3rd Parliament · 2nd Session
The President took the chair at ‘2.30 p.m., and read prayers.
page 11216
Senator TRENWITH presented a petition from the boot manufacturers of Victoria praying that certain alterations be made in the duties on leather.
Petition received and read.
page 11216
Parliamentary Allowance
– I desire to ask the Vice-President of the Executive Council, without notice, whether, in view of the fact that a Select Committee was appointed to inquire into the procedure in connexion with the scandals against the Parliament, or its members, and also into certain cases, the attention of the Government has been drawn to the following extract from The Daily News, published in Perth, on the 6th May last -
Unfortunately, it is to be feared that the present Federal Parliament, having received about ?20,000 as a present from Sir William Lyne, is not in a position to freely criticise this nefarious proposal.
I desire to know whether the Government propose to remit that paragraph to the Select Committee for inquiry ?
-I must confess that I have no knowledge of the paragraph referred to by my honorable friend ; but I shall take an opportunity of conferring with the Prime Minister on the subject of his question.
page 11217
– I have no knowledge that it has been semi-officially stated that the running of the trains will be altered so that the change occasioned by the break of gauge at Albury will take place at 5 a.m. ; but I shall have inquiries made and, as a member of the travelling public, shall be. only too pleased to have representations made as to the undesirableness of taking that course.
– It would be positive cruelty.
– Oh ! make thesun rise earlier and that will settle it.
– I shall be very pleased to have inquiries made from the Railway Department as to whether any such intention exists, and, if so, to make such representations as the honorable senator has suggested.
page 11217
-I beg to ask the Minister of Home Affairs, without notice, whether the authorised survey of a route for a railway between Kalgoorlie,in Western Australia, and Port Augusta, in South Australia, has yet been commenced, and, if not, whether there is any special reason for the delay ?
– So far as I know there is no special reason for any delay. It is more than three weeks since we advanced to the Engineering Departments of South Australia and Western Australia the sum of £2,000 each to commence the work. About a fortnight ago, I received word from the State Engineer of Railways for Western Australia to the effect that the camels to be employed in connexion with the survey on the Western Australian side were then en route from some northwestern portion of the State to Kalgoorlie. It was anticipated that it would take ten days from that date for them to reach Kalgoorlie. The survey may, therefore, have been already started. So far as the Home Affairs Department is concerned, everything that was required to be done by that Department, in order that the survey might be entered upon, was done some days since.
– Arising out of the question asked by Senator Henderson, I should like to ask the Minister of Home Affairs whether the camels referred to are driven by white orblack men ?
– The camels referred to were used by the Western Australian Government in connexion with the fixing of the exact boundary between Western Australia and South Australia, and the erection of a rabbit-proof fence along that boundary. I asked the Western Australian” Government, in November or October last, to be good enough not to permit that herd of camels to be dispersed, in order that they might be utilized in connexion with the sur- vey of the railway. They have been, I understand, under the control of the Lands
Department of Western Australia.
– And they are driven by white men.
– So far as the Federal Government is concerned, they do not come under our control in any way until they arrive at Kalgoorlie. I may add that I understand that the Western Australian Government have placed them in charge of white men.
– Arising out of the answer given by the Minister,Iwish to inquire whether the honorable senator can give the Senate an assurance that the camels referred to were bred in Australia, and are not Asiatic imports?
page 11218
– I desire to ask the Vice-President of the Executive Council, without notice, whether he can state the price which the Federal Government is to pay to the high Tory journal of England for the quarter page advertisement arranged for, and, also, whether it is the intention of the Government to advertise in the democratic and liberal journals published in England, to the same extent?
– I ask the honorable senator to give notice of the question.
– I wish to ask the Vice-President of the Executive Council whether, seeing that the Standard is one of the most conservative journals published in Great Britain, and is read only by the aristocracy and squirearchy, it is the object of the Government, in advertising in that newspaper, to promote the immigration of persons of those classes to Australia ?
– The question is one of such profound policy that I must ask my honorable friend to give notice of it.
page 11218
Delay in Telegraphic Communication.
– I wish to direct the attention of the Minister representing the Postmaster-General to the following paragraph whichappeared in the Adelaide Express of yesterday -
A BELATED TELEGRAM.
Borda Officials not to Blame.
When it became known that the R.M.S. Britannia from London had passed Cape Borda at 1.20 p.m. on Saturday last, and that the message announcing the fact had not been posted at either Port Adelaide or the Semaphore until 5 p.m., the headkeeper of the Cape Borda signal station was asked to furnish an explanation as to the cause of the delay of the telegram.He has informed the Marine Board that the Cape Borda officials were not to blame, as they were unable to get the Kingscote telegraph station until 3 p.m.. The signal station is under due control of the Matine Board, but the telegraph station at Kingscote is under Federal control.
In view of that paragraph, I ask whether the Minister will cause an inquiry to be made to discover why the telegraph station at Kingscote could not be communicated with between1.20 p.m. and 3 p.m., and whether he will lay a report of the result of the inquiry on the table of the Senate ?
– I shall be very glad to request my honorable colleague, the Postmaster-General, to have an inquiry into the matter made, . and to furnish the result to the Senate. In themeantime, I may say that there are a number of offices throughout the Commonwealth which are not official offices, and in connexion with the duties of which it is provided that an hour off may be taken by the person in. charge at certain times’ of the day. The hour off is generally selected so as to meet the convenience, not onlyof thosein charge of the offices, but of the residents generally served by them. If is sometimes between 4 arid 5 o’clock p.m., and sometimes in the middle of the day. As I have said, I shall request my honorable colleague to inquire into the matter.
page 11218
– I have here the first copy of the Commonwealth Official Year-Book, covering the period from 1901 to 1907, and I desire to ask the Minister of Home Affairs if he can explain why this publication . bearsthe imprint of “McCarron, Bird, and Company, Printers, Collins-street, Melbourne,” and why such a book as this, the first issued, I believe, under the regime of the Federal Government, could not have been published in that branch of the Victorian Government Printing Office–
– Why not the Queensland Government Printing Office? .
– Is that branch of the Victorian Government Printing Office occupied and used by the Federal Government as a Federal printing office?
– In reply to the honorable senator,. I may state that the matter to which he refers has been the subjectof very many questions submitted in the Senate from time to time during the present session. The reason why the publication bears the imprint of McCarron, Bird, and Company is that they were the successful tenderers for thecontract to print that book upon the conditions that were set out. The authorities of the Victorian Government Printing Office were not prepared to conform to the conditions laid down for the printing of the work.
– All the more reason for the establishment of a Federal Government Printing Office.
– They were not prepared to conform to the conditions with regard to time nor to some other conditions. If the honorable senator desires any further information on the subject I shall be most happy to supply him with an answer to any question with regard to the matter of which he gives notice.
page 11219
– I should like to ask the Vice-President of the Executive Council, without notice, whether, for the convenience alike of members of this Parliament and of the public, he will consider the possibility of issuing periodically in book form the various statutory rules and regulations which are now being issued separately from time to time? At the present time, these statutory rules and regulations are published very frequently on loose sheets, and I make the suggestion that if they could be bound together at the end of every session, and published with an indexin book form, that would meet the convenience of not only members of Parliament, but the public generally.
– The matter to which the honorable senator refers has not escaped the attention of the Government. As a matter of fact, the Attorney-General has had it under consideration for some little time, and his Department is at’ present engaged in collecting and indexing, the various statutory rules and regulations which have been published. Unfortunately, the Department is somewhat short handed, and there has been some little delay. Moreover, as honorable senators arte aware, the session has been extremely lengthy, but what Senator Clemons wishes to have done is in immediate contemplation by the Government.
page 11219
– In reply to the honorable senator, I may say that the alleged facts have not come under my own personal notice, but I shall have the attention of the Minister of Defence directed to the honorable senator’s questions, with a view of having an inquiry made, and the results furnished to the Senate.
page 11219
– I wish to ask the Minister representing the PostmasterGeneral whether the Committee of the Cabinet that is now considering the administration of that Department will make an inquiry as to whether it is possible, by some rearrangement of work in country post offices, to enable postmasters in charge of. those offices to get at least one half-day in the week on which they shall be free from official duty?
– The Committee of the
Cabinet will take into consideration the matter which has been mentioned by my honorable friend.
page 11219
asked the Minister representing the Postmaster-General, upon notice -
– The answers to the honorable senator’s questions are as follow -
page 11220
asked the Minister representing the Postmaster-General, upon notice -
– A progress report of the Committee of the Cabinet, which was appointed to deal with grievances and complaints, will be laid upon the table of both Chambers of the Legislature, I hope, next week. In the meantime, the Committee is not in a position to state what will be its future action or itinerary.
page 11220
asked the VicePresident of the Executive Council, upon notice -
– The answers to the honorable senator’s questions are as follow : -
page 11220
asked the VicePresident of the Executive Council, upon notice -
– Two questions appear on the notice-paper upon this same subject. My honorable friend, Senator W. Russell, I recollect, also asked me a question last month which appears again on the business paper for to-day. I think that the reply which I now have to give will cover both question’s. It is as follows -
– Arising out of the Minister’s answer, I desire to know whetherwe are to understand that the McKay Harvester Company can. exact whatever terms they please from purchasers?
– If a man is prepared to pay cash, he can obtain his machinery under the terms of the Apt. But if a man desires terms, those terms are open to arrangement between the parties.
– They ate outside the Act.
– Outside the Act.
– Arising out of the same question, I should’ like to know if this is not the position - that the McKay Company, or anybody in a similar position, can evade the Act simply by an arrangement with regard to terms ?
– I have already covered the honorable senator’s question by my previous answers.
asked the VicePresident ofthe Executive Council, upon notice -
Referring to the question asked by Senator McGregor, at the request of Senator W. Russell, on the 31st March last, re harvesters, what steps have the Government taken to have the law carried out, and with what result?
– I have already generally explained the position of the law in regard to this subject. The Government have made inquiries inall the States, with the result that I have indicated. Until we get some decision of the High Court, we are practically unable to do anything satisfactory in the matter.
– Will the Minister try to obtain the nature of the terms under which McKay’s harvesters are sold?
– Thatarises under an earlier question, and not under this.
page 11221
President’ of the Executive Council, upon’ notice -
What was the sum specified in the demand for a bond in respect of the Russian sick sailor at Adelaide referred to in the Minister’s answer given in the Senate on the 7th May ?
– Five hundred pounds.
page 11221
MINISTERS laid upon the table the following papers -
Papua. - Report by the Hon. Staniforth Smith, Commissioner for Lands, &c, on the progress ofthe Territory, dated 17th April, 1908.
Papua. - Ordinances -
Public Service Act 1902 -
Documents recommending appointment of Mr. Harald Christian Dannevig to the position of Director of Fisheries, Departmentof Trade and Customs.
Amendment of Regulation 104. - Statutory Rules 1908, No. 58.
Defence Acts 1903-4 -
Regulations for the Commonwealth Military . Cadet Corps. - Cancellation of Regulation 3«, and substitution of New Regulation in lieu thereof - Statutory Rules 1908, No. 52.
Financial and Allowance Regulations for the Military Forces of the Commonwealth. Amendment of Regulation 98. - -‘Statutory Rules 1908, No. 55.
Regulations for the Commonwealth Military Cadet Corps. - New Regulation 26A. - Statutory Rules 1908, No. 56.
Regulations for the Military Forces of the Commonwealth. - New Regulation 562A. - Statutory Rules 1908, No. 57.
page 11221
Bill returned from the House of Repre sentatives with a message stating that the House of Representatives had completed theconsideration of the message of the Senate requesting the House to make certain amendments in such Bill ; that the House, as shown in the schedule which accompanied its message dated 6th May, had previously made certain requested amendments, and had since made certain other requested amendments ; had previously made with modifications certain requested amendments, and had since made with modifications further requested amendments; had not made the remainder of the amendments requested’ by the Senate, and, in consequence of the. insertion of new schedule b, had made certain consequential amendments, as shown in the accompanying schedule .
Motion (by Senator Best) agreed to -
That the message be taken into consideration this day in Committee of the Whole in connexion with the previous message of the House of Representatives with reference to the requests of the Senate in the Bill.
page 11221
Bill returned from the House of Repre sentatives with a message stating that the House had made the amendment requested by the Senate in the Bill.
page 11221
In Committee (Consideration of House of
Representatives’ message as to Senate’s requests resumed from 7th May, vide page 10962) :
Item 226, Wire n.e.i, ad val. (General Tariff) 10 per cent., and on and after 16th , November, 1907, free; (United Kingdom) free.’
Senate’s Request. - Insert after “ n.e.i. “ the words “ also woven wire measuring over twenty holes to the lineal inch.”
House of Representatives’ Message. - Amendment made with the following modification : - “Amendment also to take effect on and after 16th November, 1907.”
– This may be described as a nominal alteration of the Senate’s request. The wording suggested by us has been accepted, but a general resolution was passed in another place that, as regards all items in which amendments were made, the amendments should take effect from the date on which they were made. This really has for its object ante-dating, so far as the wording is concerned. I move -
That the modification be agreed to.
– I desire to ask the Minister if this represents merely a modification of words, and does not in any way mean a rebate ?
– It does not mean a rebate.
– On the 16th November last, certain things were made free, as set forth in the first column, and subsequently the Senate, I understand, requested a modification as regards the number of holes to the lineal inch. The question therefore arises, what happened with regard to the importation of the articles affected by the Senate’s request on and after that date? If any duty has been paid, then the Government are asking the Committee to sanction some form of rebate, and, if so, I desire to know what steps have been taken, either here or elsewhere, to put it within our power to give a rebate, and what method of procedure will be adopted in case there is one?
– No duty has been paid.
– It might have been, but it did not happen.
– I believe that in one or two instances a guarantee was taken that if any duty were ultimately chargeable, it would be paid. The object now is, so far as the wording is concerned, to antedate.
– Owing to the action of the Chamber, there is no rebate in question?
– That is the assurance I have received from the Department.
Motion agreed to.
– The Committee have now dealt with the whole of the items embodied in the House of Representatives’ first message. It. is not necessary that I should read the second message. I shall put the various items in their order.
Item 234, Oils -
In vessels exceeding one gallon, viz. . . .
Senate’s Request. - Insert the following paragraph : -
House of Representative’s Message. - Amendment not made.
