator McColl’s request.

Question - That the House of Representatives be requested to amend item 350, “Rubber manufactures n.e.i.,” by leaving out the word “ Tyres “ (Senator McColl’s request) - put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 15

NOES: 15

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 350 by leaving out the words “ not accompanying cycles or vehicles.”

If honorable senators will look at item 380, paragraphJ (b), they will find that “chassis for motor cars and rubber tyres for one car ‘ ‘ are to be admitted at 5 per cent, under the general Tariff, and free from the United Kingdom. Unless the amendment I have now proposed be agreed to, there will be an absurd anomaly contained in the Tariff, inasmuch as tyres imported with the under gear of motor cars might be admitted free, whilst tyres imported alone under this item would be dutiable at 25 and 20 per cent. I propose, when we come to item 380, paragraphJ (b), to move a request for the omission of the words, “ and rubber tyres for one car.”

Request agreed to.

Item 351 (Rubber and Rubber Manufactures) and item 352 (Leather Manufactures n.e.i.) agreed to.

Item 353. . . . .

And on and after 7th December, 1907 -

  1. Leather, Rubber, and Composition Belting and Green Hide for Belting and other purposes, ad val. (General Tariff), 25 per cent. ; (United Kingdom), 20 per cent.
  2. Leather, viz. : - Kid and Patent and Enamelled Leather, ad val. (General Tariff), 20 per cent.

    1. Leather, viz. : - Calf n.e.i., White Sheep, and White Lamb, ad val. (General Tariff),15 per cent.
  3. Leather n.e.i:, ad val. (General Tariff), 20 per cent.
  4. Belt Butts, ad val. (General Tariff), 20 percent.; (United Kingdom), 15 per cent.
Senator BEST:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · Victoria · Protectionist

– I desire, in pursuance of an undertaking given by my colleague elsewhere, to submit a request in regard to paragraph b. The duty set down in the schedule is 20 per cent, ad valorem. I desire to request that that dutv be struck out, and a duty of 2d. per square foot inserted. The tanners and bootmakers were for some time unable to agree in regard to this matter. Ultimately, the Victorian and New South Wales tanners and bootmakers met in conference, and, as a result, a request was made to the Minister of Trade and Customs’ that 2d. per square foot should be the duty chargeable.

Senator Clemons:

– How would that compare with the present duty?

Senator BEST:

– It compares in this way : that on the better grades of leather, which we do not produce, the dutv would be much lower, but in respect of the class of leather which we do produce, it would amount to something like 30 >per cent.

Senator Clemons:

– That which we do produce being an inferior grade?

Senator BEST:

– On the superior class of leather the duty would be smaller.

Senator Givens:

– We want . protection for the superior class, too.

Senator BEST:

– We are proposing to protect the class of leather which we do produce.

Senator Sir Josiah Symon:

– The Government want a higher duty on the lower class of leather?

Senator BEST:

– Leather is, of course, the raw material of the bootmakers, and the finished article of the tanners, These interested parties having arrived at a common understanding, it should- be a guide lo us.

Senator Millen:

– Is the Minister affirming that because the parties interested are in agreement the public can look after themselves ?

Senator BEST:

– I am affirming that the trades interested having arrived at a reasonable determination, I need have no hesitation in submitting it to the favorable consideration of the Committee.

Senator Sir Josiah SYMON:

-When did the consumers meet in conference?

Senator BEST:

– The consumers will be protected by the vastness of both interests and by the internal competition.

Senator CLEMONS:
Tasmania

-‘ -Senator Best has made rather an interesting admission. He has told us, in language quite plain, that the best classes of leather must be imported, and that it is an inferior class that is made in the Commonwealth. He wants to have a higher duty on that inferior class. While I object to a protective duty with regard to the boot industry, I also object to any duty which would hamper it when it is established., whether under protection or otherwise. Leather is the raw material of the boot industry, and, as most honorable senators know, the better class of leather is only sparsely made in Australia. On the other hand, it is very valuable to the bootmaker. I say without fear of contradiction that if the bootmaker were able to get the superior classes of leather cheap, it would be a decided help to him in carrying his industry to the state of perfection to which protectionists desire to see it brought. That being so, I desire to make the item free. I believe that it would be for the benefit of the boot industry to make the item free.

Senator W RUSSELL:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– What about protection to those who produce the leather?

