View PDF View XML View in Voyant

Senate
6 May 1908

3^rd Parliament · 2^nd Session

ASSENT TO BILLS
QUESTION
- SHIPPING RING
QUESTION
- OFFICERS COMPENSATION ACT
QUESTION
- IMMIGRATION RESTRICTION ACT
PAPERS
QUESTION
- SYDNEY-MELBOURNE TELEPHONE LINE
CUSTOMS TARIFF BILL
SPECIAL- ADJOURNMENT

The President took thechair at 2 30 p.m., and read prayers.

page 10828

ASSENT TO BILLS

Assent to the following Bills reported : - .

Officers Compensation Bill.

Australian ‘Industries Preservation Bill.

Appropriation Bill, 1907-8.

page 10828

QUESTION

SHIPPING RING

Senator McGREGOR:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I beg to ask the ‘ Vice-President of the Executive Council, without notice, if his attention has been called to the statements made ..by the representative of the British Chamber of Manufactures with respect to a ring controlling freights to Australia from Great Britain and other parts of the world; and what steps, if any, the. Government intend to take for the protection of the . Australian consumer ?

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

– The statements appearing in the press, and referred to by my honorable friend, have received the attention of the Government, and the steps to be taken by . them are under consideration..’

page 10828

QUESTION

OFFICERS COMPENSATION ACT

Senator KEATING:
Minister for Home Affairs · TASMANIA · Protectionist

– I am not in a position to’ say that the amounts have vet been paid, but on the day when the Royal assent to the measure was communicated to another place, I made inquiry of the Defence Department, and learned that all proper expedition would be adopted in seeing that the amounts were paid. I shall make further inquiry during the afternoon, and I hope before we rise to be able to state how matters stand.

page 10829

QUESTION

IMMIGRATION RESTRICTION ACT

Bonds forsick Sailors.

Senator KEATING:
Protectionist

– Thematter to which the honorable senator refers is one of which I have no personal knowledge. The first information I had on the subject was the representation implied in his question. It comes within the province of the Department of External Affairs”, which administers the Immigration Restriction Act, and I have no doubt that if he will give notice of a question; or repeat his inquiry, my honorable colleague, as its representative here, will be able to furnish him with satisfactory information.

page 10829

PAPERS

MINISTERS laid upon the table the following papers -

Memorandum by the Hon. Sir William Lyne on the subject of Transfer of State Debts to the Commonwealth and Financial arrangements connected therewith.

Public Debts of Australia, as at 30th . June, 1907.

Copies of the Affidavits made by marine surveyors in England on the condition of the s.s. Afric, as laid before the Court of Marine Inquiry at Melbourne, on nth March, 1908.

Excise Procedure Act 1907. - Provisional Regulations. - Statutory Rules 1908, No. 45.

Excise Tariff 1906 (No. 16 of 1906). - Repeal of Provisional Regulations (Statutory Rules 1907, No. 27) relating to remuneration of labour. - Statutory Rules 1908, No. 48.

Papua. - Timber Ordinance of 1907.

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

Census and Statistics Act 1905 -

Summary of Australian Financial Statistics, 1901 to1907. - Bulletin No. 1.

Trade, Shipping, Oversea Migration, and Finance of the Commonwealth of Australia for the month of January, igo8. - Bulletin No. 13.

Defence Acts 1903-1904 -

Regulations for the Military Forces of the Commonwealth. - New Regulations 6a, ioia, 212a, 225A, and 284A; and amendment of Regulations 10, 57, 65, 115, 117, 119, 124, 127, 139, 200, 203, 204, 205, 224, and 225. - Statutory Rules 1908, No. 41.

Financial and Allowance Regulations for the Military Forces of the Commonwealth. New Regulations i2a, 15A, and 233A; Amendment of Regulations 92, 93, 95, 1 no, and in. - Statutory Rules 1908, No. 42.

Financial and Allowance Regulations for the Naval Forces of the Commonwealth. - Amendment of Regulation 49A. - Statutory Rules 1908, No. 43.

Regulations for the Military Forces of the Commonwealth. - Cancellation of Regulation 56 (a) and substitution of new Regulation in lieu thereof. - Statutory Rules 1908, No. 44.

Regulations for the Commonwealth Military Cadet Corps. - Amendment of Regulation 2 of Section I. - Statutory Rules 1908, No. 49.

Post and Telegraph Act 1901 -

Telephone Regulations. - Amendment of Regulations 7 and 108, and repeal of Regulation 8 and substitution of new Regulation in lieu thereof. - Statutorv Rules 1908, No. 46.

General Postal and Telephone Regulations. - Repeal and Amendments. - Statutory Rules 1908, No. 47.

page 10829

QUESTION

SYDNEY-MELBOURNE TELEPHONE LINE

Senator GIVENS:
QUEENSLAND

asked the Minister representing the Postmaster-General, upon notice -

What was the net profit or loss on the working of the Sydney-Melbourne telephone line from the date on which the line was opened to 31st March, 1908, after making full allowance for all working expenses and interest on capital cost of construction ?

Senator KEATING:
Protectionist

– The reply that has been furnished to me by’ the PostmasterGeneral, is as follows -

The loss involyed for the nine months from nth July, 1907, to 10th April, 1908, was £526 15s. 4d.

That reply reached my hands only just before the Senate met, and I am not in a position to ascertain upon what revenue the sum mentioned has been based, but I assume that it refers only to the revenue received for telephone purposes. I understand, however, that the line is also used constantly throughout the day for telegraphic purposes, and that if it were hot used for that purpose another- line would have to be laid. If Senator Givens cares to ask the question at a later date, I may be able to give him a different statement from the one which has been furnished to me, showing what is the” actual loss, if any, upon the line, taking into consideration its value as a (telegraph as well’ as a telephone line.

Senator GIVENS:
QUEENSLAND · ALP; NAT

– Arising out of the answer, I wish to give notice of an amended question for Fridav next.

The PRESIDENT:

– If the honorable senator wants that question put upon the notice-paper, he will have to give notice of it to-morrow. It is too late to do so to-day.

Senator GIVENS:

– I wish to ask the Minister a question without notice.

The PRESIDENT:

– That question must arise out of the Minister’s answer.

Senator GIVENS:
QUEENSLAND · ALP; NAT

– It does, undoubtedly. Can the Minister, in addition to what he has already stated, give the Senate information showing the estimated or approximate loss of revenue to the telegraph branch of the Department through the establishment of telephonic communication between Melbourne and Sydnev ?

Senator KEATING:

– If the honorable, senator will ask the question on Friday, I shall endeavour in the meantime’ to obtain the information.

page 10830

CUSTOMS TARIFF BILL

The PRESIDENT:

– I have to report that I have received the following message from the House of Representatives -

The House of Representatives transmits to the Senate a schedule showing the manner in which the House has dealt with certain Senate’s requests for amendments in the Customs Tariff Bill, 1907- As soon as the House has dealt with, the remainder of the requests the Tesult will be communicated to the Senate, and the Bill will be returned to it.

I emphasize, the fact that we are not parting with the Bill which oefore it can become law must pass its third reading in the .. Senate. We have, therefore, full confrol over the Bill.

Senator Guthrie:

– Will the. honorable gentleman agree to support any proposal for the recommittal of items?

SenatorBEST. - In that connexion I point out that almost without exception, and certainly for the most part, the various items of the Tariff are dependent upon other items contained within the same division, and the message we have received covers all the items included in several divisions. I say, further, that if by any chance it is found that any item considered in dealing with- the message is contingent upon an item we have not vet received it will be quite reasonable for ‘ honorable senators to ask for the postponement of that particular item. If that course were adopted. I submit that every objection to the immediate consideration of the message would be met. In conclusion-, I would ask honorable senators to differentiate between the Customs Tariff Bill and the ordinary class of Bill. The body of the Customs Tariff Bill is the mere enacting part of the measure, and the all important feature in connexion with it is the schedule, each item of which can be dealt with on its individual merits. The other Chamber, in this message, has returned to the Senate, if honorable members please, so many small Bills - regarding each item included in the message as a small Bill. They have sent- us 113 of these items with which they have dealt, and of which they ask our consideration on their own individual merits. I submit that in the interests of the- community and the expedition of our parliamentary work, it is a- fair and business-like proposition that we should now proceed to deal with these items on the understanding I have already mentioned - that if any item is regarded by honorable senators as more or less contingent upon some other item we have not yet received, I will gladly consent to the postponement of its consideration.