– Asthis is the first item dealt with in the second message from the other House, it is only right and fair that, as in connexion with the first message, I should supply the Committee with the best information at my command as to the general effect of the proceedings of the other House. The second message covers 126 requests. Of that number, eighty-four were accepted outright; twenty-four were rejected; and eighteen were modified or only partly agreed to. Of the eighty-four requests which were accepted outright, twentyfive represent increases of duty ; twentynine represent decreases of duty ; and thirty have practically no revenue effect. With the exception of three or four of these, the effect upon the revenue is very small. This applies to both requests for increases and ‘ requests for decreases. It is estimated that the twenty-five increases of duty will result in a revenue gain of £25,000 per annum, and that the twentynine decreases of duties will result in a revenue loss of £52,000 per annum. In all, 238 requests of the Senate have been dealt with. The other House has: accepted outright 149 requests, rejected forty-eight requests, and modified or partly accepted or partly rejected forty -one requests. Of the 149 accepted requests, forty-four represent increases of duties, fifty-three represent decreases of duties and fifty-two have no revenue effect. It is estimated that the forty-four increases of duty will result in a revenue gain of £70,000 per annum, and that the fiftythree decreases of duty will result in a revenue loss of £207,000 per annum ; showing, roughly, a net reductionto date of £137,000. With regard to the item before the Chair, it will be remembered that under this Tariff, as. under the old Tariff, linseed oil is subject toa duty of 6d. per gallon. The Senate requested the insertion of a new paragraph, to the effect that in certain circumstances linseed oil when denatured as prescribed by departmental by-law should be free, but the request was not accepted by the -other House. I believe that 1 am justified in inciting honorable senators not to press it. It was urged on behalf of painters that linseed oil formed the raw material of their industry, and consequently objection was taken by them to the original form of the item. No doubt it will be urged on their behalf that we should press our request, but I would point out that, under the old Tariff, there was an importation of 1,032,000 gallons. The ‘Parliament has determined to give a bounty upon the production of linseed. There will be no use in producing linseed unless it is intended to make oil out of it. It has. been suggested by the painters that the Australian production will not be suitable for their trade, but I remind honorable senators that the Parliament has dealt most liberally with them. Under the old Tariff, the protection on paints ground in liquid was 2s. per cwt., and that has been increased to 4s’. Again, under the old Tariff, the protection on paints prepared for use was 4s. per cwt., and that has been increased to 6s. And, since the introduction of the new Tariff, there has been allowed a drawback on linseed oil used in the manufacture of exported paint. In all these circumstances, I think that we might reasonably come to the conclusion that our request should not be pressed. With regard to the proposed new paragraph, I would point out that, although the Commonwealth’s requirements of linseed oil might be produced within a few thousand gallons, yet the discretion of the Minister would be limited by reason of its wording. I move -
That the request be not pressed.
– I .do not think that our request was an unreasonable one, because it proposed that as soon, as the linseed-oil industry was established here, and a sufficient quantity of the article was’ produced, the duty should come into operation.
– It would be free then.
– Those who contemplate the production of linseed oil have the prospect .of getting a bounty. . It has been rightly said that linseed oil is the raw material for painters, lithographers, and a number of trades, where in one case the oil is used for the purpose of ‘thinning down, and in the other’ for the mixing of paints. From the firm of H. L: Vosz Limited, paint manufacturers, of Port Adelaide, I have received a statement in which they put the position very fairly indeed. They say -
I believe that is a fair statement of the facts connected with this matter. In- the circumstances, I think that we have a perfect right to press our requested amendment. Linseed oil is a’ raw material used in the manufacture of paints. It is not produced here at the present time, and is. not likely to be produced in the Commonwealth in any quantity for some considerable time to come. Until local manufacturers are prepared to supply this oil, it seems to me that we should be unduly penalizing one of. our industries by imposing a duty of 6d. per gallon upon it. This oil is used, not only by painters, but very, largely also by local manufacturers of inks. I hope that the Committee will stand by its request.
Senator Colonel NEILD (New South Wales) [3.28].- r intend to vote for pressing the request. This matter was very fully discussed by the Committee, and good reasons were given for the decision arrived at. I hope that . honorable senators will stand to that decision, as the course we proposed is urgently necessary for the promotion of many manufacturing industries in the Commonwealth.
– I feel that in dealing with the items of the Tariff, there is some obligation upon us, where we reasonably can, to meet the wishes of the other branch of the Legislature. But in this particular case, though I listened very carefully to what the Vice-President of the Executive Council had to say, the honorable senator failed to put forward any reason why we should reverse our previous decision. He gave the Committee some information as to the amount of protection extended to the manufacturers of paints, but he surely overlooked the fact that this particular duty will fall not so much on the makers, as on the users of paints, the painters engaged in the decoration and painting of houses, and ultimately, of course, on those who employ them. The provision which we made for making the duty operative only when sufficient linseed oil is manufactured locally to meet our requirements, should surely meet the case. The fact that the Minister is not in a position to-day to issue such a certificate proves that sufficient linseed oil is not at present being manufactured locally. When the Minister admits that, it is surely unreasonable to place a heavy impost of 6d. per gallon on this oil until the operation of the Bounties Bill, which has been referred to, has led to the manufacture of a sufficient quantity of linseed oil for local requirements? This is a request which the Committee ought to press. If honorable senators are not with me on that point, we might consider the possibility of meeting another place half way, but, in the meantime, I intend to vote for pressing the request.
– There is one point on which the Vice-President of the Executive Council might give the Committee some information. We proposed, in this case, that until sufficient linseed oil is produced in Australia for certain purposes, it should be admitted free of duty. The Minister has asked us not to press that request. At one time it was certainly a part of the policy of the Government to impose a protective duty on certain articles, when if could be shown that they could be produced in Australia in sufficient quantities. There have been two or three instances in this Tariff in which we have agreed to proposals for the imposition of certain’ duties in the event of proof being given to satisfy Parliament that the articles, which it was proposed should be dutiable, were being manufactured in sufficient quantities in the Commonwealth. I can’ refer honorable senators to the proposal made in connexion with locks, timber, and some other items of the Tariff. Thereseems to have been a principle involved in these cases, and the Government have been prepared to make the imposition of certain duties dependent upon something which might happen in the future. We are entitled, I think, to hear from the Vice-President of the Executive Council, a definite statement as to whether it is the intention of the Governmentto adhere to that principle. After reading the publication, which we must not quote, I find that most of the proposals to which I have referred have been rejected hi another place. It would appear that the principle on which they were based is not acceptable to members of this Parliament generally. In the circumstances, I ask the Vice-President of the Executive Council whether he is in a position: to make some definite statement on this question, and whether.it is the intention of the Government to abandon their original proposals for the imposition! of duty on certain articles when evidence is given that they can be produced in sufficient quantities in the Commonwealth?
– Without committing myself definitely in respect of every item affected - for I shall make a particular announcement in respect of each - I cannot ignore what I believe was in the mind of Senator Chataway, in asking the question he has submitted. Members of the Government have made as strong a fight as they possibly could for the provision for bringing certain duties into operation in certain circumstances. They have done all they could in this connexion, but they have to recognise that they have not been successful, and that honorable members in another place are totally opposed to any imposition of duties by proclamation. We have to recognise the position of affairs. I cannot commit myself by making a general announcement on the subject, but we must recognise the inevitable, and when we come to the various items in which the question arises I shall be more specific.
– I intend to support the Government in this matter, and shall not vote for pressing the Senate’s request. I invite the Committee to consider the position. This item is not on .the same footing as. the next item with which we ‘have to deal. . In this case, what we are asked to do is to say whether we shall, vote for: protection, enforced rightly or wrongly by Parliament, or whether we shall vote for protection to be withheld so long as the Minister thinks fit. We have proposed that the linseed oil in question shall .be admitted duty free so long as in .the opinion of the Minister there is not sufficient manufactured locally for industrial purposes. This is not on the same footing as many other items in connexion with which it has been proposed that the imposition of duties should be by proclamation following upon a decision of both Houses of Parliament. Most honorable senators will agree that the principle involved is not a desirable one to adopt. What is proposed here simply means that to-morrow, if he thinks fit, ungoverned and uncontrolled by any parliamentary authority, the Minister may ‘ say that sufficient linseed oil is being manufactured in Australia, and therefore the article shall no longer be admitted free of duty. We. have not in this case provided for the safeguard of a decision on the point by either House of Parliament. In this case we are .called upon to vote for protection established by Parliament, whether we approve of it or not, or for protection to be determined solely by the opinion of the Minister. In the circumstances, I am prepared to vote not only with regard to this particular item, but with regard to every other of a similar character, against the provision which would enable the mere opinion of the Minister to effect the imposition. or abolition of a duty.
– I nope that the Committee will press its request, because the paint manufacturing industry is and ought to be of some consequence to Australia, and it would be a distinct hardship to the. industry to impose a duty of 6d. per gallon on linseed oil when it is riot being produced in Australia. Honorable senators are aware that I am prepared at all times -to advocate protectionist principles. I have done so since I arrived in the Commonwealth and understood the conditions existing here. I do not believe that I am departing in any way from that principle when I say that linseed oil should be admitted free of duty until such time as the production of flax and linseed in Australia, has arrived at such a stage that it is possible to manufacture a sufficient quantity of the article here. There is no greater difficulty in connexion with the denaturing of linseed oil than there is in the denaturing of spirits. If required for the manufacture of paints, it can be denatured with paint, and then cannot be used for any other purpose. If required for the manufacture of putty/ in which a large quantity of linseed oil is used, it can be’ denatured with whitening. The ingredients necessary for the purpose can be obtained cheaply, and the process of denaturing is not an elaborate one. Senator Clemons has raised the question of direct protection by Parliament as against protection which may be imposed by a Minister. But to my mind there is no difficulty in this master. When. a duty of this kind is cast upon a Minister, he does not act upon his own responsibility, but with the advice not only of officers of his Department who understand the matter, but also with* the concurrence of his colleagues in the Cabinet. I am sure that no. Minister would do anything that would be likely to endanger the position of a Government of which he was a member, because the action of every Minister is liable to be brought before Parliament. I trust that the Senate will insist upon its request.
– I hope that the Minister will try to meet us in regard to this item. I express that hope for two reasons. In the first place, I was the senator who, when the matter was last under consideration, urged that we should allow oil to come in free when used for manufacturing purposes. I understood that the Minister was in sympathy with that desire. I am sure that he will realize that as the item stands, considerable inconvenience will be given to the manufacturers of paint in Australia.
– They , will be placed in an infinitely better position than they were, even if the request be not pressed.
– I understand that they will have to pay a duty of 6d. per gallon on linseed.
– Which they have always paid.
– The fact that they have had to accept a disadvantage is 110 reason why it should be continued.’
– We have increased their protection in some cases by 100 per cent.
– In almost all cases where oils are denatured they have been admitted free for manufacturing purposes. Even from a protective point of view it is wise that that should be done. Linseed oil is an essential of the paint industry, and to levy a duty upon the raw material which is. used in the manufacture of paint is, from the point of view of protective policy, a great mistake. It will lead to an increased charge upon the public over and above what is fair and equitable. I have it from a member of another place that the matter of the amendment requested was, through a little negligence, passed without debate.
– I recognise that there is a little difficulty in dealing with this item, because of the objection of another place to the power proposed to be given to the Minister regarding the issue of the proclamation.’ That objection is stronglypronounced, and I have some sympathy with it. I think the difficulty might be met by pressing the request as to admitting linseed free when denatured, as prescribed by departmental by-laws, but by not pressing the request in regard to the opinion of the Minister being requisite.
– The honorable senator can accomplish his purpose by moving as an amendment to add to the. Minister’s motion the words “as to all words after the word ‘ by-law, ‘ except the word free.’”
– Then I beg to move -
That the motion be amended by adding : - “ as to all words after the wordby-law, except the word free “ in the General Tariff column.
– I should like to emphasize what Senator Macfarlane has said. As the requestednew paragraph stands, it gives power to the Minister to exercise arbitrary authority. He can bring linseed oil under the operation of the duty, or allow it to be imported free according to , his own judgment. I contend that no Minister should.be allowed to exercise such a power. The Committee would do well to accept Senator Macfarlane’s amendment, and I shall support it. The exercise of the power in question should be reserved in the hands of Parliament.
Question - That the words proposed to be added be added (Senator Macfarlane’s amendment) - put. The Committee divided.
AYES: 19
NOES: 10
Majority … …9
AYES
NOES
Question so resolved in the affirmative.
Amendment agreed to.
– In view of the vote which has just been given, I suggest that the duty should be made 3d. instead of 6d. That would mean a reduction of 50 per cent. I have already pointed out that so far as the paint industry is concerned, the position of those engaged in it isnot altered for the worse. On the contrary, they havebeen considerably advantaged. They have hitherto paid 6d. per gallon on linseed oil. I suggest that under the circumstances 3d. would be a reasonable duty.
– I think that the manner in which the question upon which the last division was taken was put, precludes the Minister from moving that the duty be altered to 3d. The question has been carried in theaffirmative to add to the Minister’s motion “ that the request be not pressed,” the words “as to all words after the word ‘by-law’ except the word ‘free ‘ in the general Tariff column.” The question now is -
That the request benot pressed as to all words after the word “ by-law “ except the word “free” in the General Tariff column.
– Could not the word denaturated “ be altered to “ denatured,” which is the correct word?
– Yes, if it is an error in grammar.
– The one word is just as good as the other.
– I wish to vote to press the request. Do I understand that I shall have to vote “ No “ to achieve my object?
– Those who wish to press the request will vote “ Aye.” The effect of the last division was to add Senator Macfarlane’s amendment to the motion of the Vice-President of the Executive Council. If we now carry the motion as amended, the effect will be to strike out the words “ provided that in the opinion of the Minister sufficient linseed oil for manufacturing purposes is not produced in Australia,” and to press the remaining words of the request.
Motion, as amended, agreed to.
Request, as modified, pressed.
Item 234. Oils -
In vessels exceeding one gallon, viz. : -
Senate’s Request. - Insert the following new paragraph : - (jj) Lubricating (mineral). - To come into operation on a date to be fixed by proclamation. Proclamation to issue so soon as* a joint address has been passed on the motion of Ministers by both Houses of Parliament, stating that such manufacture is sufficiently established in the Commonwealth, per gallon (General Tariff),4d. ; (United Kingdom), 33/4d.
House of Representatives’ Message. - Amendment not made.