Senator CLEMONS:

– This kind of leather is rarely made in Australia. On the plain admission of Senator Best himself, it is not satisfactorily made here.

Senator W RUSSELL:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– Not even in Queensland ?

Senator CLEMONS:

– Not anywhere. Senator Best has told us that . the best classes of leather are not made here - that the types of leather which are made in Australia are inferior.

Senator Givens:

– We ought to make the best kinds also. ‘

Senator CLEMONS:

– I do not know why we do not, but it is a fact that we do not.

Senator Givens:

– Do not our cattle give us good enough hides?

Senator CLEMONS:

– It is not that; it is a question of manufacture. It is of much importance to the boot manufacturers that they should be able to get their leather cheap, t have not the slightest doubt that it would be better for them to make the item free.

Senator Trenwith:

– Indeed it would not be, and I speak with forty years’ knowledge of the trade.

Senator Millen:

– The honorable senator has forty years’ knowledge of everything !

Senator CLEMONS:

– The honorable senator has a wider experience than I have.-

Senator Millen:

– He means that he has worn boots for forty years !

Senator CLEMONS:

– I do not know what he means, but I am perfectly certain that it would be an advantage to the bootmaking industry if the cost of leather were reduced, as it would be by the abolition of this duty. Nothing could be plainer than Senator Best’s statement that he wants this duty altered so that it will be lighter on the better classes of leather and heavier on the inferior kinds.

Senator Best:

– No, I never admitted that. I said that the altered duty would be a better protection.

Senator CLEMONS:

– I am unable to understand plain language if the Minister did not say what! I have represented. I move -

That the House of Representatives be requested to make item 353, paragraph B, free.

Senator TRENWITH:
Victoria

– Speaking as a bootmaker of very large experience, I have no hesitation in saying that the bootmakers have derived material advantage from the imposition of duties on leather. They have led to the development of leather production in Australia to the extent that we have not now to import an enormous number of lines at all, because we have developed the local production. The bootmaker finds it a very great convenience to be able to order a small quantity of leather from day to day as he requires it, instead of having to import or buy from importers in large quantities, as he had to do before the imposition of duties. In addition to that, the price of imported leather has been materially reduced because of the duties imposed - not because the importer likes to pay the duty and sell his leather cheaper, but because leather produced in Australia has been so largely used that he had. to sell cheaper or not sell at all. The local competition was so keen and effective as to displace the imported leather unless it were sold cheaper.

Senator Millen:

– Then no more protection is wanted.

Senator TRENWITH:

– Yes, it is. I am dealing with lines already developed. The leather industry has been progressing. Ten or twelve years ago there were lines of leather which were not produced in Australia at all. They are now being produced of so excellent a quality, that, although in some respects they are not yet equal to the best that the world can produce, they are so good that they are used in a very large range of manufactures in the boot line, and they are good enough to compel the sale of the very best leather that the world can produce, at a lower price than that for which it would otherwise have been sold. These are deductions arrived at as the result of an experience extending over a very long period, and very extensive in character. It happens that I havebeen a bootmaker for many years; in addition to which I occupied in the boot trade the position of appraiser of values. I was for a long time secretary of the Bootmakers’ Union. In the boot trade, prices for making are gauged by the quality and description of the material employed. The men arenot paid so much for a pair of boots, but so much according to the quality of the leather used. Therefore I had - compelled by my position - to acquire a more than ordinary knowledge of the variations of quality in leather.I can speak with a greater degree of confidence in that respect than most bootmakers could, or than most leather dressers.

Question put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 6

NOES: 24

Majority … … 18

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Request negatived.

Senator CLEMONS:
Tasmania

– Why does the Vice-President of the Executive Council wish to vary the leather duties by inserting one specific duty only on this paragraph in the way he has indicated, while in the next paragraph the duty is 15 per cent. ? This will add to the discrepancies which no member of the Committee can explain.It is most undesirable, for the sake of the Customs administration, and for other reasons, to have one specific duty in the midst of a number of ad valorem duties, and will surely create confusion.

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

– The first reason is that the representatives of the bootmaking and leathermaking trades have themselves fixed on the rate which I have indicated as a fair and reasonable compromise, and suggested it to the Minister of Trade and Customs. The second reason is that this particular class of leather is sold by the square foot, while the other class is sold by the pound.