Senator MILLEN:
New South Wales

– I suppose that in ordinary circumstances, . seeing that the Government have submitted a motion asking the Senate to adopt a distinctly unusual course, any one speaking from this side might be expected to oppose the motion.. However, having regard to the interests at stake, and the obligations which I conceive rest upon members of the Senate, I find myself able to support the motion. I do so for one or two reasons which I shall takethe liberty of outlining. The motion submitted really opens up two matters for consideration. First of all, the Vice-President of the Executive Council has moved the suspension of the Standing Orders. In the next place, I desire to direct attention to the purpose for. which he seeks that suspension. I come to that first.. The Government is seeking now to induce the Senate to consider a message from the other House, which only partially deals with a Bill which has been transmitted by the Senate to the House of Representatives. I admit at once that that is, so far as our ordinary practice is concerned, quite unusual.But I wish to ask honorable senators to draw a distinction between considering a message on a Bill, and considering the original Bill upon which that message is founded. Some time ago, when an attempt was made to consider the Tariff in sections, I, in common with other honorable senators, made our objections to that course pretty well known. . I emphasized the fact that, in my opinion, there is the widest possible difference between being asked to consider a Tariff in sections, and a message upon the Tariff. In the first case it appeared to me to be essential that the’ Tariff should be before the Senate as a whole, in order that honorable senators might be able to see that its various portions were well balanced, and that they dovetailed and fitted one into the other ; and, above all, that we should be able to take some notice of its effect upon the revenue, which we could not do if the Tariff reached us in sections. But the position has been entirely altered now, when we come to deal with what are matters of detail. I have, during the time since the message has been in print, been looking through it, and I have notfound one item which, in my judgment, is not capable of being considered solely by itself. There may be some which have relation to other items, but even when items are inter-related, there is nothing to prevent us from considering them, especially as the Vice-President of the Executive Council has given his assurance that he will raise no objection to any application for the postponement of an item, if it is found that one item is inter-related with another item which is not now before us. That appears to me to make the position of the Senate absolutely safe. I have, therefore, to ask myselfwhether the rights and responsibilities, of the Senate are jeopardized in any way by the new departure which we are asked to take, and my inquiries lead me to the conclusion that the position, of the Senate, its rights, and its duties, are in no way infringed. That being so, we had . to ask the question whether . it was desirable that the Senate, with work before it - and work which, as I have said, I can conceive of no reasonable objection to our proceeding with - should leave that work on one side,, and adjourn,’ as the Vice-President of the Executive Council said, possibly for two weeks, but with no certain knowledge that even then we should not be asked to adjourn for a longer period? It appears to me that in the absence of any substantial objection, it is a business-like and commonsense thing that we should follow the course which has been proposed by the Vice-President of the Executive Council. I want to draw the attention of honorable senators to one aspect of the case to which the Vice-President of the Executive Council made no reference, though I can hardlyimagine that he . overlooked it. It seems to me that he attached too much importance to standing order 245, which, taken alone, has rendered necessary his motion. But I direct attention to standing, order 242. Standing order 245 deals with a case where a Bill is returned to the Senate. That is not the present circumstance at all. A Bill has not been returned to the Senate.

Senator Colonel Neild:

– It ought to have been.

Senator MILLEN:

– That is a point upon which honorable senators may be allowed to have their own opinions. I am saying that standing order 245 does not appear to me to be directly applicable to the case with which we are confronted; but standing order 242 does. Standing order 245, says -

If the Bill is returned to the Senate.

The Bill has not been returned to the Senate, and, therefore, I say that that standing order is not applicable. If, however, we turn to standing . order 242, I think that we shall find that it directly fits the circumstances of the present case. That standing order reads -

All messages from the House of Representatives -

The standing order, I may parenthetically remark, relates to messages dealing with Bills which the Senate may not amend - inreference to such Bills.

It does not say that the Bill must accompany the. message, but merely that the message must have “ reference “ to the Bill-.

Senator Sir Josiah Symon:

– What standing order is it that provides what we are to do if we have before us a message without the Bill to which it relates?

Senator MILLEN:

Senator Best:

– The standing order says -

If the Bill is. returned to the Senate bv the House of Representatives with any request not agreed to. or agreed to with modifications, any of the following motions may be moved.

Senator Sir Josiah Symon:

– We are all agreed that the Government could not make up their minds.

Senator McGREGOR:

– If they have a mind to make up they are in just as good a position as the honorable senator is, because I have known occasions when even he was doubtful as to which course of action would be wisest for him to pursue. But when the Government obtained the consent of another place’ and made up their minds, quite recently, the matter was published as soon as possible. As to sending a notification to every honorable senator that the Senate would continue to sit after the 6th Mav, that would have been an’ absurdity. It was the duty of every honorable senator to be here to-day. If any honorable senator is not here, the responsibility rests with himself, and not with the Government, the Senate, or another place. Although any honorable senator who is not here may have a grievance on that score, it does not amount to much, and certainly he would not get the sympathy of the people if he appealed to them for it, because he was absent when a question of this kind was before Parliament. . I hope that the Standing Orders will be suspended. I would1 even go so far as to suggest to the “Vice-President of the Executive Council that, if any difficulty is likely to arise in the future owing to the form of the motion, he might consider the suggestion made by Senator Symon, so that everything may be done in as orderly a fashion as possible, and the work be finished in the interests of the .people at the earliest moment.

Senator Colonel NEILD (New South Wales) [3.36]. - I do not think there is a great deal in the argument that a process of this kind was never previously attempted, because I know of no Constitution under which such a method of dealing with’ the Bill could have been attempted. Still there is grave objection to be taken to the course submitted by the Government. I own that when the honorable senator gave notice of motion the other day for the suspension of the Standing Orders, I did not gather the gravity of the proposal contained in his proposition. Senator Symon has so well expressed my’ views with reference to standing orders 242 and 245 that I shall not attempt to go over the ground again, beyond saying’ that I entirely agree with him that standing order 242 has nothing to do with the question, and that the whole situation is governed by standing order 245. But I wish to make myself clear on one or two points connected with this procedure. If it is adopted1, it will be found to have provided an eminent amount of friction between the two Chambers, because we shall have this Chamber dealing with requests that another place refused to agree to, while another place is- dealing with other requests which we have submitted to it. Therefore, instead of there being a single, there will be a double friction between the two Chambers.

Senator Sir Josiah Symon:

– Another place may use the requests with which they have not yet dealt, as an additional lever if we do not agree with them now.

Senator Colonel NEILD:

– That is precisely what I anticipate will follow. I wish also to draw attention to the fact that there are included in this message certain decisions which have been achieved in another place by so devious .a method that I am justified in- bringing it under notice. The Government submitted to another place a statement, of the requests of this Chamber which they were prepared to accept. That statement was circulated’ and became public property.’ Yet at the last moment - sometimes at midnight - the “Minister would rise and say, “1 have changed my mind; I will not agree to this request.” Then a motion would be sprung upon honorable members of another place when they least expected any such proceeding.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order ! I remind the honorable senator that the conduct of the business of another place in connexion with these requests is not under consideration. The question before the Senate is whether the Standing Orders shall be suspended for the purpose of enabling honorable senators to proceed with the consideration of the requests so far dealt with by the House of Representatives. The other House must decide its own course of procedure and it is not open to honorable senators to comment upon it.

Senator Colonel NEILD:

– Precisely. I am offering reasons why I object to the course of procedure proposed in the Senate, and I take exception to ‘ the manner in which this message was .arrived at. However, I shall not pursue that matter further. While I am speaking, I may certainly direct attention, even if it be only as a matter of privilege, to the manner in which, in defiance of all parliamentary custom, this Chamber has been discussed, in another place, by name, and in a manner derogatory to the status of the Senate and its members. I know, sir, that under your presidency, and the presidency of your predecessor, the greatest care has always been taken .to conserve the well-known parliamentary rule in reference to a discussion involving another branch of the Legislature,. I regret sincerely that the same care and the same regard for parliamentary method and parliamentary decency has not been recognised and maintained in another place. I have no desire to delay the transaction of public business, but really it is rather too late in , the day, after having had the Tariff under consideration for ten months, to be told that this is a matter of urgency. There has been no urgency about, the Tariff for ten months, and yet the VicePresident of the Executive Council tells us to-day that all Australia is fairly gasping, like a dying fish in the bottom of a boat, for the completion of the Tariff, and we must rush the business through at all cost, and at any hazard, to constitutional usage and parliamentary method. .

Senator Sir Josiah Symon:

– How will the completion of the Tariff be expedited if we are not to get the decision of another place in respect to the balance of our requests for a fortnight?