– A strong and determined attitude was taken elsewhere against the imposition of duties by proclamation. In the circumstances, the Government, after making a vigorous fight in regard to this and several other subdivisions of the oil item, had to accept the inevitable. I therefore have to move -
That the request be not pressed.
– I am sorry to hearthe tone of the Vice-President of the Executive Council’s remarks. The vote given in another House was one of those panic votes that are difficult to understand. Seeing that the industries that use lubricating oil as a kind of raw material would be in no way injured by the imposition of these duties, and that Australian companies which undertake the production of oil are entitled to a certain amount of protection, a safeguard of the kind suggested by the. Senate ought to have pleased both sides of the House. The duties which we requested would not. hamper, any existing industry, asthe increases would not take effect until the production of lubricating oil was well established in the Commonwealth. Another place, in refusing to accept the proposal simply because it came from the Senate, has dealt in rather a left-handed way with a very sensible proposition. The fact that a new idea was initiated here should be no excuse for its rejection by another place.
– It was not a new idea. As a matter of fact, another place had already approved of the same principle in connexion with the iron industry, in Division VIa.
– Then, as the principle has been recognised in the case of other items, a safeguard of this kind might well have been adopted while there is any doubt as to the industry being thoroughly established in the Commonwealth. It ought to be dealt with on its merits, and riot regarded with prejudice simply because it was not initiated in the House of Representatives. I. do not wish to dwell upon the doings of the Standard Oil Trust, of which we have heard so much lately . They are fairly well known to every one who has taken the trouble to read of them. But an industry producing a similar article in Australia should be established so that we may produce the oils required in our various industrial undertakings, and so have the best safeguard possible against the encroachments of a gigantic trust, such as the Standard Oil Company undoubtedly is. We know that the article exists in abundance in New South Wales, and maybe found in other parts of the Commonwealth. If we give reasonable protection in order to establish the industry, we shall be able to snap our fingers at any foreign trust. The amount of duty fixed so far by the Houseof Representatives will not give sufficient protection. If we wish to insure a fair wage to the employe and a reasonable return to those who put their capital into the industry, nothing less than the amount of protection which we have requested is reasonable. Seeing that the increases cannot become operative until both Houses are- satisfied that the industry is thoroughly established, another place were not justified in casting an overwhelming vote against so eminently fair a proposal. A great deal of prejudice has been worked up over the oil duties owing to an unfortunate remark made in another place, but surely this Chamber is not compelled to follow the example of another place in castinga panic vote. This question has been dealt with in the House of Representatives on anything but its merits.
– Order. The honorable senator must not allude to the debates of another place.
– Surely I can refer to them?
– No. The Standing Orders forbid any allusion to the debates of another place on the subject before the Chair.
– If so, I cannot understand how the Vice-President of the Executive Council was able to refer to what was done in another place in regard to this item.
– The Vice-President of the Executive Council stated that the Government had made a vigorous fight with regard to the item. He did not say whether they had made it here or elsewhere.
– These items have not received that amount of consideration to which they are entitled. False impressions have been created in order to bring about a result with which I hope this Chamber will not agree. I trust that we shall vote on the merits of the question without reference to what has been said by any Minister or private member, because a meaning quite different from that intended is often placed upon a remark. Something of that kind has, I believe, brought about the result which is now before us. Even by members of my own party statements have been made regarding the Commonwealth Oil Corporation that I have had the opportunity within the last few days to investigate. I found that they were utterly erroneous, so that those particular members, with others, cast their votes under a false impression. Surely’, therefore, it is our duty to put the matter right if it is in our power to do so. I hope the Committee will press the request.
– I am sorry the Government have taken up the attitude expressed by the VicePresident of the Executive Council. I expected that a Government, ‘ the strongest plank of whose platform is protection, would, even if defeated in another place, make a last rally here. But apparently they have decided to abandon the attempt to establish an important industry in the Commonwealth, and it remains with honorable senators to say whether they intend to help the Government in that course or not. This Tariff is admitted, by even its opponents, to be intended for a protectionist one, that is, more as an instrument for creating industries, than as a revenueproducing machine. Here we have an opportunity of establishing a very important industry.
– It is established.
-It isin the process of being established, and whether it becomes a success or not will depend very largely upon the action taken by theCommonwealth Government. Even our freetrade friends to the right claim that if an industry can be shown to pay good wages, and offer decent conditions to its workpeople, they will support some measure of protection thereto. Here is an industry in which, I understand, the workpeople enjoy excellent conditions. I am informed, on the highest authority, that for some time the average wage paid by the Commonwealth Oil Corporation . to the miners has been11s. 6d. per day, and that very recently that rate has been increased, as the result of a. reference to arbitration, by about 2s. or , 2s.. 6d. per day, so that the miners now average from14s. to 15s. per day. I believe that 1,000 men are in the employ of the company. The wages of day labourers have recently been increased from 7s., which was a very fair rate, to 9s. Other advantages are being offered by the company to its workpeople. This shows not only that it is desirous of establishing a great industry within the Commonwealth, but also that it is prepared to treat its men oh the humanitarianlines dictated by public opinion. If that is the case, why not give it adequate protection?
– That isdone already.
– I donot accept the honorable gentleman’s testimony, because Ido not believe that he is a competent judge of what is a protective duty. He is a confirmed free-trader, who thinks that a duty of 5 per cent. is protection.
– So was the honorable senator a little time ago.
– I am wiser now, thank Heaven. I learn as I go on.
– The honorable senator forgets as he goes on.
– I am not fosilized like several honorable gentlemen whom I could mention if I liked. I pick up knowledge as I journey through life, and I trust to retain that receptivity until the end. Our mission here is principally, as I understand, to give a fillip to national industries. Here is not only an opportunity within the Commonwealth - and probably this will appeal to some of my honorable friends - but an opportunity within New South Wales.
Senatcr Gray. - Hear, hear, and we hope that it will be successful.
– The honorable gentleman reminds me very much of a Yankee, of whom I readonce. A number of persons were collected round the victim of an accident. They were all expressing their pity for the poor wretch, who had been injured; when a Yankee came along, and said, “ I sympathize $5.” How much is Senator Gray prepared to sympathize ?
– This is a question of 33/4d. per gallon as against 4d.
– Sympathy is very cheap. If this industry is to be established, it wants something more than mere sympathy. It needs substantial support in the way of a duty.
– The honorable senator forgets that he wants to sympathize with other people’s money.
– It is the money of the people, who are not only willing, but anxious to contribute towards the establishment of industries.
– Oh, nonsense. That is too thin.
– I think that if the people of New South Wales were polled to-morrow, although they returned six so-called free-trade senators at the last election, there would be a majority of votes for . protection. Sydney is benefiting more by protection than is any other city in the Commonwealth.
– Order ! I ask the honorable senator not to go into the general question.
– This particular case is quite enough for me, sir. Here is not only an opportunity of establishingan industry, which of itself is something, but also of saving the Commonwealth from the deadly grip of that octopus, the Standard Oil Company. I ask honorable senators to be patriotic for once, to rise to the occasion to assist the people of this unfortunate Commonwealth to get out of the toils of that grinding octopus of the United States’. If members of: this Parliament, by their refusal to levy an adequate duty . on this commodity, stifle the local industry, they will be playing right into the hands of the Standard Oil Company, which will in the very near future, when the local industry has been snuffed out, impose any terms it pleases upon the people of the Commonwealth.
-oh, nonsense. They cannot do it.
– Why not?
– Becausethey are not fools, but business men.
-They are business men, of course, and will take the highest price they can possibly get for their commodity. . Has it not been their continuous policy in every portion of the globe first to either buy off opposition or to kill it, and then, when its death has been accomplished by foul or fair play, to impose its own terms and conditions upon the people in that particular market? That is the policy of the Standard Oil Company in every portion of the world.
– Give us an illustration of any case outside America.
– Is not that sufficient?
– The honorable senator said that it pursued that policy throughout the world.
– I repeat it.
– Give us one instance.
– This company has been invading every territory, and has conquered, so to speak, kingdom after kingdom. It is now making a very strong attempt to capture Australia, but I hope that we have a sufficient numberof patriots in this Parliament to prevent it from succeeding. I appeal to honorable gentlemen to press the’ request.
Question - That the request (item 234, Lubricating oil) be not pressed - put. The Committee divided.
AYES: 16
NOES: 14
Majority … … 2
AYES
NOES
Question so resolved in the affirmative.
Request not pressed.
Item 234. Oils -
In vessels exceeding one gallon, viz. : -
Senate’s Request. - Make the duty1d.
House of Representatives’ Message. - Amendment made with the following modification : - After paragraph l the following sub-item added : -
And on and after 6th May, 1908 -
– The other House refused to accede to our request to increase the duty on solar oils and. residual oils from1/4d. to1d. per gallon, but agreed to the insertion of a new paragraph under whichthe, former will be dutiable at1d. and the latter at1/4d. There is a great deal to be said in favour of what has been done in this connexion in another place. Under the proposal now submitted, solar oils receive the protection sought for, but residual oils, which, it is stated, are not manufactured here, are not to be dutiable at the higher rate. It is recognised that they form the principal oils used as fuel in connexion with many of our manufacturing industries. I move -
That the modification be agreed to.
– When this item was previously before the Committee, I moved for an increase of the duty. I shall not refer specially to the Standard Oil Company or any other company, but I can inform honorable senators that when two or three weeks ago I had occasion to purchase a small quantity of oil, I was told that the price had been increased by 50 per cent. on account of the Tariff.
– Was it residual oil ?
– If was oil which I required to use in working a cream separator. It is not difficult to understand why people should cry out against the Tariff when they are taken advantage of by dishonest and dishonorable business or commercial men.
– It was the honorable senator’s motion which gave them the opportunity.
– If they wanted an opportunity, they would have found one, whether my motion had beenmoved or not. I do not believe in the Government backing down in this instance. Surely a duty of1d. per gallon is not too high a duty to impose, in view of the grand harvest which those supplying these oils have reaped in the past. When I moved in this matter, I believed I proposed a step in the right direction. Any quantity of oil’ is produced in the Commonwealth which is as suitable for our requirements as the imported oil. If we believe in the imposition of protective duties on other imports, why not on these.
– We do not impose duties on all imports.
– I remind Senator Millen, who is sometimes a geographical protectionist, that this is a matter which affects a New South Wales industry. I do not wish unnecessarily to make honorable senators uneasy, but I intend to vote on this occasion as I have voted before, believing that a sufficient quantity of local oils is available, and that a duty, of1d. per gallon is not, in the circumstances, too higha duty to impose on the imported article. I believe also that eventually we shall be able to obtain the local article at a cheaper rate.
Motion agreed to.
Item 234. Oils -
In vessels exceeding one gallon, viz. : -
Kerosene and other Refined Petroleum Oils, in packages less than 10 gallons in content, per gallon, 3d. ; and on and after 3rd December, 1907, free.
Senate’s Request.- Amend sub-itemso andp to read as follows : - “ (pp) Kerosene and other Refined Petroleum Oils, n.e.i., having a flash point of not less than 97 degrees Fahrenheit, according to the Abel-Pensky close test, free.
House of Representatives’ Message. - Amendment not made.
– I think it is a little unreasonable for honorable senators to reproach the Government with having backed down in connexion with these items, when they have yielded only to the force of numbers, after putting up a vigorous fight for a request whichwas made. Unfortunately, it is not within the power of the Government to deal with these items as they should like, and they are forced to recognise that there must be give and take, and that it is of no use to waste time over some of these items.
– Where is the give and take? ,
– I have already mentioned that a large number of our requests have been accepted by another place.
– I hope we shall not back down in this instance.
– I move-
That the request be not pressed.
– I am unable to understand the attitudeof the Government. . It would seem that another place has only to insist upon a certain course, and there might as well be no representative of the Government in the Senate.
– The Senate might as well not exist.
– If we are to have any say in the framing of the Tariff, it is very nearly time that honorable senators took up something like a determined attitude. We have given way time after time, arid the Government have made no effort in another place to have effect given to the expressed wish of honorable senators. They have backed down in connexion with all these oil duties, and have never fought for them ‘in an earnest manner. I hope that the Committee will insist on the flash point of 97 degrees which we proposed in the interests of the safety ofthose who have to use kerosene oil. In view of the advice which the Government received on this subject from Mr. Wilkinson, there should be no two opinions as to how honorable senators should vote. If we are to allow every kind of rubbish in the shape of oil to be dumped into the Commonwealth, irrespective of whether it can be safely consumed, and simply because it can be obtained cheaply elsewhere, there is no reason why we should impose restrictions on the importation of opium or anything else, the use of . which might involve danger to the community. I believe it is just as dangerous to permit the unrestricted importation of oil as it would be to permit the unrestricted importation of opium.
– If honorable senators wish for protection on this article, why not impose a duty straight out?
– It is not necessary in every instance to impose a duty in order, to protect. If we can protect the public by insisting upon a flash point for oil which will insure the importation ofan article which can be used with safety, that is certainly protection of the right kind. I hope that the Government will make some effort to fix a flash point for imported kerosene which they have been advised by their expert officers is necessary to insure safety.
– I have been surprised by the very placid manner in which the leader of the Senate has proposed that we should submit to the action taken byanother place in connexion with this item. I recognise the importance of the vote taken elsewhere. I find that fifty-two honorable members out of a House of seventy-five recorded their votes on this matter, but that in no way affects the importance of the action taken by this branch of the Legislature, when honorable senators unanimously agreed on the advice of a Government expert to raise the flash point of imported kerosene to 97 degrees Fahrenheit. When this matter was . previously before the Committee, I did not agree to the flash point being fixed at 97 degrees from any motives of either protection or freetrade. It will be admitted that I have consistently voted for protection throughout the Tariff. My object in voting for the flash point proposed was to secure the protection of human life. Now, because another place has seen fit to reject the standard we propose, we are calmly asked to back down and allow this very important matter to go by the board. I am determined to stand by the vote I have already given on this question, and I hope that honorable senators generally will do the same, even although that should lead to a joint meeting of both branches of the Legislature.
– Or a double dissolution ?