Senator Colonel NEILD (New South Wales) [9.17]. - It has been reported to me, with reference to paragraphs b and c, that it is much more expensive to turn out the white sheep and white lamb than to turn out the kid leather. Communications that I have received are in favour of reversing the duties, making kid leather dutiable at 15 per cent., and the white sheep and white lamb at a higher rate.

Senator Best:

– I will assist the honorable senator to make the duty on white sheep and white lamb leather 20 per cent.

Senator Colonel NEILD:

– Will the honorable senator reduce the duty on kid leather to 1 5 per cent. ?

Senator Best:

– No.

Senator Colonel NEILD:

-I do not want the honorable senator’s help merely to put burdens upon the people.

Senator MILLEN:
New South Wales

.- Before the Vice-President of the Executive Council moves the request which he has indicated, I beg to move -

That the House of Representatives be requested to make the duty on item 353, paragraph B (imports under General Tariff), ad val. 15 per cent.

That was the rate in the Tariff of 1902, and is the same as appears against paragraph c.

Senator VARDON:
South Australia

.- I shall follow the Minister in the alteration which he proposes, because it. will be altogether more equitable. In the lines mentioned in paragraph c, the skins are sold complete, but these larger leathers are sold at per foot. It is, therefore, a much more convenient way of dealing with them to impose a fixed than an ad valorem duty.

Senator Colonel NEILD (New South Wales) [9.20]. - It will be useful if I read the following from an authoritative source upon this question -

A useful comparison may be made with the duty on glace kid, which now stands at 20 per cent., about the lowest rate at which the local manufacture can be kept alive. We contend that the duty on white leather should be materially higher than that upon kid, as compared with kid. The percentage of wages to cost of the finished product is 20 per cent, higher. No compensating savings can be made, nor can any larger profits be obtained. Taking the present rates, the percentage of duty to wages, which, for reasons stated, should be greater in the case of white leather than in the case of kid, is actually about 35 per cent. less.

Senator Millen:

– What is the date of that letter?

Senator Colonel NEILD:

– The 15th of last month.

Senator MILLEN:
New South Wales

– That letter was evidently a copy of one which has been forwarded to me. I was at first inclined to move in the direction in which the writer wished, for he seemed to have made out a good case, but I have been astonished to learn, from further inquiries, that he has since written to the Customs Department absolutely withdrawing from the position which he set out in his communication to myself and my colleague. I believe that that letter is in official possession to-day. That is the reason why I have taken up my present attitude. I do not wish to give the name of the author, but he has written to the Department to say that, on further inquiry and consideration, he is unable to sustain the position which he originally took up.

Senator Colonel NEILD (New South Wales) [9.22]. - I have a letter from somebody in Melbourne to the effect represented by Senator Millen; but, as I have had some correspondence with the writer of the letter from which I read the extract, and have not received from him any sign of withdrawal, I am dubious about the statements contained in the local document which has reached me.

Senator Millen:

– I am not going on the local document.

Senator Colonel NEILD:

– It is a curious state of affairs, and difficult to unravel.

Question put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 10

NOES: 20

Majority … … 10

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Request negatived.

Request (by Senator Best) put -

That the House of Representatives be requested to make the duty on item 353, paragraph B (imports under General Tariff), per square foot, 2d.

The Committee divided.

AYES: 20

NOES: 10

Majority … …. 10

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Request agreed to.

Senator Colonel NEILD (New South Wales) [9.29]. - As the Committee has decided that the duty on this item shall be per square foot, I shall move a request in the second column at a proportionate rate to the one which I proposed to move - 15 per cent. - had the duty remained ad valorem. I move -

That the House of Representatives be requested to make the duty on item 353, paragraphB (imports from the United Kingdom), per square foot,1½d.

It is not worth while to differentiate between glace kid and patent and enamelled leather, because the latter articles are not made in England. The preference I am asking for is confined to glace kid, which is made very largely in England, and I propose a positive preference, instead of some of the fictional preferences which we have been inaugurating.

Question put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 11

NOES: 17

Majority … … 6

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Request negatived.

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

– In pursuance of the undertaking of my colleague, to which I have already referred, I move -

That the House of Representatives be requested to make the duty on item 353, paragraph c, ad val. . 20 per cent.