Senator Colonel NEILD:

– I do not think that the procedure proposed will expedite the consideration of the Tariff at all. I have already said that I believe it will cause friction, and friction will certainly cause delay. I . do not propose to quote them, but it is necessary only to compare some of the requests which another place has refused to accept with some of those which still remain to’ be dealt with in that Chamber to show that it is certain that friction will be set up.

Senator Sir Josiah Symon:

Senator Best:

– How could there be?

Senator PULSFORD:

Senator Colonel Neild:

– Is it to be abandoned ?

Senator BEST:

– I cannot agree to proceed with that measure, because of the pledge to which I have referred. The Tariff being the most urgent measure before us, must be disposed of first. I ask this question : If I had not provided honorable senators with this means of proceeding with business, should I not have been subject to the strictures of honorable senators opposite. Would not an attack have been made upon the Government in this connexion? I submit that, under the circumstances, a proper course has been adopted, and I trust that honorable senators will pass the motion, unanimously.

The PRESIDENT:

– Before I submit the motion, -I will cause the bells to be rung, inasmuch as it is necessary for it to be carried by an absolute majority.

Question - That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the message from the House of Representa tives in reference to the Customs Tariff Bill being taken into consideration without such Bill having been returned to the Senate -put. The Senate divided.

AYES: 23

NOES: 4

Majority … … 19

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

In Committee (Consideration of House of Representatives’ Message) :

Item 21. Tobacco, unmanufactured, but entered to be locally manufactured into Tobaccoor Cigarettes - to be paid at the time of removal to the factory : -

Unstemmed, per lb.,1s. 9d. ; and on and after 5th October, 1907,1s. 6d.

Senate’s Request. - Make the duty1s.9d.

House of Representatives’ Message. - Amendment not made.

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

– I desire, at the outset, to be permitted to make a general explanation. Out of the 238 requests that we sent to the other House, we are invited to consider 112, one having been postponed. It disagreed outright with twenty-four requests ; it modified, or partly agreed to, twenty-two requests,’ and it accepted outright sixty-six requests. Out of the accepted requests, sixteen represent increases of duty ; twentythree represent decreases of duties ; twentythree do not affect the revenue, or, if they do, only infinitesimally ; while four represent partly increases and partly decreases. The Committee has, I think, every reason, to be satisfied with the manner in which, the other House has dealt with its requests. I trust that honorable senators will . also see fit to exhibit a spirit of compromise, so that the Tariff may be settled to the satisfaction of not one Chamber alone, but of both Chambers and the public generally. Concerning the item before the Committee, the Government originally proposed a duty of is. od. on unstemmed tobacco, but, in view of certain representations that were made to them, they felt that is. 6d. would be a better rate to adopt. The Senate, however, in its wisdom, saw fit to request that the rate be increased to is. od.. The other House has not accepted that rate, and therefore I’ move -

That the request be not pressed.

It is not necessary for me to recapitulate the arguments that were used when this item was under consideration, because they will all be found in Hansard, at page 7649. I propose to show how the increased duty requested by the Senate would reduce the margin of protection. If stemmed leaf were used, the protection of 6d. per lb. on machine-made tobacco would be .reduced to 3d., and the protection of 9d. per lb. on hand-made tobacco would be reduced to 6d. If unstemmed leaf were used, the protection of 9d. per lb. on machine-made tobacco would be reduced to 6d.. and the protection of is. per lb. on hand-made tobacco would be reduced to 9d.

Senator Givens:

– What would the position be if local lv-grown leaf were used ?

Senator BEST:

– That is the protection which was proposed by the Government, and if would be reduced in each case by 3d. per lb. if our request were adopted. Honorable members will see that if it were persisted in, the effect would be largely to injure the small manufacturer, and really to play into the hands of the combine. I have no doubt that my honorable friend who proposed the req’uest had an idea of altering correspondingly the Excise duty, but we determined to adhere to that! duty. I submit that we should, almost as a matter of course, see our way not to press our request.

Senator MILLEN:
New South Wales

– The circumstances under which the Committee was induced to increase the duty on this item will be well remembered. It was not done, I venture to suggest, so much with the view of lessening the protection given to the manufacturer of imported . leaf as with the desire to encourage the use of the. locally. -grown leaf. I voted to increase the duty from is. 6d. to is. 9d. per lb. with. that sole object, and I remember, sir, that you contributed a very informative speech on that occasion, the purpose being to offer an additional inducement of ?d. per lb. to. the local manufacturers to manufacture Australian leaf. I see no reason for altering the vote which T gave..

At the same time one has to recognise that, if the -duty be fixed at is. 6d. per lb., it will be giving a very substantial measure ot protection to local growers. I believe -that the average price of tobacco leaf is from 4d. to 6d. per lb. At that rate it would be giving a protection of at least 150 per cent, to the local growers. . It appears to me to be probably one of the most highly protected articles produced in Australia. To that extent it can hardly be said that ‘the local growers would suffer any injustice if the Senate should recede from its position. I do not regard the matter as being of anyserious importance, whatever way it may be decided. The tobacco duties in the Excise Tariff Bill have been assented to by both Houses, and therefore we are free to consider this item without reference to those duties.

Senator McGREGOR:
South Australia

– On a previous occasion I advocated very strongly the claims and interests of the local tobacco-grOwers, and I am sure that the Committee also went strongly in that direction.

Senator Guthrie:

– The honorable senator misled us.

Senator McGREGOR:

– No ; I do not consider that the Committee was misled. I believed that the position which I then took up would be the best in the interests of the settlers. .

Senator Best:

– But my honorable friend will admit that it seriously broke up the scheme which the Government submitted under expert advice?

Senator McGREGOR:

– I am not so much concerned in that matter as I am in the position that has been taken up so firmly in another place. If I -expect to get any concessions from that House, I think that it is my duty to give a little consideration to its opinions. I do not intend to take up the same attitude on this item a» I did on a. previous occasion, so that I mav be in a position to insist more strongly on a request which I think might be of more importance ‘to Australian industry.

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON (South Australia) [4.21]. - I think that Senator McGregor is exercising a wise discretion. It is always wise to give way about a thing which one does not value much in order to get something which he values- more. .My honorable friend is keeping in pickle a rod for some other items. I support the proposal of the Government. I was not present when the item was under consideration before. It seems to me that a duty of is. 6d. per lb. is . ample to protect the local grower and encourage the use of the locallymade article. I feel that the Government are taking the only course which, under the circumstances, they could very well take.

Senator STEWART:
Queensland

. -I have no intention of reversing the vote I gave on a previous occasion. I believe that if the duty be fixed at1s. 9d. per lb. the result will be not only to encourage the growth of tobacco in Australia, but also to take the manufacture of tobacco’ largely out of the hands of the Combine. I know that an expert was sent down from Queensland to treat with the Government in connexion with tobacco. His instructions were that, while he was to be careful to try to help the tobacco-growing industry, he was to be particularly careful not to suggest anything which would interfere with the revenue. I believe that the reason why the Government are sticking to the duty of1s. 6d. per lb. is that it means more revenue.

Senator Best:

– No; that is a mistake. To alter the duty to1s. 9d. per lb. means to disturb our scheme. My honorable friend will remember that the Excise duty was adhered to;

Senator STEWART:

– The scheme is to get as much revenue as possible out of tobacco. Believing, as I do, that it is not a proper subject for taxation, I want to vote for something which will tend in the direction of killing the revenue from that source. If we can encourage the growth of tobacco by acomparatively high duty, we shall have established another native industry and taken a step in the direction of more direct taxation.

Question - That the request be not pressed (Tobacco, unstemmed) - put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 22

NOES: 6

Majority … … 16

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved inthe affirmative.

Request not pressed.

Item 21. Tobacco, &c. -

Senate’s Requests. - Insert after the word “stemmed” the words “or partly stemmed.” Make the duty 2s. 3d.

House of Representatives’ Message. - Amendment made asregards insertion of words ; not made as regards alteration of duty.

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

– I move- -

That the request to make the duty, per lb., 2s. 3d., be not pressed.

This is really almost consequential upon the last vote.

Senator GIVENS:
Queensland

– This is an item in which the Senate tried to obtain a little more protection for the manufacturers and workers in Australia. With regard to the previous request, the Minister put forward the plea that we should preserve to the full all the protection which we could give to the manufacturer. In this case the Minister, on behalf of the Government, argues that we should weakly give in, although to do so will mean a reduction of the protection given to the Australian manufacturer, and worker. There isno reason why this tobacco, when imported, should not be in an unstemmed condition. Ail the stemming work could be done in Australia. The effect of an increased duty would be to bring about that result. We should therefore press the request.

Question put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 23

NOES: 5

Majority … … 18

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Request not pressed. .