– Or even a double dissolution, which I do not suppose that an) member of this or the other Chamber is very anxious to. bring about. We have on record a great . number of accidents which have occurred as a result of the distribution and use of inferior oils, not only in the Commonwealth, but in every part of the British Empire. Whilst I admit that many accidents of the kind are due to carelessness and negligence on the part of consumers of these oils, it is still our duty to do what we can to minimize the risk of such accidents. So far as the use of these oils for industrial purposes is concerned, experts have admitted that as good, if not better, results, can be obtained from the use of oils of the highest standard as from the use of inferior oils. We desire to protect not only those who use these oils for lighting purposes, but’ also those who use them for industrial purposes. From a humanitarian point of view, and apart from any consideration of a monopoly held by the Standard Oil Company or any other company, it is. in my opinion, the imperative duty of the Committee to insist upon its request to fix the flash point of imported kerosene at 97 degrees Fahrenheit.
– I understand that this item raises the question of the use of fuel oils. Some time ago I presented a petition on this matter from a number of producers inSouth Australia who use oil engines. Many of our market gardeners, farmers, and manufacturers outside the area served by gas companies use oil engines. I am informed that the effect of pressing our request in connexion with this item would be to impose a duty of. 6d. per gallon on oils used in oil engines. I think that is an unnecessary burden to put upon those who require oil for this purpose.
– What kind of oil dothey use?
– They use oil of a low quality.
– They use “ White Rose” principally.
– I am speaking of the oils generally used in oil engines, and I am given to understand that the raising of the flash point from 73 to 97 degrees Fahrenheit would have the effect of imposing a duty of 6d. per gallon on these oils.
– I have worked an oil engine for six years, and have used White Rose oil all the time.
– Did the honorable senator pay 6d. per. gallon duty on it?
– No; there was no duty on it.
– If the honorable senator had to pay a duty of 6d. per gallon on the oil he used, he would very likely have objected that it increased the price of his fuel. It affects a very large number of our producers who employ oil engines. These inferior oils are not used as illuminants, but as fuels. I want to help those producers who are using oils simply for their engines.
– Under the old Tariff kerosene was free, and there was no mention of aflash point at all. But the Customs Department, by means of a regulation, insisted upon a test. That was done for the purpose of protecting the public. Why can w’ not allow the old state of affairs to continue? What reason is there for disturbing it ? But after it has been in existence for three or fouryears, it is suddenly discovered that the departmental regulation is not sufficient, and that it is necessary to institute a flash test by law. Why did not those who are advocating the institution of a flash test think of it before? The onus of proof is on them to show that control by departmental regulation is not sufficient. We know how the matter went through. We were all desirous that kerosene should be duty free. When the Government were defeated in regard to the proposal which they made, they tried to institute some restriction on the importation of kerosene by imposing a flash test. I am anxious that the illuminants used by the working classes, and the fuel used by the producers, shall not be taxed. I wish kerosene to be absolutely free. I hope, therefore, that we shall agree with the House of Representatives.
– Not only the Government, butthe whole Parliament has been exposed by Senator St. Ledger. He is a regular Sherlock Holmes in discovering things, and a perfect wonder for finding mares’ nests. He has actually discovered that it has been decided that kerosene shall be duty free. Can honorable senators imagine a more wonderful discovery than that? But he has also found out that we desire to have a certain flash test applied, and he has exposed his fellow senators in their design in that respect. But, as a matter of fact, when the question was last under consideration there was no division upon it, and every honorable senator agreed to the flash test provision. Senator St. Ledger has likewise discovered, or supposes that’ he has done so, that the question of a. flash test was never raised before. I can assure hint that when the first Tariff was under discussion in this Chamber nearly seven years ago. there was a debate upon the flash test of kerosene. Therefore our anxiety upon the subject is nothing new. We are desirous of having a flash test instituted in the interests of the consumers, and to insure that a perfectly safe article shall be brought into the country. Surely there is no room for mystery on that subject. I trust that we shall insist upon our request.
– The interests of the farming community have been trotted out in the course of the debate. I look at the question from a farmer’s point of view. I have had some personal experience in regard to kerosene. When I followed farming pursuits I used an oil engine for six or seven years, chiefly for the purpose of driving machinery for chaffing hay. What I required was an oil that was safe, reliable, and would not explode. A person who stores away kerosene in a place where there is heat, and where hay and chaff are kept, runs a great risk. I am thankful that the Labour Party was responsible for taking off the duty on kerosene, but at the same time I am not desirous of having cheap and unsafe oils imported. I always used White Rose kerosene, the best and safest oil for my oil engines, and I consider that any sensible man would do the same. It is necessary to have the imported oils examined, so that the producer may know that he is getting a genuine and safe article. We should insist upon a standard. A flash test of 97 degrees insures a safe oil. Far be it from me to advocate the imposition of any duty on kerosene. Whatever may be said by Senator St. Ledger, the White Rose is the safest kind of oil to use, and so far as my knowledge goes, extending up. to a short time ago, it is the kerosene principally used for oilengine purposes. We should encourage the use of everything that is safe, especially on farms, where the risk to life and property from using inferior oil is so great. If people insist on bringing dangerous material into the Commonwealth, there should be a penalty imposed, but not for protective purposes. Let kerosene be free. I advocate the protection of human life and property and so do the party to which I belong. I remember reading in the daily press of South Australia, when the 1902 Tariff was passed, about the evil deeds of a certain party in Federal politics who took the duty off kerosene. I am prepared to do the same to-day, but above all I advocate the admission only of the genuine and safe article.
– I am surprised at the Minister’s silence on this matter. Usually when he moves to press or not press a request, he volunteers some reasons to the Committee,- but on this occasion the reasons he has put forward are not at all sound. He simply said that because another place has rejected the flash point proposed by us ‘we ought to coincide with them. I do not agree with that view. When the Minister introduced the item previously he gave valid reasons why the Senate should take the action which it subsequently took. I am at a loss to know why lie should back down now without the semblance of a fight, and I am entirely at a loss to understand by what process of reasoning he has put himself into his present position, and desires the Senate to follow his lead. Senator Millen interjected that the protection of human life was not the real issue in the raising of the flash point, which was only another way of imposing a tax on kerosene. I say emphatically that there was no such idea’ in my head. I was and am still anxious to allow kerosene into Australia free, but I want it to be safe and not dangerous.
– Has the honorable senator any evidence as to accidents occurring through the imported oil being of too low a test?
– I have no other evidence of accidents resulting from the use of inferior oils in Australia than what I have read in the press, but I have a vivid personal recollection of a painful accident that laid me up for a few weeks through the use of inferior oils whilst following my occupation in another part of the. Empire. I do not feel inclined to allow dangerous oils of that kind to be dumped on the shores of Australia, and thus expose workmen and others to the risk of serious accidents. I desire to raise the flash point to 97 degrees, following the advice of the experts. My personal experience of this danger should have weight with the Committee in considering Senator Vardon’s desire to have cheap oils imported for use in oil engines. We should not expose workpeople and property to these risks. The crux of the whole Question is the evident danger to human life. I ask honorable senators to banish from their minds the idea of fiscalism in this matter. I hope those who favour raising the flash point will force the question to a division so that we may see what men occupying responsible positions in the national Parliament are prepared to sacrifice the lives of the people for commercial purposes. I have made my protest as strongly as possible. I have given my personal experience of the use of inferior oils, and I hope that the Committee will stand by the request to. raise the flash point to 97 degrees, no matter what the consequences may be.
.- The doctrine preached by the VicePresident of the Executive Council is that as another place have not agreed to our request, it is our duty to swallow their decision. I donot think we can accept that policy. If we have any rights at all, we surely have the right to insist upon our request in connexion with one of the most vital questions dealt with in the Tariff. If any question is vital, it is that of the flash point of kerosene. There has been a big outcry, mainly from people who use the socalled inferior grades of kerosene for oilengine purposes, against the raising of the test ; but even Senator St. Ledger, who was very cocksure about the matter, produced no evidence to prove that those who use oil above 97 degrees flash point for industrial purposes, are not in the end getting the cheapest possible article. Those who have experience, say that the man who uses bad oil in a good machine is a fool. I have seen one or two small explosions, which convinced me of the danger that is being introduced into Australian households. Asmall stove, knownas the Primus, is now largely adopted throughout the Commonwealth, particularly in the country districts, and the kerosene that is being used in connexion with those stoves is very dangerous. Some time ago, at a friend’s place, I went to assist in lighting the stove - I believe the oil was below 97 degrees flash test - and the stove burst. Surely we have some right to protect the women of this country from such risks.
– Was the explosion the fault of the kerosene or of the stove?
– The fault did not lie with the stove, as I know, because I happen to be connected with that particular industry. I could guarantee the stove, but not the kerosene which the honorable senator wishes to admit to this country. A great deal has been made of the fact that the request would, if carried, give a certain amount of protection to the local industry ; but, if it is protection against the introduction of cheap and nasty oils, is it not a verydesirable thing? Senator St. Ledger has not the courage to stand up in this Chamber and say that he is a free-trader.
– Oh, yes !
– Then why does he not advocate free-trade in connexion with bananas as well as kerosene?
I believe there is a great future before the oil industry in Australia.. This is a protectionist Chamber, and part of a protectionist Parliament. Are ‘we to lie down and accept everything that is sent to us, without making some semblance of a fight for the protectionist principles upon which we have been returned? There is more money invested in this industry, and a greater future before it, than is the case with many of the industries to which we have readily granted protection. Surely we can in some way help this company to get a start in Australia to establish what I hope will some day be a big industry.
Question - That the request (item 234, Kerosene) be not pressed - put. The Committee divided.
AYES: 17
NOES: 13
Majority … … 4
AYES
NOES
Question so resolved in the affirmative.
Request not pressed.
Item 244. Roofing Tiles, Flooring Tiles, and Tiles, n.e.i., of all materials, and Mosaic Flooring, ad val. (General Tariff), 30 per cent. ; (United Kingdom), 30 per cent. ; and on and after 3rd December,1907, 25 per cent.
Senate’s Request. - After “ Mosaic Flooring “ insert “ and Slabs and Tiles of Fibro Cement, Asbestos Cement, and similar substances “ ; make the duty (General Tariff), 35 per cent.
House of Representatives’ Message. - Amendment made as regards insertion of words except the words “and Slabs”; and not made as regards alteration of duty.
– The other House has deleted the words “ and slabs “ from the words which we desired to have added to the item ; and the effect will be to bring those articles under item 247, which imposes a duty of 15 per cent. Fibro cement slabs are practically the raw material of the tile industry, and. are also used for the making of walls. We requested the other House to raise the duty in the general Tariff from 30 to 35 per cent., but it declined to’ do so. We must admit that 30 per cent. is- a reasonable rate, and, therefore, I move -
That the modification be agreed to, and the request as to duty be not pressed.
Motion agreed to.
Item 247. Fire and Glazed Bricks; Fire Lumps; Fibro Cement; Fireclay Manufactures n.e.i. ; and Asphalt Tiles, ad val. 15 per cent.
Senate’s Request. - Leave out “Fibro Cement.”
House of Representatives’ Message. - Amendment not made, but letters “ n.e.i.” inserted after “ Fibro Cement.”
– This is almost consequential upon what was done with item 244, with which we have just dealt. Therefore, I move -
That the request be not pressed, and the modification be agreed to.
Motion agreed to.
Item 248. Roasting Dishes, Assay Furnaces and Crucibles, Scorifiers, and Muffles, free.
Senate’s Request. - Leave out “ and Crucibles, Scorifiers, and Muffles.”
House of Representatives’ Message. - Amendment not made.
– Our object in requesting the deletion of crucibles, scorifiers, and muffles was to bring them under the item dealing with earthenware, on which the duties are 25 and 20 per cent. The other House disagreed with our request,I think under a misapprehension. I suggest that we should now request that the item be altered to read in this way-
Roasting Dishes, Assay Furnaces, Plumbago Crucibles, Skittle Pots, and Scorifiers. and Muffles.
The real object which the Committee had in view previously was to give clay crucibles; which are manufactured throughout the Commonwealth, and of a very splendid type, too, the benefit of a protection of 25 and 20 per cent. under the earthenware item. The effect of the amendment which I now suggest will be to leave plumbago crucibles and skittle pots free, and to give clay crucibles the benefit of a protectionist duty. I move -
That the request be not pressed, provided the word “and” be left out and a. comma and the word “ Plumbago “ substituted, and that after the word “Crucibles” a comma and the words “Skittle Pots” be inserted.
The effect of this alteration, if made, will be to largely meet the objection of the other House, and to achieve what we desired.
Motion agreed to.
Item 255. Glass, viz. : - Gas Analysis Apparatus ; Arsenic Testing Apparatus and Tubes ; Evaporating Basins, free.
Senate’s Request. - After “Basins” insert “.ad val.” and make the duty (General Tariff), 25 per cent. ; (United Kingdom), 20 per cent.
House of Representatives’ Message. - Amendment, not made.
– I draw the attention of the representatives of Queensland to the fact that under our comprehensive request 134, practically all that affected a certain industry in that State was conceded by the other House. So far as my information goes, the articles which are mentioned in item 255 are not made in any portion of the Commonwealth, and, therefore, I move -
That the request be not pressed.
Motion agreed to.
And on and after 4th December, 1907 -
Item 261 - .
Senate’s Request. - Make the duty per lb. (General Tariff),11/2d. ;. (United Kingdom),1d.
House of Representatives’ Message. - Amendment not made.
– This request was made at the instance of Senator Neild,. and largely, I think, with the object of bringing the duty on glue into line with the duty on gelatine. I have given some attention to this matter, and intend to ask the Committee to press its request. As honorable senators are aware, it is difficult to say where high-quality glue ends and poor-quality glue begins. It is difficult to determine either value or quality, because there is an exceedingly wide range. After full consultation with the Department, it is thought that a fixed duty is more desirable than an ad valorem duty, and, therefore, I move -
That the request be pressed.
– The Minister, in asking the Committee to press this request, is, at the same time, reversing his own attitude. On the figures presented to the Committee previously, it was shown that the specific duty proposed would range all the way from a merely nominal duty on high class gelatine, worth up to £100 per ton, to as high as 60 per cent. on low grade gelatine. It does seem to me little short of a serious injustice to ask those who use the inferior commodity to pay a duty so high as that proposed, and, at the same time, permit those who use the superior article to escape with only the same measure of contribution to the revenue. The matter was fully discussed when previously before the Committee, and a great deal of information on the subject was furnished by Senator Neild. It is from the information furnished by that honorable senator that I have made the statement with respect to the ad valorem effect of the proposed duty. Inthe circumstances, I intend to vote in opposition to the motion submitted by the VicePresident of the Executive Council.
Question put. The Committee divided.
AYES: 11
NOES: 17
Majority … … 6
AYES
NOES
Question so resolved in the negative.