My honorable colleague quite satisfied himself that 15 per cent, was not a sufficient protection to grant to this branch of the industry.

Request agreed to.

Item 354 (Leather, &c.) agreed to.

Item 355. Crust or rough tanned Goat, Skivers, Persians, and Sheep Skins, free.

Request (by Senator Best) agreed to -

That the House of Representatives be requested ‘ to amend item 355 by leaving out the words “ Goat, Skivers, Persians, and Sheep Skins,” and inserting in lieu thereof the words “ Goat Skins, Persian Sheep Skins, and Skivers.”

Division XIII. - Paper and Stationery -

Item 356. Paper, viz. . . .

And on and after9th December, 1907 -

Manufactures of, framed (including the weight of the frame), or unframed, having advertisements thereon, including Price Lists n.e.i., Trade Catalogues n.e.i., Show Cards n.e.i., and all Printed or Lithographed Matter, Pictures n.e.i., and Posters of all kinds, used or intended to be used for advertising purposes ; also all Printed Bags and Cartons ; Calendars and Almanacs n.e.i., per lb., ….. 6d.

Senator ST LEDGER:
Queensland

– Pursuant to the noticeI gave, I move -

That the House of Representatives be requested to amend item 356, paragraphA, by adding after the letters “ n.e.i.” the words “ except specimen illustrations and prospectuses and sample pages of school, scientific, and technical science publications.”

Specimen pages are sent out for distribution in Australia as illustrations of the scientific and technical books that are being printed and published in other countries, but I am informed by the Customs authorities that under the Tariff they are dutiable at 6d. per lb.

Senator Findley:

– So they should be. Why cannot they be set up and printed here?

Senator ST LEDGER:

– I hold in my hand two specimen pages of scientific works. Under the Tariff the books themselves are admitted free, but when specimen pages of the books are sent out to our schools and colleges to indicate the contents of the books they are held to be dutiable at 6d. per lb. Surely if the books are allowed to come in free, the sample illustrations ought not to be taxed.

Senator KEATING:
Minister of Home Affairs · Tasmania · Protectionist

– If the only object which the honorable senator has in view is to secure the free admission of publications of the description to which he has referred, it is. unnecessary for him to submit the request. If the specimen illustrations are merely pictures, they will come in under item 419.

Senator Millen:

– They are not necessarily pictures.

Senator KEATING:

– Specimen illustrations may come in singly instead of being bound up with letterpress, and if they do they are admitted free under item 419 as “ pictures n.e.i.” If, on the other hand, they are prospectuses of the character to which Senator St. Ledger has referred, they come in free under item 371 as “ Books n.e.i. ; prospectuses and catalogues (other than trade) n.e.i.,. and all printed matter n.e.i.” Items 371 and 419 are designed to admit free specimens in the nature of single illustrations and also catalogues and prospectuses that are not trade catalogues or trade prospectuses. With regard to the other portion of the honorable senator’s proposed request, “ except prospectuses of school scientific and technical science illustrations.” I would say that I see no reason why specimens of the nature of that which the honorable senator has produced should not be printed in the Commonwealth. . The specimen produced is simply an advertisement of a particular book which is described as The Modern Encyclopaedia: The Cheapest andmost Reliable Work of its kind in the Language. Illustrations are given showing how the book would look on the owners’ shelves. There is depicted a street scene in Cairo, and some aeronautic illustrations reduced, I presume, from illustrations appearing in. the book itself. I think honorable senators must agree that there is no reason why this kind of specimen or catalogue should not be produced in the Commonwealth. It is a trade catalogue.

Senator St Ledger:

– But we let the book itself in free.

Senator Millen:

– We let certain catalogues in free also, and why not this?

Senator KEATING:

– We do not let trade catalogues in free. In items 371 and 419 of the Tariff we provide adequate provision for the free entry of all that is desirable of this kind of printed matter, while at the same time we provide sufficient protection for our local printers in respect of advertisements of this kind which they might reasonably ask should be printed in the Commonwealth.

Senator ST LEDGER:
Queensland

– I have here an illustration of a sample prospectus which comprises work of a very high character, which perhaps could not be’ produced except by some American firms and some big firms in England or Germany.

Senator Findley:

– I will warrant that Sands and McDougall, of Melbourne, could turn out work equal to that which the honorable senator produces.