– To reduce the protection to our own industries, which are in existence throughout the Commonwealth, from 2d. to1½d. per lb.

Senator Givens:

– That is the vote which the honorable senator gave two minutes ago on another item.

Senator BEST:

– The honorable senator must not talk like that. I move -

That the request be not pressed.

Senator MILLEN:
New South Wales

– The Vice-President of the Executive Council states that the request represents a reduction of protection to Austra lian industries, yet a duty of1½d. is really an increase of 50 per cent, upon the very high rate which was previously enjoyed by the manufacturers of local blue, and under which, as -I am reminded, the industry made substantial and satisfactory progress. This is a matter in which the other place might reasonably have met the Senate. We made no wild inroad upon their proposition. ‘Qn the contrary, we proposed merely a reduction in the preferential column - a column which is supposed to embodv the ardent desire of this Government to treat the products of Great Britain with greater leniency than the products of other parts of the world. Although the Vice-President of the Executive Council gave us figures showing the number of requests accepted by another place, he did not point out the value of the requests which had been accepted, and of those which had been rejected. Had we asked another place to remove the duty altogether, one would not have been surprised at our request being refused, but we made an extremely moderate proposition for a reduction of the duty, not on the whole of the imports, but only on those coming from Great Britain. We asked for a reduction merely of½d., leaving the duty still . 50 per cent, above that contained in the Tariff of 1902.

Senator Colonel Neild:

– The increase is 50 per cent, in one case and 100 per cent, in the other.

Senator MILLEN:

– In the circumstances the Senate might very reasonably persist in its request. I probably anticipate your answer, but I wish to ask you, sir, whether, if the Committee negatives the motion now submitted, that will be tantamount to affirming that the Senate persists in its request.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Yes.

Senator Colonel NEILD (New South Wales) [4.41]. - This is a case in which the Senate would be thoroughly justified in maintaining its position. If we are going to give this away we might just as well never have taken the trouble to attend in this Chamber. As Senator Millen has explained, the lowest rate proposed represents an increase of 50 per cent, on the previously existing duty, whilst the increase proposed on imports from foreign countries is as much as 100 per cent. If I am not too inquisitive I should like to know what connexion exists between the refusal of the Government to accept the request of this Chamber and the well-known fact that they are drawing their financial policy from a laundry-blue source. If we are not going to stand by anything that we have done what are we herefor? If we are going to stand by any request we have made this is certainly one on which we should remain firm.

Question - That the request be not pressed (Blue, Laundry) - put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 16

NOES: 11

Majority … … 5

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Request not pressed.

– This letter from Messrs.. W. H. Burford and Sons is a typical one, and I will read it - “We trust you will use your endeavours to at least’ retain the duty on Paraffine Wax as passed by the House of Representatives, viz., id. per lb., otherwise, the stearine candle trade will be most seriously affected, as has already been pointed out. We, ourselves, have spent large sums of money in plant for the .manufacture, of stearine candles from tallow, the raw material and product of our land. A large number of hands are employed in the manufacture of stearine and its bi-products, whereas, the cost of machinery and labour in moulding imported wax into candles is very small in comparison. Besides this, there would be the loss of bi-products, Glycerine and Oleine, and the labour in working these up. The Oleine is entering very largely into use in connection with the recovery of ores at the Broken Hill mines. Lessening the output of this product will be a serious loss in this respect.

If Paraffine Wax, a bi-product of the oilfields, manufactured by cheap labour, . or the lower grades controlled by the Standard Oil Company and its allies, is allowed to come in, it will be a most serious blow to the Australian stearine industry and those industries connected with the bi-products.

We, therefore, again most respectfully urge you to use your influence on behalf of retaining .the higher duties.

I have received other letters from Sydney and Melbourne manufacturers to the same effect. This is essentially an Australian industry, the raw material of which is at our own doors and of our own manufacture. I submit that we must have- first regard to the due and efficient protection of this industry. I move -

That the request be not pressed.

The CHAIRMAN:

– I wish to draw attention to the fact that if any honorable senator desires to move a modification of a previous request, according to the practice established when the message from the House of Representatives on the requests of the Senate on the 1902 Tariff was before the Senate in Committee, the proper procedure will be as follows : - On such a motion as that now. submitted - “ That the request ‘ be not pressed,” an honorable senator may move to strike out all the words after the word “ be “ with a view to insert in Heu thereof words requesting the House of Representatives to .modify the request in terms set forth in the amendment. That proposition will be submitted to the Committee as an amendment, and if carried will be the request of the Senate.

Senator Colonel NEILD (New South Wales) [5.5]. - It seems to me that the whole object of the Government in this matter is to benefit a Victorian factory ‘at the expense of a Tasmanian firm, although a .little while ago we found Ministers breaking their necks to benefit somebody who had absolutely made four locks in Tasmania. I do not understand this kind of procedure, nor do I understand* why, when the Vice-President of the Executive Council has a series of letters on the subject, he picks out one of an exceedingly vague character, and ignores the others. I received this afternoon a letter which I am going to read. It is as follows -

The Honorable Senator Neild, Sir,

During the discussion on paraffine wax last evening Sir William Lyne referred to me as having influenced several votes in the Senate through misrepresentation, and otherwise made use of such words that left an impression that communications from me to members of the House of Representatives, as regards accepting the Senate’s suggestion that the duty On paraffine wax should be made at the old rate of £d. per lb., were not to be relied on. A man in his position should not stand’ up in the House and tell members that some of the votes in the Senate were gained through misrepresentation by me. It is more than he dare do outside of the privileged Chamber. I challenge him to grove that I have made either a misstatement, or writ- ten a word that is untrue, and I cannot but think he knows it.’ About six months ago, when the item of paraffine was before the Representatives last, he will recollect that, after the division was taken, I then challenged his state= ment, that “ I could get all the paraffine wax that I required in the Commonwealth.” I then /confronted him with the representative of the only firm who make paraffine wax in Australia, and offered to book 100 tons right away, and pay a deposit. This took place in the presence of himself, Mr. Carr, M.H.R., of New South Wales, and Mr. Storrer, M.H.R., of Tasmania.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order. I must ask the honorable senator to desist from reading that letter. I draw his attention to the fact that there are two standing orders relating to the reading of letters and documents. Standing order 400 says -

No senator shall read extracts from newspapers or other documents except Hansard referring to debates in the Senate during the same session.

Standing order 402 says -

No senator shall allude to any debate of the current session in the House of Representatives or to any measure impending therein.

During the discussion on paraffine wax last evening, Sir William Lyne referred to me as having influenced several votes in the Senate through misrepresentation.

The CHAIRMAN:

– There .is a reference to the Senate.

Senator Colonel NEILD:

Senator Colonel NEILD:

– I thank you, sir. The letter continues -

Six months have now about elapsed, still this same man, representing the only firm in Australia who makes any paraffine wax, absolutely refused to book an order last night, on my behalf, when asked to do so by Mr. Mcwilliams, M.H.R’., of .Tasmania, in the presence of Mr. Watson. Mr. Mcwilliams had full authority to act for me, and held my cheque for ,£100 as a deposit against the contract, which, several members of the House were aware of, but the reply was the Commonwealth Oil Co. would not supply for four months, and, I understand, refused to book an order, for delivery at the end .of four months at the price I am now paying. This same firm cannot supply their own demands, but have to import for their own use. Why was Sir William Lyne so impressed, after the division was taken about November last, that, in the presence of Mr. Storrer and myself, he sent a message to the Prime Minister to know if he had . any objection to not collecting the increased duty for six months, or until such time as paraffine could be made in Australia to supply our demand ? That was a reasonable suggestion. Surely he recognised at that time we could not purchase it here, and yet he deliberately stated-

I shall not read that line because it does refer to something to which exception might be taken. I shall leave it out.

Senator Millen:

– What is it that the honorable senator is leaving out?

Senator Colonel NEILD:

– It is a slight and indirect reference to something that was said in the House of Representatives, and therefore I shall not attempt to read it.

– There was no suggestion then that they should be treated as separate items.

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:

– That is so; they were debated together. Honorable senators will recollect that Mr. Kitchen, whose letters were read by the VicePresident of the Executive Council, put the two together. He was the exponent of the wishes of the trade, and he contended that both paraffine wax and stearine are really finished articles, and are made by him in circumstances which justify him in asking for protection for his industry to the extent . represented by a duty of1d. per lb. on both. He said that they needed merely to be moulded into candles on arrival here, and should not, therefore, be allowed to come into the Commonwealth at a low rate of duty, when they competed with the locally-manufactured candles in just the same way as candles which originally were admitted at the same rate of duty. ‘With that statement before us we dealt with the request of the industry, for a uniform duty on these two articles, and by a practically unanimous vote decided that a uniform duty should be imposed upon them. As honorablesenators are aware, we took these articles out of the general category of item 42, leaving beeswax and other articles, including Japanese and vegetable wax, in that item dutiable at1d. per lb. We then adopted a special item making the duty on stearine and paraffine wax½d. I think that we should be simply making ourselves ridiculous to separate these articles now. It would be better to take a division straight out on the motion of the Vice-President of the Executive Council.