Request not pressed.
Item 261. (a) Glue………
Senate’s Request. - Make the duty (General Tariff),11/2d. ; (United Kingdom),1d. “
House of Representatives’ Message. - Amendment not made.
Motion (by Senator Best) put -
That the request be not pressed.
The Committee divided.
AYES: 15
NOES: 12
Majority …… 3
AYES
NOES
Question so resolved in the affirmative.
Request not pressed.
Item 262. Printing Roller Composition, ad val. (General Tariff), 35 per cent.
Senate’s Request. - Make the duty (United Kingdom), 25 per cent.
House of Representatives’ Message. - Amendment not made.
– I move -
That the request be not pressed.
Honorable senators are aware that on this item the Tariff Commission recommended a duty of 35 per cent in the general Tariff column. The Senate requested that the protection should be reduced to 25 per sent., as against imports from the United Kingdom. That, to my mind, would very seriously reduce the protection afforded to the local industry.
Question put. The Committee divided.
AYES: 16
NOES: 11
Majority … … 5
AYES
NOES
Question so resolved in the affirmative:
Request not pressed.
Item 268. Stone and Marble -
Senate’s Request. - Make the paragraph free.
House of Representatives’ Message. - Amendment not made.
– In this case the duty imposed was10 per cent., and the Senate requested that the item should be made free. The other place has not seen fit to accede to our request. I point out that so far as wrought marble is concerned there is a good protection of 30 per cent., and as it is well known that there are some splendid deposits in Tasmania of very high-class marble, it is considered that 10 per cent. is a reasonable protection so far as the rawmaterial is concerned.
– It is a revenue duty.
– It is not a revenue duty. It is intended to be protective. I move -
That the request be not pressed..
Question put. The Committee divided.
AYES: 13
NOES: 14
Majority … … 1
AYES
NOES
Question so resolved in the negative.
Request pressed.
And on and after 4th December, 1907 -
Item 275. Ammonia, viz. : -
Carbonate, Anhydrous, Liquid, Muriate, and Sulphate, ad val. 15 per cent.
Senate’s Request. - Leave out the word “ Muriate,” and insert new paragraph “b, Muriate of Ammonia, ad val. 5 per cent.”
House of Representatives’ Message. - Amendment not made.
– It will be remembered that the Senate requested that a new paragraph be inserted making muriate of ammonia dutiable at 5 per cent. Since the question was last under our consideration, a large plant has been laid down in Sydney for the manufacture of muriate of ammonia.
-. - By whom ?
– I neither know nor care. The fact that a large plant has Been laid down is sufficient for my purpose.
– Who says so?
– The information has been supplied to me from reliable sources. As the duty of 15 per cent. was sufficient to bring about the establishment of an industry, I move -
That the request be not pressed.
Senator Colonel NEILD (New South Wales) [5.48].- The Vice-President of the Executive Council has made an extraordinarily bald statement. In reading current history in relation to’ matters that took place say 3,000 or 4,000 miles away, we learn of a Minister who made the statement that a certain number of members of Parliament were in a certain company’s bag, But it turned out that there was no foundation for that statement.
– Order ! The honorable senator must not refer to debates in another place.
– I am referring to incidents that occurred,as I have said, 3,000 or 4,000 miles away. If there was a similar incident in the immediate vicinity, that is my misfortune, not my fault. There was I say, a case where a Ministerial assertion was proved to be so seriously inaccurate that, if my memory serves me rightly, in the reading of the historical incident to which I have made reference, the matter was submitted for inquiry to a Royal Commission or Select Committee. Here we have the case of another Minister comingforward with a bare statement that something has happened somewhere, though he cannot give us the name, and cannot tell us who told him. Yet he asks the Committee to go back upon itself, and reverse what it has already determined upon. He makes that proposition without producing the smallest tittle of evidence in support of his statements. With the greatest respect for my honorable and learned friend, I do not think that he ought to ask the Committee to stultify itself in such an unusual manner.
– The point that is troubling me ishow much muriate of ammonia is made, or likely to be made, in the Commonwealth? It is for honorable senators opposite to answer that question. Muriate of ammonia is used in many simple manufacturing operations, as well as for certain household purposes. I therefore press for an answer to the question- how much of it is made in Australia?
– Is it made by the people for whom the honorable senator advocates low wages?
– I have asked a plain question, and should like , a plain answer.
– We are not in the witness box.
– All that I can get from the advocates of the working classes in answer to my question are irrelevantremarks.
– We do not advocate low wages, anyhow.
– We all know that muriate of ammonia is a very useful article, and yet I can get no information as to its local manufacture from those who advocate a protective duty. In the absence of information from the other side as to any prospect of the industry arising in Australia, we should press our request. If honorable senators opposite cannot give me any answer but a personal one, they are defeating their own object.
– The style of answer which the VicePresident of the Executive Council gave just now to a question put from this side of the Chamber hardly tends to get honorable senators to support him. It was not the proper way to answer a question, no matter what side of the House it came from.
– If the honorable senator wants to know, the name of the company is the Ammonia Company of Australia. It is established in Sydney.
– The Minister’s previous answer was a kind of sneer, as much as to say that hewas satisfied, and we could mind our own business.I am prepared to support the Government in any reasonable proposal, but not if that is the manner in which the Minister is going to treat us.
– I sneered at nobody, and Senator Neild would be the lastto say that I did. I said I was quite satisfied, and did not care who established the industry so long as it was established.
SenatorSAYERS. - -The Minister was asked who had established the industry, and he said he did not know or care, it was established, and that was enough for his purpose. If the honorable senator can intimate that a bona fide company is likely to carry on the industry, I am prepared to support him.
Question put. The Committee divided.
AYES: 16
NOES: 11
Majority … …. 5
AYES
NOES
Question so resolved in the affirmative.
Request not pressed.
Item 284. Insecticides, Sheep Washes, and Disinfectants, n.e.i., free.
Senate’s Request. - Leave out the words “ Insecticides” and “and Disinfectants”; insert the letter “a” before “ SheepWashes,” and the words “and Cattle and Horse Washes” after “ Sheep Washes “ ; insert the following new paragraph : - “(b) Insecticides and Disinfectants, n.e.i., ad val. (General Tariff), 25 per cent. ; (United Kingdom), 15 per cent.”
House of Representatives’ Message. - Amendments not made.
.-On a previous occasion, it was brought under the attention of the Senate that insecticides and disinfectants were largely manufactured throughout the Commonwealth. We therefore agreed to a request that they should be taken out of the original item and made dutiable at 25 and 15 per cent. Another place has not made the amend- ments.. I ask the Committee to press the request, with’ certain modifications. I move -
That the request be pressed, and the House of Representatives’- be also requested to strike out the letters “ n.e.i. “ in -paragraph a, and add the following new paragraph : - “C Pyrethrum Flowers, pure, in packages containing not less than 28 lbs., free.”
If we leave the letters “n.e.i.” after the words “ Sheep Washes and Cattle and Horse Washes, ‘ ‘ they might be taken to mean that only particular classes of those washes are to come in free. Our intention was that those washes should all ‘ be free. It was a mistake to leave in the letters “ n.e.i.,” as they to some extent neutralized our intention. The flowers mentioned in the new paragraph are the raw material from which disinfectants and insecticides are made, and would be liable to duties of 25 and 15 per cent. , unless our request was modified.
– Is that raw material a disinfectant in itself?
– It is sometimes used as a disinfectant, and we want to have it introduced free in packages exceeding 28 lbs. The modification, that I have proposed should induce another Chamber to agree to our request, as these flowers are the raw material of the recognised arid well-known brands of disinfectants.
– Are those flowers the product of Australia?
– No.
– Cannot .they be grown here?
– I believe not. ‘
Senator Colonel NEILD (New South Wales) [6.7]. - I shall vote against the Minister’s proposition. I am largely influenced by the following communication, which 1 received to-day from some of the honorable senator’s own constituents -
Dear Sir, - As the House of Representatives has refused to adopt the request of the Senate that a duty of 25 per cent, and 15 per cent, be placed on disinfectants and insecticides, we shall be glad if you will use your best endeavours to have these two items kept on the free list, for the following reasons : 1 st. All locallymade disinfectants and insecticides are sold at about half the price of the imported article. Therefore no protective duty is required to help the local manufacturers. 2nd. More than twothirds of the disinfectants and insecticides imported are sold in either bottles or tins, all of which are made in the Commonwealth, in addition to which all the printing, labelling, and putting up are done here, .and, taking our own company’s figures, we can prove that the amount expended for bottles, tins, and labels, with ‘ the labour, is equal to more than two-thirds of the selling price of these lines. 3rd. It was stated, when the matter was previously discussed !n the Senate, that the importation of disinfectants and insecticides had largely increased of late, but such is not the case, any increase being largely from sheep dips and cattle washes, which constitute about 80 per cent, of the total importation of these three classes of goods ; so far . as our experience goes, there has. been a decrease in the importation ‘of disinfectants and insecticides. . 4th. The- Commonwealth has at different periods been subject to attacks of plague and other contagious diseases,’ and may at any future time be so affected, it is therefore essential that all disinfectants should be free. 5th. Insecticidesare largely used by orchardists, market gardeners, &c, and nothing should be done that might handicap these growers.
Trusting that we may rely on your efforts to oppose the suggested duty on these goods, we are, - Yours truly,
Morris, LITTLE, ‘& Son, Ltd.
This letter, coming from a large firm’ with branches, in different parts of the world and well acquainted with what Chey ase talking about, supports the attitude that I took previously. Just for- once I shall be compelled to vote against the Minister, but I shall vote so as to make these necessary articles as inexpensive as possible to those who, unfortunately, are compelled to use them, lt must be recognised that their use implies loss, damage, and injury. The very need to use them shows that people are struggling with adversity of one. kind or other. I think that the articles ought to be made free, and therefore I shall vote against the motion.’
– A little while ago I asked the Minister for some information which I did not receive, possibly because I did not put my request very clearly. I want to know why we are now asked to alter our vote on this item. I also desire to know what is the new substance which the. Minister wishes to bring into the Commonwealth, and whether for that reason we ought to alter our vote. What is this extraordinary substancewhich the Minister wishes to bring into the Commonwealth and which cannot be grown locally? Really, my honorable friend has given’ the strongest reason why the Committee should adhere to its decision.
– On a previous occasion it was conclusively shown that there had been a considerable increase in the imports of thisindustry. I. wish to point out how ridiculous was the quotation which- Senator Neild made on the authority of a reputable firm of very long standing and undoubted honesty in their commercial transactions. Their plea for free-trade in these particular articles is based on the ground that their printing, bottling, and canning are done in Australia, and thus give employment. It represents two-thirds of a shilling. The cost of the ordinary shilling tins in which insectibane is packed, is 14s. 6d. per gross, and the labels, I suppose, cost considerably less than that. . What the mere filling of a tin or bottle costs is hardly worth counting, but the labour in putting up a is. tin is about id. That represents two-thirds of .the selling price - that is about id. I want to know who is getting the rest of the is. If the importers have been getting the benefit of the difference I think that it is about time that we took steps’ to establish an industry. The statement in the letter quoted by Senator Neild was absolutely inaccurate. In the Commonwealth there are about fifty manufacturers of these particular articles, and I ask that they may be given an opportunity to establish their industry on firm lines. I trust that honorable members will not De influenced by circulars such as that which was quoted by Senator Neild.
– Senator E. J. Russell has just stated that in the Commonwealth there are fifty manufacturers of these articles. Well, if there are fifty factories of that, class there are -fifteen thousand orchardists who are interested in keeping down insect pests, which are a constant menace, and . which neither our Tariff nor our Commerce Act can exclude. The very livelihood of those persons depends upon their ability to get insecticides at the lowest possible rate. It may be an excellent thing to keep fifty manufacturers or factories going, but what’ reasonable ground have we to sustain them at the expense pf the thousands of persons who are trying to carry on an orchard business in one form or other ? The imposition of this duty will affect, not only the production of oranges and lemons in Queensland, but also the production of wine in Victoria and South Australia and apples in Tasmania. Although our export of wine and fruit has assumed immense proportions, still we are asked to bolster up fifty precious factories, which want to be allowed to import duty free pyrethrum flowers, which are grown in Switzerland, France, o-.- some other country, and which create the smells destructive of insect pests. I ask honorable senators seriously to consider this question of protecting a few factories which are engaged in mixing up theseflowers and producing insecticides at the expense of all the orchardists in Australia. We are talking about establishing a “Bureau of Agriculture. Why ? Because the Statescannot manage to collect throughout the world the information which is necessary to enable them to deal with, the various troubles in orchards. We have to consider very carefully the interests of the thousands of people who are troubled with insect pests. The preservation of- their industries is of far more importance than the mere question of protecting fifty factories, whether they be established in Melbourne, or Sydney, or Brisbane. Every State is incurring enormous expense in creating authorities and devising means for maintaining the health of the community.’ When the Quarantine Bill was before the Senate, the Minister of Home Affairs said that he would not like to interfere in any way with the maintenance of public health by a State. Yet what do we find now? We find that the price of the very articles which will be required by health authorities is to be raised, and that, in the natural course of events, must limit their capacity to keep the community in good health and to put down epidemics. I think that the maintenance of human life should be considered before the preservation of animal or plant life. -Disinfectants can be manufactured here-cheaply, but a duty on insecticides will affect various industries to an enormous extent, especially in South Australia, Victoria, Tasmania, arid New South Wales. I submit that this Parliament should make what one might call the medicines for the wine, fruit, and jam industries absolutely free.
– I hope that’ the Committee will not press the request made in connexion with this item. To my mind, it involves class legislation. We propose that washes’ for sheep, cattle, and horses, required by the farmers and squatters of the Commonwealth, in a big way of business, should be admitted free, and, at the same time, that the orchardist and the “ blocker,” who require insecticides to deal with insect pests, should pay duty on them. It was argued that the smaller settler would not require to use great quantities “of these preparations, but it appears to me that is. often represents as much to a “blocker,” as. jQi would to a squatter. Our gardeners and orchardists require to use insecticides every day in the fight they have to keep up against the ravages of insect pests, and we should not impose upon them any burden which we do not impose on the farmer or squatter. I intend to vote against any motion to press the request we have made.