Senator Vardon:

– But Sands and McDougall would not print the book to which the prospectus refers.

Senator ST LEDGER:

– This specimen is a prospectus of a work which every student of veterinary science would desire to possess.

Senator Millen:

– And it can only be published at the low rate quoted on the assumption- that it is to have a world-wide circulation.

Senator ST LEDGER:

– Exactly. The firm publishing the work probably hopes to supply the whole of the English-speaking world with this scientific book. As the book itself will be admitted free, I can see no reason why the prospectus describing it should not also be admitted free. From the Minister’s explanation, it would appear that if a specimen consists of a single illustration or picture it is free of duty, but if there is a line or two of print on the page explaining the illustration it becomes dutiable. That is an interpretation of the item which I think will not commend itself to the Committee. The fact that these books are admitted free is an overwhelming reason for the free admission of samples and prospectuses describing them. The only reason I can ascertain for the objection to the suggested request is that some time ago a prospectus of the Windsor Magazine was imported and made dutiable, and apparently the publishers of scientific works are to be treated in the same way as the publishers of a more’ or less rubbishy magazine. Perhaps.it would be better that I should move my request as a separate item, but in view of the fact that I am dealing with- the prospectuses of scientific books that would be of use to students throughout the Commonwealth, I am inclined rather to press the matter than to apologize to the Committee for detaining it”.

Senator FINDLEY:
Victoria

.- I hope that the door will not be opened in the way desired by Senator St. Ledger. I ask honorable senators to consider the far-reaching effect of the proposed request. I suppose that it is intended that the specimen illustrations and prospectuses shall be descriptive of scientific publications, but it is very difficult to say what might not be described as a scientific publication. Nothing would be easier than for the publisher of a book to take out the title page and one or two plates and pages of the work, have them stereotyped, and from the stereotypes print thousands of prospectuses advertising the publication, which could afterwards be sent into the Commonwealth without pay ing any duty. That would be a considerable handicap upon the Australian printer.

Senator Millen:

– How would it when the work would never be printed here ?

Senator St Ledger:

– If the honorable senator will permit me, I shall withdraw the request for the present with a view to dealing with the matter in a separate item.

Request, by leave, withdrawn.

Senator KEATING:
Minister of Home Affairs · Tasmania · Protectionist

– I move -

That the House of Representatives be requested to amend item 356, paragraph A, by inserting after the word “ Printed “ the word “ Photographed.”

The reason for this request is that the strict reading of the item as it stands would not cover photographed matter which might be imported into the Commonwealth with advertisements on it, as in the case of cigarette cards and other such advertisements.

Request agreed to.

Senator MILLEN:
New South Wales

– - I wish to direct the attention of the Minister and honorable senators to what is not merely an anomaly but an absolute injustice presented by the different treatment extended to different sections of the community under paragraphs a and b of this item. For the purpose of my argument it may be said that both paragraphs cover the same class of goods ; but under paragraph a it is proposed to charge a duty of 6d. per . lb. for any printed matter introduced into Australia if brought here by or on behalf of people who have a business established in our- midst, whilst under paragraph b it is proposed to permit the same printed matter to come in free if brought- in by those who have no business place in Australia. If . there is to be any distinction, the position should certainly be reversed. If there is one thing about which we can all be in agreement, it is a desire to see in our midst representative establishments of persons carrying on’ business -abroad! and doing business with -us. I take the instance of Cadbury Brothers, and I believe I am correct in saying that they have an establishment in Australia of some magnitude. Under the schedule as it stands it is proposed to charge this firm 6d. per lb. for printed matter they import because they have an establishment in Australia, whilst a competitor who is not established here but merely sends printed matter out to an agent is allowed to send it into Australia free of duty. The only question now is how to correct the anomaly.

Senator Findley:

– Put the same duty on both.

Senator MILLEN:

– I thought we should reach a point at which Senator Findley would go the wrong way whilst I am resolute to continue on the right way. I say that the anomaly can best be corrected by leaving out paragraph b except in so far as it relates to printed matter and photographs the property of any public institution and intended for deposit or exhibition therein. No doubt Senator Findley would desire to have paragraph b deleted, or a duty of 6d. per lb. placed against it. I think that 6d. is too high. My opinion is that we might reasonably reduce the duty on paragraph a to what it was under the old Tariff. I have learnt something about the temper of the Committee during the last few weeks.