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

– As has been pointed out, stearine and paraffine wax have always been dealt with in conjunction. The desire of the manufacturers is that the duty should be increased to1d. on both articles. I may state frankly that if Senator Millen’s amendment is carried,

I shall at once rise and move that the request be modified by making the duty on paraffine wax1d. It would . be no modification at all to make the duty½d. I wish to ask you, Mr. Chairman, whether, if Senator Millen’s amendment is carried. I shall be prevented from moving the further modification, that the duty on paraffine wax be1d. per lb. ?

The CHAIRMAN:

-“The honorable senator will be able to do . so. The vote on Senator Millen’s amendment will not. decide the main question, and a further amendment may be moved to add other words.

Senator VARDON:
South Australia

– The former duty of½d. on stearine has been sufficient to enable the local manufacturers to capture the market, and 1 understand that now there is no importa-. tion of this article. But paraffine wax is imported, and comes into unfair competition withstearine. I was very much in favour of separating the two articles, so that the duty on stearine might remain the same as previously, . and a larger duty put on paraffine wax. As the matter presents itself to my mind, the local manufacturers, having captured the market, and no stearine being imported,’ it does not matter whether we take the duty off or leave it on, because all that is used in Australia is manufactured here; but I want to see the duty retained on paraffine wax, because it enters into competition with our own manufacturers of stearine candles.

Question - That the words ‘ proposed to be left out be’ left out (Senator Millen’s amendment) - put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 12

NOES: 13

Majority … … 1

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Amendment negatived.

Question - That the request be not pressed (Stearine and Paraffine Wax) - put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 14

NOES: 11

Majority……… 3

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Request not pressed.

Item 45. Confectionery, Cocoa and Chocolate, viz. : -

Senate’s Request. - : Make the ‘duty (General Tariff), 2½d. per lb.

House of Representatives’ Message. - Amendment not made.

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

– I propose to ask the Committee to agree to the duty of 3d. per lb. in the general Tariff in order to secure a preferential duty of½d. per lb. In 1905 we imported 2,230,000 lbs. of confectionery from the United Kingdom and 466,000 lbs. from other countries, while in 1906 we imported 2,609,000 lbs. from the United Kingdom, and 575,000 lbs. from other countries. Our object in proposing a preference is to afford to the United Kingdom an opportunity of obtaining additional trade with Australia. I move -

That the request be not pressed.

Motion agreed to.

Item 45. Confectionery, &c, viz. : -

Senate’s Request. - Insert the following paragraph : -

Confectionery of any kind containing Glucose, Paraffine Wax, or Plaster of Paris, per lb., 4d.

House of Representatives’ Message. - Amend ment not made.

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

– It will be recollected that the object in making this request was to preclude as far as possible the importation of confectionery containing glucose, paraffine wax, or plaster of Paris, and of course it was intended that an Excise duty shouldbe levied upon the locally-made article. After a lengthy consideration, however, the Committee determined not to request the imposition of an Excise duty, and the non-compliance with our request is practically consequential upon that. vote. I move - .

That . the request be not pressed.

Motion agreed to.

Item 46. Liquorice, viz. : -

Other, per lb., 3½d. ; and on . and after 30th October, 1907, 3d.

Senate’s Request. - Make the duty 2d.

House of Representatives’ Message. - Amendment not made.

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

– I think that this request was made by the Committee to some extent under a misapprehension. The class of liquorice that is manufactured locally has always been regarded as confectionery and subject to the same rate of duty as that article. It will be remembered that the proposal to request a reduction of duty was suddenly sprung upon us. The general impression was that the object of the duty was to protect that class of liquorice which is purchased in chemists’ shops, whereas as a matter of fact the real intention was to protect the class of tasty,wholesome, and digestible sweetmeats which are produced in the Commonwealth: Here are various samples of them.

Senator Pulsford:

– Why does not the Minister say that he is . quoting from a letter sent by A.- Hoadley and Company?

Senator BEST:

– I do not . quite understand what my honorable friend means.

Senator Pulsford:

– The phrase “ harmless, tasty, and pure ‘ ‘ is contained in their letter, as the honorable senator knows.

Senator BEST:

– These are samples of the sweetmeats which it is intended to protect by this duty. As they are really confectionery, and have always been so regarded, it will be a great mistake to attempt to differentiate them.

Senator Chataway:

– Is that the only sort of liquorice to which it applies?

Senator BEST:

– Yes.. We dealt with the expensive class in pursuance of the recommendation of the Tariff Commission, and the other House agreed to our request to insert the following paragraph -

When the invoice value, including the in side packages, exceeds is. per lb., ad val. 25 per cent.

I presume that every honorable senator has’ received from Messrs. Hoadley and Company a letter stating that a reduction of the duty on these sweetmeats, as requested by the Senate, will interfere seriously with their trade. They represent that they have every prospect of considerably increasing the volume of their trade if the duty of 3d. per lb. is retained. 1 move-

That the request be not pressed.

Senator PULSFORD:
New South Wales

.- I suppose that we shall have to do exactly aswe are ordered - bow down and place our necks under the yoke. It is very absurd that we cannot be supplied at a fairly moderate price with liquorice confectionery ; but because the Minister is able to tell us that one firm has written a letter saying that unless the duty be retained they will suffer, we are asked not to press our request. Apparently the community can go to the dogs so long as certain firms can derive a benefit.

Senator MILLEN:
New South Wales

– I think that there should be a preferential duty of 2½d. per lb. on this item as in the case of confectionery, cocoa, and chocolate. Therefore I move -

That the motion be amended by adding the words “but that the House of Representatives be requested to amend the sub-item by making the duty on imports from the United Kingdom, per lb., 2½d.”

Amendment agreed to.

Motion, as amended, agreed to.

Item 53. Fish, viz. : -

Preserved in tins or other air-tight vessels (except Fish preserved in salt or brine and smoked or dried) including the weight of liquid contents, per lb.,1½d. ; and on and after 30th October, 1907,1d.

Senate’s Request- Leave out’ “ and smoked or dried.”

House of Representatives’ Message. - Amendment made, with the omission also of the words “(except Fish preserved in salt or brine:”

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

– I move -

That the modification be agreed to.

Since our request was made, it was found by the Department that importershad been importing in tins and bottles fish preserved in salt or brine, and demanding its admission under paragraph d at 5s. per cwt. The Department had no choice but to accede to the demand. It was intended that such fish should be dutiable under item 53c at1d. per lb. The modification of our request will remove all possible doubt as to our intention. The effect will be to impose the same rate on fish whether imported in brine or oil. For example, smoked sardines in oil will pay exactly the same rate as plain sardines in oil. It is certainly a desirable amendment to make.

Motion agreed to.

Item 67.” Hay and Chaff, per cwt:,1s. ; and on and after 31st October, 1907, free.

Senate’s Request. - Make the duty1s.

House of Representatives’ Message. - Amendment made, to take effect on and after 1st November, 1908.

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

.- Originally the Government proposed a duty of 1s. per cwt on hay and chaff, but on the 31st October last, it. was taken off by the other House. The Senate requested that the original duty should be restored, and the request has been made with a modification that it shall take effect on and after 1st November, 1908. I move -

That the modification be agreed to.

Senator PULSFORD:
New South Wales

– I move -

That the motion be amended by adding the . words “with an amendment substituting ‘1928’ for ‘1908.’”

Honorable senators are aware, I suppose, that in certain parts of Victoria there is a drought. In Australia a drought is a constant thing. When it is not in one part, it is in another. Therefore, the reason why the freedom of the item from duty should be extended to November next on behalf of Victoria may be safely assumed to exist for some other State after November, and for various other States from time to time. In 1902-3 there was a most appalling drought, extending over almost the whole of New South Wales . and into Queensland. The losses of stock at that time were fabulous. We lost sheep by the tens of millions, cattle to the extent of two or three millions, and horses to- the number of several hundred thousands. . It was pretty well known at the time that the effects of the drought would have been modified if we had been able to get cheaper supplies of fodder from New Zealand. Drought is a very serious matter, and the fact that it has been considered desirable in the interests of Victoria at the present time to leave the item free, shows that another place recognised that where drought exists there ought to be a possibility of obtaining free fodder.