– I must express my astonishment that the Minister should have moved in the way he has done. The honorable senator has drawn a red herring across the trail by suggesting that a certain flower is the basis of these disinfectants. The honorable senator should know that carbolic acid is one of the most effective disinfectants, and it is not made here. It seems to me that the Vice-President of the Executive Council, no doubt unintentionally, is leading the Committee, astray. We should place no obstacle in the way of the freest use of disinfectants necessary to cope with the spread of infectious diseases. We should not place the business of supplying these preparations in the hands of one or two firms. The properties of the flower referred to are not to be compared with the properties of chlorine and carbolic acid for use in the manufacture of disinfectants. Senator Chataway has eloquently pointed out that it is proposed to impose a duty, which will add 25 per cent. to the cost ofthe preparations required by the small producer.
– No, they will be reduced in price.
– A great variety of disinfectants and insecticides are imported in large quantities, and our people should be given an opportunity to obtain the best.
– It is because of the importations that our apple growers are poor. If we impose a duty, on insecticides they will become rich.
Sitting suspended from 6.30 to 7.45 p..m.
– I think we have not a quorum present. [Quorum formed.] I have very little more to say. I direct attention to the fact that the composition of insecticides is Very different from thecomposition of disinfectants, and when the Vice-President of the Executive Council suggests that pyrethrum flowers are used in the manufacture of the one, it does not’ follow that they would be of any use in the manufacture of the other. The modification proposed, therefore, is calculated only to divert attention from the real merits of the question. I shall certainly vote against the proposal made by the Government.
Question - That the request be pressed, with modifications (item 284 “ Insecticides, &c.”) - put. The Committee divided.
AYES: 13
NOES: 10
Majority … … 3
AYES
NOES
Question so resolved in the affirmative.
Request, as modified, pressed.
Item 290. Tartaric Acid, Cream of Tartar, and Citric Acid, ad val. (General Tariff), 5 per cent. ; and on and after 5th December, 1907, free.
Senate’s Request. - Make the duty(General Tariff), 5 per cent.
House of Representatives’ Message. - Amendment not made.
– As the Tariff reached us in the first instance, this particular item was free. With the object of securing a preference for imports from the United Kingdom, we decided to request that the item should be made dutiable under the general Tariff at. 5 per cent. As the item has been returned to us in the form in which we originally received it, I move -
That the request be not pressed.
Motion agreed to.
Request hot pressed.
And on and after 5th December, 1907 -
Item 299. Furniture, n.e.i. …
Senate’s Request. - Insert new paragraph - “ (b) Lounges and Settees of Wicker, Bamboo, or Cane, each (General Tariff), 10s., or ad val. 45 per cent., whichever rate returns the higher duty; (United Kingdom), 8s.9d., or ad val. 40 per cent., whichever rate returns the higher duty.”
House of Representatives’ Message. - Amendment made with the following modification : - After “ Cane “ the words “ but not including those of Cane with wooden frames “ inserted.
– The Senate will remember the occasion when we requested an increase of the duties with regard to lounges and settees of wicker, bamboo, or cane, and will also be aware that it was not intended at that time to include Austrian furniture. The other place is desirous that that intention should be made clear. A modification has therefore been proposed to make it plain that furniture of cane, with wooden frames, is not included. I move -
That the modification be agreed to.
Motion agreedto.
Item 299. Furniture, n.e.i., &c. . . .
Senate’s Request. - Insert new paragraph “(c), Chairs of Wicker, Bamboo, or Cane, each (General Tariff), 7s. 6d., or ad val. 45 per cent., whichever rate returns the higher duty ; (United Kingdom), 6s.9d., or ad val. 40 per cent., whichever rate returns the higher duty.”
House of Representatives’ Message. - Amendment made with the following modification : - “ After ‘ Cane ‘ the’ words ‘ but not including those of Cane with wooden frames ‘ inserted.”
– The same explanation as I made with regard to paragraph b applies also to paragraph c. It was not the intention of the Senate, as a matter of fact, to include Austrian chairs.’ The other place is desirous of making that quite clear, and the modification has been proposed for that purpose, I move -
That the modification be agreed to.
– I hadnot the pleasure - or perhaps I should say the misfortune - to be present when this matter was discussed, but I cannot allow the Minister’s motion to be agreed to without at least recording my sense of the iniquity of these enormous duties. The absurdity of not being content with a duty of 40 per cent. plus onetenth - 44 per cent. in all - must be transparent. We have now agreed to a duty of 45 per cent, with the possibility of the actual tax being anything up to 60 per cent. or 70 per cent. under the specific rate. The whole thing is a great misfortune for Australia.
Motion agreed to.
Item . 303. Timber, viz.: - (a) Timber, undressed, n.e.i., in sizes of 12 in. x 6 in. (or its equivalent) and over, per100 super. feet,1s. 6d. ; and on and after 6th December, 1907, 6d.
Senate’s Request. - Make the duty1s.
House of Representatives’ Message. - Amendment not made.
Senator BEST (Victoria- Vice-President able senators will be aware that in this case the Government did what they could elsewhere with the object of securing the increased duty of1s. per 100 super feet. But after a strong fight they found that it was impossible to carry the higher duty. Under the circumstances, I move -
That the request be not pressed.
– When this item was last before the Committee, the question was threshed out thoroughly, and, as the Vice-President of the Executive Council has intimated, the Government favoured ah increase of the duty. They also favoured an increase in another place, but their wishes were not acceded to. We are now asked by the Government to agree to whatever terms the other House attempts to dictate.
– The honorable senator agrees with the other House when it suits him.
– In this case it does not suit me, and it does not suit the Government. I do not see why we should back down. For that reason, I am entirely opposed to the request being not pressed. I do not propose to go intothe merits or demerits of the case again, as we had an exhaustive and informative debate on the last occasion. But I shall ask honorable senators to vote in favour of adhering to our’ former decision.
– I agree with Senator Givens in this matter. Honorable senators opposite may laugh; butI have agreed with Senator Givens on other matters respecting the interests of the State which he represents.
– One touch of Tariff makes the whole world kin !
– I shall not enter into details with regard to the timber industry, and shall compress what I have to say into a very few words. We have agreed to offer special inducements to special industries. We have offered facilities for creating an iron and steel industry in Australia. When our New South ‘ Wales free-trade friends “barracked” for support for the steel industry, we did what we could to help them, believing that we were encouraging a primary Australian industry. Here we have an industry, which I may call the wood industry, the potentialities of which are just as great as are those of the iron industry. But it is an extraordinary thing that while the free-traders in the Senate–
– Who are the . freetraders ?
– My honorable friend may well ask “ Who are the freetraders?” in view of the speech which he made with regard to steel rails ; but those who claim to be free-traders were prepared to vote for duties for the development of the iron1 industry, though when it comes to a question of supporting the development of the wood industry, they turn round, and vot’e the other way.
– Be fair; we voted for a duty for the timber industry.
– My honorable friend must not say “ we,” because, in the matter of the .timber duties, he must admit that he is not the leader of the Opposition. This Committee voted for a higher duty, and I ask honorable senators to stick to ‘ their decision. According to the Commonwealth Year-Book, which we. have just received, Australia possesses millions and millions of acres of fine timber. We know perfectly well that we, cannot develop our forests as long as there is no demand for our timber.
– There is plenty of demand, but the people cannot get it.
– Let me fell the honorable’ senator that, in the forms of contract in connexion with the Victorian railways, Queensland timbers are debarred. That may seem to bis a very strong- statement, but I have seen the contract forms, which stipulate for so much Baltic, and so much Oregon, pine, but do not ‘say that any Australian pine is required. That is a most remarkable thing-. I do not find fault with the Victorian Railway Department, because they happen to require certain kinds of timber, but I would ask the Victorian senators, and’ others, who say that Queensland cannot supply orders for timber, to remember, that it is a fact that in some of . the public contracts, Queens- land timbers are not asked for, whilst Baltic and Oregon timbers are specially enumerated. We have learnt from the Year-Book published by the statistician of the Commonwealth - and a very valuable ‘ book it’ is - that Australia - possesses -vast areas of forest. I ask honorable senators, to put th’eir foot down, and say, Here is a natural Australian industry, which we are determined to develop. We must recognise that afforestation cannot be successfully carried out unless there is a regular demand for our timbers.” The Governments of the States will not be able to afford to replant forest areas unless they derive a revenue from them in the. way of licence fees. We have here a tremendous industry requiring development’. Unless we give encouragement for afforestation to be systematically conducted, the inevitable result must be, that our natural wealth, in the form of timber, will be stripped from the country, and no fresh timber will bte planted to take its place. I appeal to Senator Findley to support me in this matter.
– I wish the honorable senator had been with mie with regard to all protectionist duties. I always vote for protectionist principles, whether they benefit .Queensland, or any other State.
– I remind Senator Findley, and other honorable senators who have been connected with the printing trade, of the evidence which has come under the notice of printers and others who have had to purchase news paper, which is made from a pulp, manufactured from wood, that the forests of the world which are utilized for that industry are being denuded, and. that the price of news paper is, in consequence, gradually going up. If we went on cutting down our timber and neglected the work of afforestation what would happen? We should perhaps have a temporary prosperity in the timber trade, but we should have no permanent timber industry in Australia. Unless the Federal Parliament . deliberately makes it its business to protect that industry, there is no hope of its being put upon a permanent footing. I do not want to see it consist merely of cutting down timber, and selling it to make butter or soap-boxes. I desire to see the industry permanentlyestablished.
The- TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Colonel Neild). - The ‘ honorable senator is discussing the whole question of the use of Australian timber and the development of the Australian timber industry. The discussion should- be confined to the mere question of. whether the request should or should not be pressed-. The general question cannot be dealt with on the present “motion.
– I bow to your ruling, sir. I will give reasons why we should press the request. The issue before us is not whether we are to get so many thousand or million feet of timber to-day ov to-morrow, but whether the Federal Parliament is going to deal thoroughly with the important question of developing the timber industry, and so encourage the States to go on with their afforestation.
– What power has the Commonwealth over the States ?
– The Commonwealth has power to this extent, that no State can say whether foreign timber shall enter its borders free or not free. The value of the timbers in the State territories will be regulated to a large extent by the duties which the Commonwealth Parliament impose. I urge not only honorable senators, but also honorable members in another place to realize that the timber industry is not a wretched question of cutting down a few trees and making them into butterboxes or sticks for matches. It is a question of developing an enormous forestry business of which Australia is capable to ten times the extent to which it is developed at present.
– I desire to congratulate Senator Chataway upon being so excellent a protectionist upon timber. It is a great misfortune that he does not represent every State. We should then have in him a protectionist of the first order. He appeals to Victorian senators on this occasion. Every one of them has voted for every duty that has been presented to this Chamber in the interests of Queensland. We are not now discussing the question of whether the duty suggested by us is or is not the best thing per se. We have toconsider whether it is practicable. I understand from the records that it is utterly hopeless to expect the duties that we have asked for to be carried in another place.
– There is no such word as “ hopeless “ in the honorable senator’s creed, is there?
– I admit that we can refuse to pass the Bill, refuse to pass it once again, and have a double dissolution and a joint sitting. All those things are possible, but within the realms of reasonable practicability there is no possible hope of another place agreeing to our request.
– The honorable senator has not made a try yet.
– Men do not try to do what they are absolutely certain from the start that they cannot accomplish. There has been a trial in the place where the final issue must rest, and there is in- disputable proof that we have no hope.
– When you are beaten, take it lying down.
– The man who fights best is the man who fights with a hope of success.
– The honorable senator thinks that -
He whofights and runs away
May live to fight another day !
– And he who fights in a hopeless cause does not live to finish that day. It is not characteristic of me to run away where there is a reasonable hope of success, but to fight a hopeless game is to be a fool - to waste time, and act foolishly. That is the factor -that will, I am sure, actuate those Victorians who vote for not insisting upon our request, not because we have ceased to believe that ultimately it would be the wisest course, but becausewe know it is merely beating the air, and cannot possibly lead to a successful issue.
– At the risk of prolonging a hopeless fight, and leaving myself in the position of beingcalled a fool, according to Senator Trenwith, I am going to fight this thing through. A Victorian may know when he is beaten, but it is the proud privi- lege of a Britisher, and especially of a Queensland Britisher, not to know when he is beaten. Apart fromthe question of protection or free-trade, if thereis one attitude that has been taken up here and elsewhere, especially by Victorians, it is that duties should be given to assist their manufacturing industries. In this case, because another place does not agree with us, the Victorians in this Chamber are going to depart from that principle. When they were asking for assistance for their manufacturing industries - -
– We never got the honorable senator’s vote.
– This Chamber gave a great deal of assistanceto manufacturing industries not only in Melbourne but in Sydney and other large centres, as the schedule shows. Honorable senators opposite may not have always got myvote, but in this case, as in others, where the argument tells againstthem, they have dragged in the personal question. Apparently, they have no other refuge. What position do they occupy now, when we appeal to them for assistance on behalf of one of the greatest industries of Queensland, and one of the most useful in Australia ? They back down when we ask them to vote for a moderate duty.
– In what position will the honorable senator be if he does not back down ?
– I will face that issue when it arises. If we are to be consistent in this Chamber, let us force the position now. We’ have almost equal powers with another place in determining what duties shall operate. Nothing has been more strongly put forward by honorable senators opposite, and sometimes by honorable senators on this side, than the assertion that it was our duty to grant protective duties because the verdict of Australia was for protection. That was insisted upon even when we pointed out in numbers of cases that the duties asked for would be of no advantage to the industry itself, and would possibly lay an undue burden upon the people.
– Nobody says anything else now than that the verdict of the people was for protection.
– But the honorable senator is flinching now. The Prime Minister himself both here and on the other side of the globe, stated over and over again that protection was the verdict of the people of Australia. The Prime Minister is responsible for the policy of the Government. How then comes it that the Government consent to back down in this instance?
– Does the honorable senator want them to resign?
– I do not care two straws whether they continue to hold office or not, and if we forced on a crisis on the question of the timber duties with the assistance of honorable senators opposite, I do not know that those honorable senators would shed many bitter tears afterwards. Taking the Prime Minister’s own words, the Government are bound to stand by the principle of protection, and to fight it through. It is no answer to say that I have sometimes argued against that position. I am not responsible. Those who are responsible are the Government and their supporters on the other side. The timber industry is a great primary one, and there is no doubt that Queensland can, and will, supply in a short space of time, if railways are built into her timber districts, the whole of the timber requirements of Australia. In anticipation of that great beneficial result, primarily to Queensland, and indirectly to the whole Commonwealth, surely the Committee is bound to adhere to its. decision, seeing that it has been willing to assist practically every industry, manu facturing or primary. So strongly does Queensland feel on this subject that with a: view to developing its timber industry, its Parliament recently authorized the expenditure of about £400,000 upon the construction of railways into the forests. It has been made evident that if the timber industry can be developed it will be of immense advantage to timber-getters arid primary producers. . At any rate, the Parliament of Queensland has backed its faith in its timber resources to the extent of about. £400,000. There is not a single description of timber, for mining, furniture making, or other purposes, which is not almost immediately available in Queensland.