Senator W RUSSELL:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– Hear, hear.

Senator MILLEN:

– I looked towards my honorable friend when I selected the word “ temper.” It was not used accidentally. If my request be carried, I am prepared to move a request to strike out the first portion of paragraph b. The effect would be to bring catalogues, pricelists, show-cards, or pictures for the use of those who have not establishments in Australia under paragraph a.

Senator Macfarlane:

– Then they would be dutiable.

Senator MILLEN:

– Of course they would. If the duty were 2s. per lb., I should still desire to make the same duty as is payable by a man who has the enterprise to establish a business place in Australia, and maintains a staff of officers here, also payable by the man who has merely an agent in Australia. I point out that a duty of 4d. is 33 per cent, higher than the duty was under the old Tariff. I move -

That the House of Representatives be requested to make the duty on item 356, paragraph a, per lb., 4d.

Senator FINDLEY:
Victoria

.- I hope that the Committee will not agree to Senator Millen’s request. I agree with him regarding the anomaly which he has pointed out, namely, that under the schedule as presented to us taxation is imposed on the enterprising man, whilst we allow the bird of passage to get his printed material into Australia absolutely free. But I do not agree with Senator Millen when he suggests that we should lower the duty. I hope that the Committee will agree to the proposed duty of 6d. per lb., and, later on, I hope that the anomaly pointed out by Senator Millen will be rectified by the imposition of the same duty with respect to printed material introduced by one who has not an establishment in Australia, as is paid by those who have business houses here.

Question put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 9

NOES: 17

Majority … … 8

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Request negatived.

Senator VARDON:
South Australia

– I move -

That the House of Representatives be requested to amend item 356, paragraph a, by inserting after the figure “6d.” the words “or 35 per cent, ad val., whichever returns the higher duty.”

I confess that I am taking up a somewhat anomalous position in this matter, because, although I am in the printing trade, I have never asked for a duty to the extent of a single penny. I started my business when there was no protection in South Australia, and was never afraid of any competition whatever. But the printing trade has just as much right to ask for protection as has any other trade in the Commonwealth. The members of the trade have been holding a meeting in Melbourne to-day, and they have brought under my notice something that seems to be an anomaly, and which justifies the request I am now making. The printers fear the invasion of the yellow peril. Australian printers seem likely to be brought into severe competition with Japan. I hold in my hand an illustration of what I mean. It is a placard issued by Anthony Hordern and Sons in Sydney. It was printed in Japan. I understand that this firm advertise in some of the magazines the fact that their goods are made in Australia. This appears to be an exception to that rule.

Senator Millen:

– The honorable senator can hardly call that placard “goods.”

Senator VARDON:

– At any rate, the firm profess to encourage local manufactures.

Senator Colonel Neild:

– I do not know that they make that profession, because Hordern’s are the largest retail importers in the Commonwealth.

Senator VARDON:

– They are necessarily very large importers, because they profess to be universal providers. They will, I suppose, provide anything, “ from a needle toan anchor,” as the saying is. But in this instance they seem to have adopted a course which brings them into conflict with the printing trade. I have before me an extract which contains a story told by Mr. Sidney Day, a Victorian master printer, to a gathering held in Melbourne -

While on a visit to Japan, Mr. Day discovered by the merest accident that the printers of Australia were being deprived ofa considerable amount of work which, according to all rules of fair trading, should legitimately be theirs. Referring to the matter at the last meeting of the Victorian Master Printers’ Association, Mr. Day stated that at Yokohama he found a Japanese printing establishment, managed by a cute American, turning out lithographic printing in a style which would not discredit any Australian printery. The wages paid were about one-sixth the wages of the printers doing similar work in Melbourne or Sydney.

I understand that a journeyman’s wage in Japan is9s. per week, which is only about one-sixth - barely that - of the wage paid to a journeyman printer in Australia. Under these circumstances, the trade are not making an unreasonable request in asking for the addition to the item of provision for a duty of 35 per cent. I may add that prior to this action on the part of the trade, I had not proposed to submit any request upon the matter.

Senator Gray:

– I understand that the honorable senator is not directing his request specially against Japan?

Senator VARDON:

– I am submitting it because Eastern countries are apparently coming into severe competition with us.