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

– Why suspend the duty if it does not increase the price?

Senator W RUSSELL:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I have already explained my reasons. Why should New Zealand or any other country outside the Commonwealth enjoy the privilege of swamping our markets? Honorable senators opposite, especially those representing Queensland, do not like my arguments, but if it was a question of a duty on bananas how eloquent would Senator St. Ledger, the legal adviser on the other side, become ! How swiftly Senator Sayers, and’ Senator Chataway would fly to the rescue ! I am fighting for a principle, and surely those honorable senators will give me credit for being sincere, and not bloodthirsty. That is generally an attribute of the Conservatives. We on this side take a different view. I hope that we shall adhere to the decision ‘we arrived at by a large majority in a fuller Committee.

Senator VARDON:
South Australia

Senator Findley:

– Does the honorable senator assert that if this duty were not imposed the stock would not be trucked to the coastal districts?

Senator CHATAWAY:

– One thing clear to my mind after listening to Senator W. Russell is that if the duty is imposed the cost of feeding stock trucked to the coastal districts will be ‘ increased. Senator W. Russell described the wonderful way in which a fall of a few inches of rain will cause the grass to spring up in every part, of Australia. I quite agree with the honorable senator that the recuperative powers of Australia are most remarkable. ‘ But we are discussing, the effect of the duty at a time when, the rain has’ not fallen. It is useless to tell us that the grass will grow when there is rain, at a time when we are urging the Senate to postpone for the next twenty years the application of the duty upon the fodder that is required to keep our stock alive before the rain falls to produce thegrass. Another honorable senator declared that he had not any doubt that in case of emergency the Government would suspend the duty. I do not profess to know very much about the powers of the Government in this respect, butI take it’ that there is nothing within the four corners of our Customs legislation to enable the Government to do anything of the kind. I cannot refrain from drawing attention ‘ to the extraordinary . form in which this proposal comes before us. It reminds me very much of the old saying -

The Devil was sick, the Devil a saint would be;

The Devil was well, the Devil a saint was he.

Our protectionist friends want these duties, but they are sick where there is a drought, and therefore wish the duties to be suspended. But by about next November, when they anticipate that the drought will have been broken up, and there will be plenty of fodder, it will be a case of “The Devil a saint is he.” Honorable senators surely recognise how such an action as this must stink in the nostrils of. every Federalist in Australia when he sees in a Tariff which is -intended to settle the fiscal issue for years tocome a duty which is only to take effect at the end of six months, simply because there is a corner of Australia in which it is believed that by that time the drought will have broken up. The proposal in its present form is an absolutely disgraceful one, of which this Parliament, I feel sure, will feel thoroughly ashamed in the not far-distant future. Let us either impose the duty from -the present date or let it be put off altogether, but do not let us carry a proposal which, if it were not unparliamentary, I should call dishonest. It practically means this : “ Here is a duty which, we believe to be desirable, but just at present it does not suit us to have it in operation, because there is a certain part of Australia which is drought stricken ; but within a few months the drought will have- disappeared, so that we will fix the duty to come into operation at that time “ -regardless of the fact that later on exactly the same conditions may exist in other parts of Australia.

Question - That the words proposed . to be added be added (Senator Pulsford’s amendment) - put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 11

NOES: 14

Majority … … 3

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Amendment negatived.

Motion agreed to.

Item 70. Matches and Vestas of all kinds -

Senate’s Request. - Insert after the word “with” the word “ printed “;. leave out the words “advertising any commodity other than the matches contained therein,” and insert in lieu thereof the words “ other than the manufacturer’s name and address and description of the article contained ‘ therein.”

House of Representatives’ Message. - Not made, but the . following modification made, “ After present sub-item (d) the following added, “and on and after 1st October, 1908 (d)’When in boxes with printed matter thereon other than the manufacturer’s name, trade mark, and address, and description of the article contained therein, in addition to the duties set out in (a),, (b), (c) above, per gross of boxes (General Tariff), ; 7d. ; (United Kingdom), 6d.”

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

– In this case the alteration made by the House of Representatives is really verbal. They have practically accepted our request,- have deferred the operation of the new duty until the 1 st October, 1908, and have added the words “ trade mark.” It was felt that the comprehensive words, theinsertion of which we requested, would precludefirms from introducing their trade marks. I move -

That the request be not pressed, and that the modification be agreed to.

Senator McCOLL:
Victoria

.-I desire to refer to a matter which came before the Committee during the former discussion on this item. At that time a statement was made to the effect that matches had been sent out by a certain firm in boxes that did. not contain the number that they should contain. The firm concerned felt greatly aggrieved, and I told them that if they furnished me with a statementwith regard to the matter I would place it. before the Committee when the item came up again for consideration, so that their side of the case might be placed on record. I have in consequence received the following communication from Messrs.’ Bell and Company, and I shall read it without comment. [ express no opinion of my own. The statement is as follows -

The following is a- true statement of the facts in connexion with the sale of vestas, which was referred to. by you in the Senate on 12th February last, when you said-: -

The CHAIRMAN:

– The honorable senator must not, according to the standing order, read an extract from a newspaper, or any other document than Hansard, referring to a previous debate, and therefore he must not read that portion of the communication referring to what he formerly said in the Senate.

Senator McCOLL:

– I will omit that passage, . and will proceed to read the firm’s comments -

You further said that we had undertaken to supply 410 matches because our name was upon the box. ‘ In the first place, we may say that we have never had any contract with the State Tender Board, and, consequently, have never guaranteed 410 matches in a box, or any other number, to it. The contract, if one was entered into, was made with a person who apparently obtained some of the matches from us to enable him to carry it out. If, therefore, any guarantee of number was given, it must have been given by that person. The name of the person was openly mentioned, so that there can be no doubt as to the sale by us which was referred to ; there was no contract with this person to supply him with our vestas over a. given period, but only a sale to him of10 cases.

The following is an exact copy (omitting, only for obvious reasons, the name ofbuyer and the price) of ‘ the contract or sold note. The press copy in our letter-book has already been exhibited to you, and. we are quite prepared to allow any other member to see it : - “11th February, 1908. “Dear Sirs, “We have now to thank you for and confirm the following order : - “ 10 (ten) cases, each a gross, Brown dip, R. Bell and Co.’s London make, No. 10 Vestas, in tins, at- per gross, duty paid on Melbourne wharf. “For prompt shipment from London. “ Terms : Cash on arrival, less 2½ per cent. “ We have sent Messrs. R. Bell and Co. instructions regarding length and thickness of taper, and we have advised them that should it be necessary to charge more for these special matches, you are prepared to’ pay up to - per gross extra for same. We think, however, that Messrs. Bell and Co. will be able to supply the match you want without extra cost to you. “Yours faithfully, “ (Sgd.) Philips and Pike.”

Philips and Pike are the company’s brokers.

The reference to thickness and extra price is made because the buyer particularly desired the vestas to be of extra thickness. It will be seen that there is no mention whatever of any guaranteed number to the box. No number was guaranteed. Vesta boxes are known by names and numbers in the trade, and whether made here or elsewhere, by us or any other manufacturer, boxes with a specific name or. number are exactly of the same size. The vestas sold in the instance referred to were No. 10. They were of the regular size and were quite full.

If, as was stated, the Tender Board has been unable for years to obtain 410 vestas in a box, it is quite evident, as we have only supplied a small quantity to the contractor, that other makers do not get more into their boxes than we do. The number in. the box depends upon the thickness of the taper used, and if extra thick matches are specified, a fewer number will go into a box.

We are quite prepared to make a statutory declaration of any or all of the foregoing facts.

I thank the Committee for listening to this statement, which I thought in justice to the firm ought to be placed on record.

Motion agreed to.

Request not pressed ; modification agreed to.

Item 85. Mustard, including French Mustard, per lb. (General Tariff), 3d.

Senate’s Request. - Make the duty (United Kingdom), per lb., 2d.

House of Representatives’ Message.- Amendment not made.

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

– The item of mustard is somewhat similar to the item of blue. The Government picked out certain items in connexion with which they could afford to give a preference to the United Kingdom. Their list did not include this item for the reason, amongst others, that practically the whole of our importations of mustard come from the United Kingdom. In1906for instance, we imported from the United Kingdom £41,445 worth, and from other countries’ only£719 worth. Practically the United Kingdom requires no preference, and it is simply a question of fixing the duty. The Government considered that the old duty of 2d. per lb. was insufficient, and therefore proposed a duty of 3d., which was accepted by the other House. We feel that that’ duty is necessary in order to afford sufficient protection to the local manufacturers. I move -

That the request be not pressed.