– That is admitted.
– What is the logical consequence?
– That there are too many persons like the honorable senator - geographical protectionists.
– What onearth have I to do with the matter ? Let thehonorable senator address himself to the principle I am putting forward. Is it a sound and reasonable principle? Why is not the honorable senator willing to fight for the decision of the Committee in this case, as he has done in others?
– Why did not the honorable senator help us in other cases?
– There is no use in trying to beg the question.
– Why is the honorable senator blaming others?
– I am putting the honorable senator firmly to a principle.
– I should like to find out what it is.
– If the Honorable senator has not yet discovered the principle on which he has voted, it is too late for me to try to explain it to him. I remember that there was no abler supporter of the timber duties than the leader of the Labour, or Socialist Party. He made an admirable speech in support of them. Does he intend to cave in, too?
– Yes ; the honorable senator’s speech is making me back down.
– A man who will put forward such a personal excuse is only anxious to get a shade of a shadow of reason for backing down. It only goes to show how sincere he was in the profession of hisbelief that Queensland and other States were entitled -to the imposition of the duties. It is only a short time since he made one of the strongest and ablest speeches delivered here in support of them.
– The honorable senator is so inconsistent.
– It does not matter what position I take’ tip. My honorable friends on the other side have to find a reason for not adhering to their decision. 1 doubt, however, if Senator McGregor, who led the fight in favour of these duties, is going to backslide, but, of course, if he is likely to be led into conflict with the Government, he may be entitled to reconsider his position. On what ground, I repeat, do the honorable senator and his followers, who, I suppose, will be affected by his example, propose to depart from their original view ? We all understood at one time that they were sincere in their advocacy of the duties. Not the slightest circumstance has occurred since they_ voted in a certain direction to justify them in giving an opposite vote, except, possibly, that if they did not it might lead to a conflict with the Government. I should like to hear some of the reasons why these strong men intend to recede from their attitude. Perhaps on this item, as on others, they may be found willing to yield to pressure or to expediency. There is no doubt that the other House was influenced by the consideration that a duh on Oregon would entail great expense upon the mining industry.- But we cannot close our eyes to the fact that that difficulty could be easily overcome. The difference between Oregon and Queensland timbers, and possibly New South Wales timbers, is not very great. Oregon seems to possess some superior qualities. One of its great recommendations is that in rough or broken mining country it gives a warning to the miners when it is yielding to the strain. That is certainly a valuable quality. We have no desire to be unfair to New South Wales. In mining for copper or gold in rough as well as settled country in Queensland, the local .timbers have been found to be just as suitable as oregon. Hardly any of that timber is imported into the State, and none is imported for mining purposes. Perhaps our timbers are a little heavier than oregon, and the railway freight might be larger than we could fairly ask mine-owners in New South Wales or Victoria to bear. But it is quite easy to do justice as between the superior timbers of Queensland an3 Oregon, and we shall not unduly resist honorable senators in seeking to make a distinction.
– What about honorable senators on the other, side who are in favour -of timbers being made free?
– In another place it was strongly urged that there should be a lower duty on Oregon, and in some cases no duty at all. If my honorable friends on the other side wish to make a distinction of the kind I suggested, I do not think that we would press our objection.
– The honorable senator is backing down on his protectionist principles.
– I shall not back down. I believe that certain ‘timbers in Queensland, and some timbers in New South Wales, are equal to Oregon, and may be got as cheaply when the industry is developed. Taking my honorable friends’ arguments, we are entitled, without a single qualification, to a duty. Of course, they know that a duty of is. per 100 super, feet amounts to a little more than 7 J per cent. If oregon is absolutely essential to certain branches of the mining industry in New South Wales, while I should fight for our request, yet I would not be inclined to stake the fate of the Government on that single issue. If the Committee does not press its request, it will - mean that, for some reason ‘or other, the Victorian senators and the leader of the Socialist, or Labour section here, have backed down. It will look very much like a betrayal of the interests of Queensland.
– Oh !
– That is. very strong, I admit.
– It is absolutely incorrect.
– I can quite understand such an ardent protectionist as my honorable friend spurning my sugges-tion. I am glad to learn that on this question he does not intend to betray his protectionist principles. ‘ If these timber duties are imposed, Queensland stands to win possibly more than any other State. Consequently a’ representative of Queensland stands open to the ‘charge that in advocating their imposition he is self-interested. I do not see how it is possible for Victorian senators, and other members of the Committee who have voted for high duties to protect other industries, to go back on the- votes they, have recorded in connexion with this important question. If they do, then all we have heard about the Federal spirit and harmonious working in the interests of each of the different States is not worth the breath with which it was uttered. Honorable senators opposite have voted ‘ for duties infinitely higher than those for which Queensland senators are asking for the protection of this Queensland industry.
– Queensland senators need not apologize; they are taking all they can get.
– Is there one honorable senator representing Victoria who has not been prepared to take all he could get, not with one But with both hands dipped into the fiscal bag ?
– They have not received the aid of Senator St. Ledger.
– That does not matter. I was told that senators representing Queensland were trying to get all they could for the protection of this industry. Why did Queensland join the Federation? . Was it that she might receive nothing, whilst representatives of Victoria dipped both hands into the fiscal bag for the protection of Victorian industries?
– What have Victorian representatives refused to Queensland?
– That is not the question, either. I admit that the question that I put is a very disagreeable one, and a hard one for representatives of Victoria to answer. I wish to know whether the Government, honorable senators representing Victoria, and Senator McGregor, who so strongly supported these duties when the Tariff was previously before the Committee, are. prepared on this occasion to assist this Queensland industry in the same way?
SenatorGivens. - They may be, but the honorable senator does not deserve to be assisted in anything;.
– I regard these personal retorts as indicating that some honorable senators require to be furnished with a reason for departing from the vote which they previously gave.
– Does the honorable member mean to insinuate that I am looking for a reason to alter my vote ?
– I have no doubt that Senator Givens will vote strongly for the interests of the State he represents.
– It does not matter a straw to me whether it is my State or any other State that is affected.
– I am glad to know that in connexion with the proposed duties on timber every honorable senator representing Queensland, whatever his fiscal views may be, will agree with me that we are making only a very reasonable demand in connexion with these timber duties. I know, of course, that it is very unpleasant for some honorable senators to find themselves voting with me even in support of duties on timber, but I hope that as no reason has been given why we should alter our previous decision, the Committee will insist upon the protection previously demanded for this great primary industry. In dealing with the Tariff of 1902, every member of the Federal Parliament representing Queensland advocated assistance for the timber industry. The desire then evident for the protection of this industry has not declined. We have had the Queensland Government proposing the expenditure of about £500,000 for the construction of railways to open up timber districts. Representatives of Queensland in the Federal Parliament are again advocating protection for this Queensland industry, and I hope that honorable senators opposite who supported them when these items were last before the Committee will be found to-day as strongly) in favour of the course then pursued, and will be prepared to meet the consequences of the vote they gave when they are called upon to face them.
– Protectionist as I am, I do feel sorely tempted to take a plunge into freetrade in dealing with these timber duties. I do not believe that any fair-minded man could in the circumstances blame a Victorian representative for doing so. I cannot recall a single instance in the discussion of these Tariff items, in which a certain section of Queensland representatives have not voted down any duty proposed for the protection of a Victorian industry. I can challenge the honorable senators to whom I refer to mention one vote they have given to-day to assist a Victorian industry. I feel it keenly that some of them should desire to judge Victorian protectionists by their own standard. That is anything but complimentary to representatives of Victoria. We have been continually asked whether Victorian protectionists intend to backslide or betray their principles. They have never betrayed their principles or the interests of any Australian industry. Almost all of my colleagues in the Labour Party are Australian protectionists. They are not like the Queensland protectionists, who vote freetrade whenever an industry established in any other State in the Commonwealth is concerned. It is sheer audacity on the part of men of that character to appeal to the. fine Federal sentiment, and in the name of justice and Australian nationality, for a protectionist vote for the assistance of Queensland industries. What is to be the reward of protectionists who respond to such an appeal? Is there any hope that they may secure some converts to protection ?
– The honorable senator should not blame all Queensland senators because of the offences of some.
– I do not blame all Queensland senators. I express my sincere sympathy with many of them because of the offences of some.
– Put it all on to me.
– I hesitate to put it all on to the honorable senator, because the Lord knows he has enough other sins of his own to carry. However, in dealing with these timber duties I intend to be generous and to forgive even Senator St. Ledger. On this particular item I shall vote as an Australian protectionist, but if there is to be a repetition of the voting down of duties for the protection of industries established in States other than Queensland, I shall be disposed when we next come to an item affecting a Queensland industry to vote freetrade without hesitation. I hope that the duties we suggested will be adhered to in the interests, not of a Queensland, but of a great national industry, and that generous treatment will be accorded to other national industries in whichever State theyare established.
.- In dealing with this item we appear to have run up against a stone wall. We have pressed requests in connexion with other items against the wish of another place, and no such objection ‘ was taken to the duties proposed as has been taken in this case. It appears that if we persist in our request with respect to the duties on timber the Government will be defeated, there will be a general dissolution, and the whole country will be upset ! But what do these duties amount to when all is said and done ? They are about the lowest duties that have been proposed, and out-and-out protectionistsare accustomed to regard such duties when intended for the protection of other industries as merely revenue duties. I have on various occasions voted for the protection of primary industries where Ihave been satisfied that we could successfully produce the article for which protection was asked. The difference between myself and some honorable senators opposite has been that whilst’ they believe in prohibition I believe in protection, and have voted for duties which in my opinion will afford adequate protection to the local industry concerned. Senator Chataway in a very able speech has dealt with the necessity for the reafforestation of districts denuded of timber. I direct attention to the fact that a very great deal of the New Zealand timber is found close to the seaboard, and can be shipped very much more cheaply than the Queensland timber. Before representatives of Queensland agreed to press for these duties on timber, they required to be satisfied that the State Government was pre- . pared to spend between £400,000 and £500,000 on the construction of railways into the timber districts of the State. We have often heard the argument used that because some individual or company has invested £40,000 or £50,000 in the establishment of an industry we should therefore protect the products of that industry by the imposition of the highest possible duties. The duty we asked for on this timber does not represent an ad valorem duty of more than from 71/2 per cent. to 10 per cent., whilst the duty in the Tariff does not represent more than 3 per cent. or 4 per cent. ad valorem, and would give the timber industry no adequate protection. “It should be remembered that much of the Queensland timber must be carried for a long distance’ by rail to the port at which it is shipped, and in the circumstances the protection afforded by a duty of 6d. per 100 superficial feet would be a mere bagatelle, and not worth fighting for. A duty of1s. per 100 superficial feet might be of some use in assisting the State Government to plant timber to take the place of that which has been felled. In America, where, I believe, they had greater areas of timber than we have in the Commonwealth, it has been found necessary to take steps in the direction of afforestation and the conservation of timber. .
– It is said that in thirty years all the New Zealand pine will be used up.
– I am quite prepared to believe that, if no steps are taken to conserve it, and if we are to have a cut-throat competition between Queensland pine and New Zealand pine. If the State Government of Queensland are unable to obtain some revenue from duties on timber, they will not be in a position to take the necessary steps for the reafforestation of denuded areas. Some years ago they spent large sums of money on the planting of trees at Fraser Island and at other places along the coast.
If they are not to derive some revenue from timber lands, they will be unable to continue their operations in that direction. It is generally admitted that where country is stripped of its timber . the rainfall is reduced. We do riot wish that to occur in Queensland, and for every tree that is felled we should plant another to take its place. My idea is that a duty of at least 10 per cent’, should be imposed upon all timber imported from New Zealand and1 Canada, so as to assist the Governments of the various States to replant forest areas upon which the trees have been cut’ down. I cannot, for the life of me, understand why such a set is made against this item. We are told that if we press our request, certain terrors will be hurled at our heads. Let’ us know what they are. I see no danger.” We have pressed other items. ‘If we press this one, surely -it will not upset the whole Commonwealth. We have imposed duties up to 35 per cent, in the case of other industries. I may instance the dried-herb industry, as to which we have imposed duties running up to 3d. or 4d. a pound. This particular matter affects thousands of people, not alone in the State from which I come, but in every State in the Commonwealth. Yet’ we are told that if we press our request, it will lead to am. upheaval. I am not frightened about a double dissolution. If honorable senators think that such a_ threat will prevent me from supporting the pressing of a request, they will be disappointed. It would be a very good question upon which to go to the country, but I do not think that there is the slightest possibility of any such thing occurring, whether we press the request or not. Why should honorable senators be frightened by a threat of a double dissolution, or any other threat? Our powers are co-equal with those of the other Chamber, and, if we think that a certain duty is the right one to impose, we should stand by it. I am satisfied that if the question were thoroughly, understood in another place, there would be no hesitation about accepting the Senate’s request.
– I do not know that there is very much to be said for setting up a bogy, and knocking it down again. That is what has been done by the honorable senator who has just resumed his seat. No one in this chamber has said that to press the request would lead to a double dissolution. I have’ sat here throughout the debate, and the only honorable senator who referred- to that matter at all was Senator Trenwith, though he certainly did not say that’ the pressing of our request would lead to any such consequence. What he said was, that it was possible, if the Senate chose to push the matter to its extreme, to have a double dissolution; but he did not say anything about a double dissolution being likely to be caused by pressing the request. I am sure that he never dreamed of such a thing, nor does any other honorable senator. Of course, I shall vote for pressing the request. I have always been a protectionist. I have not been one of those who have wanted to’ protect an industry simply because it interested Queensland. I have desired to protect industries, because they are Australian, not because they specially concern the State from which I come. I point’ out that when Senator Chataway repudiates the leader of his own party in this case, he has no reason to throw scorn upon the senators from New South Wales, who have supported duties for their own State. Senator Chataway, and the other two senators associated with him, have ever since the Tariff debate’ started, voted consistently and persistently for duties affecting Queensland interests alone, but have persistently and consistently voted against the interests of industries affecting other parts of the Commonwealth.