Senator Gray:

– The honorable senator, as a master printer,does not know of any material that has been imported from Japan to compete with local printers?

Senator VARDON:

– I have exhibited a sample. This placard is the only thing thatI have seen from a Japanese printing office. It is a creditable piece of work, and shows that the Japanese are, at all events, splendid copyists. The placard is produced as well as any work of that kind could be done in Australia or England.

The CHAIRMAN:

– It will be necessary to put the honorable senator’s request in the following form -

That the House of Representatives be requested to make the duty on item 356, paragraph a (imports under General Tariff), per lb., 6d., or ad val. 35 per cent., whichever rate returns the higher duty.

Question put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 17

NOES: 9

Majority … … 8

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Request agreed to.

Request (by Senator Colonel Neild) put -

That the House of Representatives be requested to make the duty on item 356, paragraph a (imports from the United Kingdom), per lb., 4½d., or ad val. 30 per . cent., whichever rate returns the higher duty.

The Committee divided.

AYES: 11

NOES: 14

Majority … 3

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Request negatived.

Senator Colonel NEILD (New South Wales) [10.25]. - Iwishto draw attention to the fact that the whole object of the proposed extra duty was to provide a safeguard against Asiatic competition. Apparently the argument was against, not only Asiatic, but United Kingdom competition. The reason given was not a genuine one, and I regret it.

Senator ST LEDGER:
Queensland

– I move -

That the House of Representatives be requested to further amend item 356 by inserting after paragraph A the following new paragraph : - “A1. Specimen illustrations and prospectuses and sample pages of School, Scientific, and Technical Science publications, free.”

Senator Sayers:

– Are they printed in Japan ?

Senator ST LEDGER:

– No; in London. The duty has been declared to be 6d. per lb. on the illustrations and sample pages of a highly scientific work published in London, while the book itself is free of duty.

Question put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 13

NOES: 13

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Request negatived.

Item 356. … . . .

On and after 10th December, 1907 -

Senator FINDLEY:
Victoria

– I rise to move a request to make the duty under paragraphB 6d. per lb.

Senator MILLEN:
New South Wales

– I have a prior request to propose. I move -

That the House of Representatives be requested to amend item 356, paragraph b, by leaving out the words “ Catalogues, Price Lists, Show Cards, or Pictures issued by or referring to the goods of any manufacturer or producer not having an established place of business in Australia; and all.”

If that request be agreed to, the paragraph will then read -

Printed Matter and Photographs, the property of any public institution and intended for deposit or exhibition therein, free.

What Senator Findley is seeking to do is to get a duty of6d. per lb. charged on such printed matter and photographs, treating them exactly as he would treat a trade catalogue.

Senator Findley:

– No.

Senator MILLEN:

– If the honorable senatordoes not want to do that, the proper thing for him to do is to fall in with the suggestion which I made some time ago, and to which I am now trying to give effect. If my proposal be adopted, the deleted articles will fall automatically into paragraph a. Whilst I very much regret to. propose a duty, I still contend that it is manifestly unfair to allow persons who have established a business here to be placed in the position of having to pay a duty, whilst those who send out first a circular, and then a commercial traveller to gather up orders, are exempt from such impost. I am not prepared to agree to such treatment. I. want to put them all on the one level.

Senator FINDLEY:
Victoria

– I have not the slightest objection to support the request for the deletion of the words, with a view to having all -printed matter and photographs the property of any public institution, and intended for deposit or exhibition therein, admitted free.

Senator MACFARLANE:
Tasmania

– I wish to remind the representative of the Ministry that this paragraph, as framed, was composed by the ComptrollerGeneral of Customs, and submitted by the Treasurer in another place to meet . the objections which had been raised to keeping out the catalogues of foreign houses. It was considered to be a great advantage to the community to know what was going on elsewhere, and therefore this paragraph was inserted. We should know what our competitors in other countries are doing, .and not penalize them for sending us gratuitous information.

Senator Keating:

– More than 90 per cent.’ of the matter which comes in under this’ paragraph is matter advertising pink pills or like articles.

Senator MACFARLANE:

– The insertion of this paragraph in the item was not decided upon in a hurry, but after considerable negotiation.

Request agreed to.

Progress reported.

Senate adjourned at 10.38 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 26 March 1908, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1908/19080326_senate_3_44/>.