Senator MILLEN:
New South Wales

That the motion be amended by leaving out the words “not pressed,” with a view to insert in lieu thereof the words “modified by making the duty on imports from the United Kingdom, per lb., 2½d.”

Senator ST LEDGER:
Queensland

– I dare say that from one point of view it is a wise policy in a Chamber disposed to increase duties to try to throw overboard some cargo in order to save the rest. On the score of prudence, I shall not obstruct any . attempt to try to save something. I rise to point out an admission which we have had from the VicePresident of the Executive Council. It more or less illustrates what I believe has been called on more, than one occasion the gross fiscal hypocrisy of the ‘ Government. When the Minister was driven to find an argument in favour of a duty of 3d. per lb. on mustard, although it was pointed out to him that.it represented an increase of. 50 per cent, on the old duty, . he at once directed attention to the fact that the Government desired to strike at the import trade from the United Kingdom. That was about as clear a declaration as could possibly be made with regard to what some people would call sincerity, and what others would probably call hypocrisy. Why the honorable senator had the courage to make it, I do not know. I should have thought that he would almost have blushed to do so..

Senator Best:

– Is this a lecture on hypocrisy ?

Senator ST LEDGER:

– No. Nobody need rise here to illustrate anything about hypocrisy with regard to the framing of a Tariff after the example which the honorable senator has just given. I shall not fellow my leader in the matter of . this compromise if I can find any other course to pursue. If it is a step which I must take, . I shall take it . very reluctantly. . I should not have expressed my reluctance so strongly had not the Minister - naked and unashamed, as. it were - declared that on this item, and no doubt on very many others, he intended to abandon a request for a preferential duty. He does not care one straw about the trade from the Old Country, but whenever it suits him he will strike a blow at it. It is very , seldom that we get such a clear and frank admissionfrom him as we did just now. , He has shown that when it comes to a question of fiscal politics, he does not care two. straws about assisting the trade of the Mother Country.

Question - That the words; proposed ‘ to be left out be left out (Senator Millen’s amendment)- put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 11

NOES: 13

Majority … …2

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Amendment negatived.

Motion agreed to ;. request not pressed.

Item 88. Oilmen’s Stores, n.e.i….. ad val. (General Tariff), 20 per cent. ; (United Kingdom), 15 per cent.

Senate’s Request. - Insert the following new . paragraph : -

Invalids’ Foods not manufactured in the Commonwealth, as prescribed by departmental bylaws, free.

House of Representatives’ Message. - Amend’ment made with the following modification - the words “ not manufactured in the Commonwealth, as” omitted from the requested amendment. .

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

– This is a formal modification. The words which another place has omitted are not’ necessary. Their effect is covered by the voids “ prescribed by departmental bylaws.” I move -

That the modification be agreed to.

Motion agreed to.

Item 93. Pickles, Sauces, Chutney, Olives, and Capers.

Curry, manufactured, whether paste or powder, ad val. (General’ Tariff), 35 per cent. ; ( United Kingdom), 25 per cent.

Senate’s Request. - Make the duties (General Tariff), 30 per cent. ; (United Kingdom), 20 per cent.

House of Representatives’ Message. - Amendment not made. 1

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

– Animated by the spirit suggested by Senator Millen, I think there is room for a compromise in this case. The duty in the general Tariff column might be reduced to 30 per cent., leaving that against the United Kingdom at 25 per cent. If that meets with the approval of the Committee I will move it, but if not I will move that the request be’ not pressed.

Senator. Colonel NEILD (New South Wales) [9.47]. - This request was one that I moved. I recognise that. the Minister is now making a proposition which accords with’ the general action of both Chambers in reference to United Kingdom preference. There has generally been . a difference of 5 per cent. In this ease the difference is 10 per cent. I am therefore willing, personally, to accept the compromise suggested, because it will bring the item into line with the rest of the Tariff.

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

– And duties of 30 and 25 per cent, were recommended by the Tariff Commission. I therefore move -

That the request be pressed as to the duty in the General Tariff, and not pressed as to the duty on imports from the United Kingdom.

Senator Findley:

– Is it possible to move now a request for higher duties than we originally requested?

Senator Millen:

– By our not pressing the request for 20 per cent, in the United Kingdom column, the duty of 25 per cent, originally passed by another place stands.

Motion agreed to.

Item94. Rice, viz…..

C, N.E.I. , including Rice Meal and Flour, per cental, 6s.

Senate’s Request. - Make the duty 4s. 3d.

House of Representatives’ Message. - Amendment not made.

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

– This is rather an important matter. I am certain that the request was made by the Senate under a misapprehension. The item as originally passed by another place provided for a duty of 3s. 4d. per cental on uncleaned rice, and of 6s. on cleaned rice. Those articles have a relative value, 100 lbs. of uncleaned rice would produce only 70 lbs. of cleaned rice. It would therefore take about 143 lbs. of uncleaned rice to produce 100 lbs. of cleaned rice. The duty on 10c lbs. of cleaned rice would consequently be equal to the duty on 143 lbs.’ of uncleaned rice at 3s. 4d. per cental, or 4s. 9d. If a man wanted to get 100 lbs. of cleaned rice, it would be necessary for him to pay duty to the extent of4s. 9d. In addition, the cost of cleaning the rice comes to1s. 3d. By. adding that to the 4s. 9d. we arrive at the ‘ duty of 6s. per cental which was proposed by the Government on cleaned rice.

Senator Millen:

– So the Government propose to give a duty equal to the whole cost of the labour?

Senator BEST:

-Yes. . It was scientifically adjusted in that way. If the Senate’s request to reduce the duty on cleaned rice to 4s. 3d. were agreed to, the result would be that’ only cleaned rice would be imported, and no cleaning would be done here at all. If cleaned rice could be imported for 4s. 3d. per 100 lbs., it is not likely that people would pay 4s.9d. in duty in order to import that amount of uncleaned rice which would produce 100 lbs. of cleaned rice,, and in addition, pay 1s. 3d. for the cost of cleaning it. The effect of the requested amendment would therefore be to completely disturb the adjustment of the duties and wipe out the rice-cleaning industry in Australia. I move -

That the request be not pressed.

Senator MILLEN:
New South Wales

.- The Minister has given a very strong reason why his motion shouldnot be carried without at least some modification. I am willing to admit his contention that when the Committee arrived at its previous decision we were in some doubt as to how the figures would work out. But the honorable senator has shown that the proportion which uncleaned rice bears to cleaned rice is 100 to 70, and upon that proportion the duty upon the item we are now discussing should be 4s.9d. per cental to. represent a duty equivalent to that imposed on ‘uncleaned rice. To that the Minister says that the Government add1s. “ 3d. per cental as the cost of cleaning) which brings the duty up to 6s. That is tantamount, as the honorable senator admitted in reply to an interjection of mine, to a duty equal to the whole cost of labour in the industry. In submitting the Tariff in the first instance, the most that the Minister claimed for the protective policy was the imposition of a duty which would equalize the difference between the cost of labour here and elsewhere, with a little to spare. Now, the honorable senator goes much further, and proposes a duty equal to the whole cost of the labour employed in the industry,. I admit that we, made a mistake in dealing with this item on the last occasion, and should rectify it, but when the Minister asks us to impose a duty equal to the whole cost of labour involved in this industry he is asking us to do more than we ought to do. Whilst the honorable senator has said that the whole cost of the labour of cleaning amounts to is. 3d. per cental, he has said nothing with respect to the commercial value of the byproducts derived in the process of cleaning. They are utilized in connexion with the manufacture of starch, and represent a factor which’ should be taken into consideration. Though they are certainly worth, something, I discard them for the purpose of my argument, because .1 am not in a position to estimate their commercial value. If we impose a duty equal to one-half the cost of the labour involved in the industry, that will surely meet any difference between the cost of labour here and elsewhere. Half the cost of the labour would be 7jd. I am prepared to’ go a little further, and concede od., which would make the duty 5s. 6-1. per cental. That, in my opinion, would amply protect those who clean rice in Australia against any competition they might have to face from abroad. I move -

That the motion be amended by leaving out the words “ not pressed,” with a view to insert in lieu thereof the words “ modified by making the duty 5s. 6d. per cental.”

– The honorable senator is quite right. I had forgotten him when 1 made the remark. I ask honorable senators to give a, little consideration . to the position and status of the Senate, and not too readily and without clue consideration to set aside not merely our rights but our duties and obligations.

Senator FINDLEY (Victoria) [10. o”.On many occasions during the consideration of the Tariff Senator ‘Millen promised to support duties imposed under the 1902 Tariff. I remind the honorable senator that the duty on cleaned rice under that Tariff was 6s. per cental, and I ask him now to follow the course which he adopted’ with a fair degree of consistency in dealing with other items .in the Tariff. Senator Vardon will pardon me for saying that honorable senators took a very great interest ir> the election of a senator to represent South Australia, which took place not long ago, and they are aware that on a number of platforms the honorable senator said that he would support the rates of duty imposed’ under the 1902 Tariff.

Senator Millen:

– The honorable senator has overlooked the fact that an increase upon the duties imposed by the 1902 Tariff is proposed with respect to certain articlesincluded in this item.

Senator FINDLEY:

– That does not apply to the article we are now discussing. Honorable senators are aware that our request for a reduction of the duty at first submitted was carried by only one vote. I have no doubt that honorable senators have received a circular in connexion with the proposed reduction of this duty from 6s. to 4s. 3d. per cental. It was evidently drawn up by those engaged in the industry, and it points out that the proposed reduction would absolutely ruin an industry established under the 1902 Tariff. It is stated that there are five rice mills in Sydney, one in Brisbane, one in Adelaide, and one in Fremantle, and all were brought into existence under the 1902 Tariff. _ It is pointed out also that, in connexion with the cleansing of rice, there is a loss involved of from 20 to 25 per cent., which is entirely lost sight of by those who support a reduction of the duty. I feel that it would he a very great injustice to this industry established under the 1902- Tariff, to reduce the protective duty imposed from 6s. to 4s. 3d. per cental.

Senator Givens:

– How much protection does the grower receive?

Senator Best:

– The duty on uncleaned rice is 4s. 3d. . ‘per cental. ‘ These duties are the same as in the last Tariff. .

SenatorFINDLEY. - The honorable senator refers to the duties- as originally introduced, and not to the duties which the Senate requested should be imposed, and which represent a reduction of1s. 9d. per cental on the duties imposed under the old Tariff. . Honorable senators who are protectionists should have no hesitation in’ supporting a duty of 6s. per cental, and those who have promised to support the dutiesimposed under the 1902 Tariff should not insist upon the request made by the Senate.

Senator CHATAWAY:
Queensland

– Senator Findley, who reminds people of what was said on the hustings, seems to forget that the duty imposed under the 1902 Tariff on a portion of this item - ricemeal and flour - was only 4s.2d. per cental, and not, as he apparently supposes, 6s. per cental. When this item was previously under consideration, I particularly asked the Minister whether the uncleaned rice imported was the rice known as “paddy “ rice. I went so far as to suggest that the word “ paddy “ should be inserted in the item. When I voted for a certain ‘ reduction of the duty, I was- unr>er the impression that the uncleaned rice imported was “paddy” rice, and that the very important byproduct obtained in Hulling the rice would add to the profits derived by those who hulled it in the Commonwealth. Since the matter was last under consideration I have made inquiries, and I find that the so-called uncleaned rice imported is really to a large extent cleaned rice, and that the cleaning process, carried out in the Commonwealth, is not so much the cleaning as the polishing of the rice. If I was misled when we were dealing with the matter when the item was previously before the Committee, I can at least plead that when I sought information from the Minister I was unable to get it. I have received several letters referring to the remarks I previously made on the question, and explaining that it would be absurd to describe this uncleaned rice as “ paddy” rice, because, paddy rice is never imported. The rice is imported already hulled, and, therefore, those cleaning rice in the Commonwealth are deprived of the advantage of the important by-product obtained in hulling the rice. . ..

Senator Millen:

– And have the advantage of the reduced cost of cleaning.

Senator CHATAWAY:

– I do not think sn, because the pclishing is very much moie expensive than the hulling of rice. Now that I understand the question nore thoroughly, I am unable to support the modification suggested by Senator Millun, and I intend to support the motion submitted bv the Government.

Senator NEEDHAM:
Western Australia

– I intend to support the motion, and I should not have spoken on Senator Millen’s amendment were it not for the fact that the honorable senator, in reply to an interjection of mine, suggested that I might be the first member of the Committee to set an example ofstultifving a vote. When this item was previously before the Committee, I voted for a duty of 6s. per cental. Fearful lest I might forget exactly how I voted upon this and some other items, I have taken, the’ trouble to- go through the division lists. When Senator Millen suggested that we ought not to climb down at the behest of another place, I said that possibly some honorable senators might be found to be stultifying their votes. Senator Millen replied to me in a manner that I flunk he will regret on further considera-. tion. I shall support the proposal of theVicePresident of the Executive Council. I need not quote statistics, but I recognisethat a duty of 6s. is quite little enough.

Amendment negatived.

Motion agreed to; request not pressed.

Item101. Spices, viz. (a) Unground, n.e.i.,. - per lb., 2d.

Senate’s Reauest. - Make the item free!

House of. Representatives’ Message. - Amendment not made.

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

– The original proposal was that the duty on unground spices should be 2d. per lb., and that the duty on ground spices should be 4d. ; the intention being to make the protection on the finished article 2d. The Senate requested that unground spices should be made duty free. . The effect, would be not only to remove the protection on the raw material, but practically to put some ^18,000 per annum into the pockets of the manufacturers who under ordinary circumstances were satisfied with a duty of 4d. on ground spices. I do not think that that was the intention. I am well aware of what was intended by honorable senators .opposite, but they did hot succeed. They wanted to strike out the duty of 2d. on unground spices and then reduce the duty on the manufactured article from 4d. to 2d% I. move -

That the request be not pressed.

Motion agreed to. . Progress reported.

page 10874

SPECIAL- ADJOURNMENT

Motion, (by. Senator Best). agreed to -

That the Senate, at its rising, adjourn until to-morrow at a. 30 p.m.

Senate adjourned at 10.17 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 6 May 1908, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1908/19080506_senate_3_46/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant

Senate 6 May 1908

ASSENT TO BILLS

QUESTION

SHIPPING RING

Senator McGREGOR:SOUTH AUSTRALIA

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

QUESTION

OFFICERS COMPENSATION ACT

Senator KEATING:Minister for Home Affairs · TASMANIA · Protectionist

QUESTION

IMMIGRATION RESTRICTION ACT

Senator KEATING:Protectionist

PAPERS

QUESTION

SYDNEY-MELBOURNE TELEPHONE LINE

Senator GIVENS:QUEENSLAND

Senator KEATING:Protectionist

Senator GIVENS:QUEENSLAND · ALP; NAT

The PRESIDENT:

Senator GIVENS:

The PRESIDENT:

Senator GIVENS:QUEENSLAND · ALP; NAT

Senator KEATING:

CUSTOMS TARIFF BILL

The PRESIDENT:

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

Senator Colonel Neild:

Senator BEST:

Senator Sir Josiah Symon:

Senator BEST:

Senator Guthrie:

Senator BEST:

Senator Sir Josiah Symon:

Senator BEST:

Senator Sir Josiah Symon:

Senator BEST:

Senator Sir Josiah Symon:

Senator BEST:

Senator Guthrie:

Senator MILLEN:New South Wales

Senator Colonel Neild:

Senator MILLEN:

Senator Sir Josiah Symon:

Senator MILLEN:

Senator Best:

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:

Senator Best:

Senator Guthrie:

Senator Best:

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:

Senator Best:

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:

Senator Trenwith:

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:

Senator Trenwith:

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:

Senator Stewart:

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:

Senator Millen:

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:

Senator Best:

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:

Senator Best:

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:

Senator Best:

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:

Senator MCGREGOR:South Australia

Senator Best:

Senator MCGREGOR:

Senator Guthrie:

Senator McGREGOR:

Senator Trenwith:

Senator McGREGOR:

Senator Guthrie:

Senator MCGREGOR:

Senator Findley:

Senator McGREGOR:

Senator Sir Josiah Symon:

Senator MCGREGOR:

Senator Best:

Senate
6 May 1908

Senator McGREGOR:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

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

Senator KEATING:
Minister for Home Affairs · TASMANIA · Protectionist

Senator KEATING:
Protectionist

Senator GIVENS:
QUEENSLAND

Senator KEATING:
Protectionist

Senator GIVENS:
QUEENSLAND · ALP; NAT

Senator GIVENS:
QUEENSLAND · ALP; NAT

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

Senator MILLEN:
New South Wales

Senator MCGREGOR:
South Australia

Senator ST LEDGER:
Queensland

Senator PULSFORD:
New South Wales

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

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

Senator MILLEN:
New South Wales

Senator McGREGOR:
South Australia

Senator STEWART:
Queensland

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

Senator GIVENS:
Queensland

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