– That is not’ true.
– What I have said is known to every honorable senator.
– That is not true.
The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN.Order ! Senator Sayers is too old a parliamentarian not to know that a phrase such as he has just used is entirely at variance with the ordinary courtesies of parliamentary life, and I hope that he will not repeat it.
– Senator Sayers and Senator Chataway have appealed to the representatives of other States to give their assistance to the Queensland timber industry. I have always voted solidly for any duty that would assist’ any Australian’ industry, but it is common knowledge that in regard to questions affecting industries outside Queensland, the three honorable senators opposite representing Queensland have voted in the contrary direction ‘ in nearly every case.
– That is not true.
– I must request Senator Sayers to withdraw that phrase-
– When Senator Turley states that I have done a certain thing that I have not done, what am I to say to him?
– I must ask Senator Sayers to withdraw the words “not true.” He must know that such language is not tolerated in Parliament.
– I shall obey your ruling, sir. I withdraw the words not true,” and say that Senator Turley’s statement concerning me was incorrect.
The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN.That is perfectly in order. I would point out to Senator Turley that he has more than exhausted the phase of the question to which he has been addressing himself, and should remember that the matter under discussion is the motion that the Senate’s request be not pressed.
– We have had a long debate on the timber question, and some of us have been jibed at by honorable senators opposite. Some honorable senators have been told that they are betraying the interests of Australia in voting for the Minister’s motion. I decline to believe that the Standing Orders require that no answer shall be made when such charges are hurled across the floor, and I do not believe that you, sir, desire for a moment to see honorable senators deprived of an opportunity of replying.
– Who made the charges, and what were they ?
– Did not the honorable senator appeal to Senator E. J. Russell not to betray the interests of Australia - although he, himself, is an authority on betrayals, having betrayed every principle he ever professed in public life.
– I rise to a point of order. Is Senator Turley in order in saying that any honorable senator has betrayed every cause - I did not catch the conclusion of his sentence, but the meaning was apparent?
The! TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN.Unless Senator Turley’s sentence were completed - and I did not hear a completion of it - it would be difficult to say whether he was in order or not. I do not know what words he proposed to add to those which I heard; but the phrase that he did use certainly was strongly in the direction of disorder ; and I hope he will not pursue the line that he was apparently following. Of course, if he intended to make an innocent addenda to his statement, it would be quite another thing.
– I rise to order. I understood Senator Turley to say distinctly, in answer to a question which I addressed to him, that I had betrayed every principle connected with politics. If that is what he said, I ask that the remark shall be withdrawn. ‘
The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN.Did Senator Turley charge Senator St. Ledger with having betrayed every political principle?
– The statement I made was that I believed that Senator St. Ledger had betrayed every political principle to which he had ever given adherence. I do not know that that can be said to be out of order.
The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN.I think the words are highly objectionable, and, if Senator St. Ledger takes exception to them, they must be withdrawn.
– I most decidedly do take exception to them, and I am very much inclined under the circumstances to go a little further. I strongly object.
– Do not threaten ; go further.
The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN.I ask Senator Turley ‘ to withdraw the words quoted.
– If Senator St. Ledger strongly objects to the imputation, and you, sir, consider that my words were not in accordance with the Standing Orders, I withdraw them.
– Thank you. Now get on with the speech.
The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN.Order !
– As far as the Queensland timber industry is concerned, I believe that it ought to get just as fair a deal as any other industry in Australia. It does not seem to me that it is fair to ask that certain industries should be protected whilst the enormous timber areas of Queensland are left to face competition from every part of the world. . This is not only a Queensland industry. It is true that the Western Australian senators say that the proposed duties do not affect them very much. That may be the case at present, but, at the same time, the duties affect every State in the Union, and will do so to a greater extent in years to come.
– Tasmania produces a great quantity of timber now, and so does Victoria.
– In Tasmania, tim-ber is being planted. The same is the case, to some extent, in New South Wales, and I ha.ve read in the newspapers about afforestation being promoted in Victoria. In Queensland also, it has been promised that a large amount of that work will be undertaken. As this does not apply only to one particular State, all Australia should be interested in seeing that some modicum of protection is given to the timber industry. The timber. areas in Queensland, at any rate the soft-woods areas, are larger than in the other States, and all we ask for 5s a fair amount of protection. It is said that Queensland cannot now supply the “timber. I quite admit that that is correct. I do not believe that Queensland is at present in a position to supply all the demands of Australia for timber; but that is no argument against giving the small amount of protection asked for, because the railways that are to open up the Queensland timber country have not yet been completed. They will open up very large areas of country, but it will be some time before they are built, and some time again before the timber can be cut down, brought to the mills, and put into the condition required by the people in the southern States. At the same time, unless some particular assistance is given, there will be no prospect of that timber coming down for use at all. Thousands of acres of really good timber in Queensland have been cut down and burnt during clearing operations, because people would have lost money if they had attempted to send it down to the southern markets to compete with timber imported from other parts of the world, where there is cheaper labour, and with which there is possibly better communication.
– The freights would have killed it.
– Practically, yes. There is practically no timber imported into Queensland at present, showing that, although facilities have not been given for the local timber to be brought. to the market in very large quantities, sufficient has been obtained to supply the needs of - the State itself. I hardly know how Senator St. Ledger and others of my colleagues on the other side, can now appeal for assistance to honorable senators who have been consistent protectionists all through the consideration of the Tariff, and who, when they ‘ wanted a modicum of protection for their own industries, had to meet their bitter hostility. Senator St. Ledger and others now say to them, “ Here is an industry In which we are. . deeply interested. You should forget everything we have said about you, and overlook the fact that .we have held principles totally opposed to yours. As this is an industry which affects the State we come from, we are prepared to sink our own principles, and appeal to you to stick to yours, so that you may give us some assistance.” That does not seem to be a reasonable stand to take up. If every honorable senator were to look at every question in the Tariff from the point of view only of his own State, we should never be able to obtain a. decent Tariff to protect the interests of Australia. Senator St. Ledger talked about expediency. His were the words of a master. He speaks with experience. I could name halfadozen items on which he has acted very expediently. I- shall not name them, but, if necessary, I could give the reasons why he thought it expedient to change his votes on sundry occasions. . I hope that honorable senators who have always supported protection, and to whom, at any rate, some of us from Queensland have given -all the assistance in our power, will in. their turn give us assistance in a question that not only affects Queensland now, but will affect all the States, .if not immediately, possibly in the near future. If. we believe it is right to press our request, there is no reason why we should back .down upon it. If an industry peculiar to another State was in) question, and I believed that it was necessary to support it, I should certainly vote to send the matter back to another place. Another . place have only decided this question once. There is no harm in giving them an opportunity to consider it again. Senator Trenwith says that there does not seem very much hope, but we do not know. How often, . when messages have been passing between the Houses, has one House conceded something, and the other conceded something, until a common ground of agreement has been reached ? The position in this case seems to me just the same as in the case of the oil duties. I was prepared to send that request back to another place, believing that, when the question was considered there, certain circumstances may have led honorable members to vote as they did, but that they might be induced to change their opinion if the question came before them again. I would not take up the attitude that no protection should be given to ‘an industry because it belonged to New South Wales, and them ask for protection for a Queensland industry. I want to protect their industry just as much as I want to protect this one. I appeal to honorable senators who have voted for the protection of Australian industries throughout the schedule, to give the other Chamber another opportunity of considering this matter, and to see if we cannot get what I believe is only a very small rate of protection for an industry that will give employment to large numbers of people in Australia.
– Every section of this Chamber is entitled to resent the remarks made by Senator Trenwith earlier in the evening. No honorable senator should assume that because a certain attitude has been taken up in another place, we ought to consider it unnecessary to proceed further. Iam quite prepared to vote with the Government that the request be not further pressed, but at the same time the question should be decided on its merits, and not because of any special vote given in another place. It would not be proper to occupy time at this stage, in referring to the rather pitiful aspect that this debate, has assumed, of State versus State. Butthat is inherent in the policy which the Government support. Several honorable senators have urged that it is desirable to support all the industries of Australia. That is the very ground that we freetraders take up. Protectionists pick out certain industries to give protection and assistance to, and all the while ignore the biggest industries of the country. The users of timbers are far more ‘numerous than the timber getters, and the people who need timber should be considered before those who desire to sell timber. For that reason above all others, I hold that there ought to be absolutely no duty upon timber, which is perhaps the most important raw material of industry in Australia. It may be second only to iron. The duty now appearing in the schedule is more substantial than honorable senators think. If honorable senators representing Queensland and Tasmania prefer an ad valorem duty of 10 per cent. to the specific duty now operative, I should be prepared to support them, believing that 10 per cent. would be a less charge upon trade. I heard honorable senators say that the present specific duty is equal to 3 or 4 per cent., and that the duty which they desire is equal to only 7 or 8 per cent. I can assure them that they are quite mistaken. Ad valorem duties are always reckoned on the shipping value of the goods aboard. The cost of timber imported from the Baltic,’ Canada, and the United States, consists largely of freight, and the balance paid to the shipping country is relatively only a small proportion. The specific duty at present being charged is equal to at least 10 per cent. on the shipping value of the timbers aboard. If honorable senators from Queensland care to move for the substitution of a 10 per cent. ad valorem rate, I shall be ready to support them. But most distinctly we ought to take the ground that timber is of vital importance to all the industries of Australia, and that it is more desirable that we should have cheap timber for a thousand and one requirements than that we should burden all our industries in order to push ahead, a little before its time, even the important trade of timber-getting in Queensland.
– I am sorry that Senator Chataway is not present, because I wish to compliment him upon his lightning change. On a previous item to-day, he argued very eloquently that if we protected an industry in which 50, or 100, or 500 persons were engaged, we should make the article dearer to thousands. On this item, however, in order to probably, or possibly, provide extra work for a few thousand timbergetters in Queensland he asks us to penalize hundreds of thousands of users of timber in other States. This item does not deal with timber generally, but with one particular kind of timber.
– No. It deals with any timber measuring 12 inches x 6 inches. .
– My statement was perfectly right, because Oregon is the only timber imported in that size. Baltic pine comes out in sizes of not more than 9 inches x 6 inches ; while other kinds of timber are imported in smaller sizes, on which an increased duty is very properly charged in order to encourage timber merchants to import the timber in as large sizes as can conveniently be procured, and to employ local labour in cutting it up. In South Australia, Oregon is the only timber which is used in the roofing of buildings, and the imposition of an additional duty of 6d. per 100 superficial feet would simply mean that every person building would have to pay a little more for his house.
– That is a good freetrade argument.
– That is the argument which Senator Chataway used this afternoon, that it was a wrong thing to penalize a large number of consumers in order to benefit a few producers. I certainly agree with him that it is wrong to do so. If there were an Australian timber which could be substituted for Oregon, I should be one of the first to support the imposition of a very much higher duty than 10 per cent. ; but, as a matter of fact, there is no timber grown in Australia to-day that is as good as Oregon for the purposes for which it is used. If a duty of 15 per cent. were levied on Oregon of this size, it would be simply and purely a revenue duty, and there would not be an inch less of the timber used, at any rate in South Australia. In Queensland, no doubt, a local timber is substituted for oregon, but it is not grown in the same lengths.
– In Queensland, I can can get the honorable senator pine 100 feet long.
– Queensland pine is not so clear of knots as is oregon, nor is it so strong. Oregon has peculiar properties which no timber grown in Australia possesses. Stringy bark and jarrah are not suitable for the purposes for which oregon is used. Hardwood is not fit to be used until it is seasoned, and then it is so hard that it costs a third more to work it. Altogether, it is unsuitable for the purposes for whichoregon is used.I agree with the view which Senator Pulsford has expressed. It was I who moved that oregor should be made free. A duty of 5per cent. would be simply a revenue duty,just as a duty of1s. per 100 superficial feet would be. I hope that the Committeewill not insist upon its request.
Question - That the request (item 303 Timber, paragraph a) be not pressed - put The Committee divided.
AYES: 15
NOES: 11
Majority … … 4
AYES
NOES
Question so resolved in the affirmative.
Request not pressed.
Item 303. Timber, viz. : -
Senate’sRe quest. -After “Pine” insert “and Red Beech “ ; make the duty1s.
House of Representatives’ Message. - Amendment not made.
– I move -
That the request as to duty be not pressed, but that the request as to wording be pressed, and that the House of Representatives be requested to further amend the paragraph by inserting the word “White” before the word “ Pine.”
The result of this alteration, if made, will be that kauri which mainly comes into competition with Queensland hoop pine will have to pay a higher duty under other paragraphs.
– The honorable senator really wants to eliminate New Zealand kauri from this paragraph?
– Practically . It will give a greater protection to Queensland hoop pine against New Zealand kauri. It will be remembered that we asked the other House to include red beech in this paragraph.
– Does the Minister mind telling me under which paragraph kauri will come if his motion is carried ?
– It will come under paragraph a, c or d, according to its size.
– That is to say the honorable senator wants to remove kauri from a paragraph under which it is dutiable at 6d. to a paragraph under which it will be dutiable at 2s. 6d. per 100 super. feet.
– That is so, because it mainly comes into competition with Queensland hoop pine. This alteration will also be the means of protecting Huon pine.
– It is desirable that the Committee should thoroughly understand the effect of this proposal. On the one hand the Minister said that he would ask the Committee not to persist with its request.
– The honorable senator will not take a half loaf.
– The Minister is now asking for more than that. Our request to the other House was to increase the duty on kauri, in common with other timbers, from 6d. to1s. per 100 super. feet. The Minister has now said that he would not ask the Committee to press that request, and the effect if we follow his lead will be that this timber will fall into a paragraph carrying a duty of 2s. 6d.
– More luck to it.
– More luck to Queensland timber-getters probably.
– Does not the honorable senator wish them luck too ?
– Yes, and I also wish an equal measure of luck to those who are forced by the nature of their industry to use their timber.
– There is a fair amount of pine in New South Wales.
– Yes; but our timber industry is not clamouring for a duty.If this motion is carried, kauri will fall into paragraph . a, and will be duitable at 6d. per 100 super. feet if it is imported in large sizes, which it is not.
– The duty will prevent it from being imported in small sizes.
– There is a great deal besides the duty to prevent it being imported in small sizes. If the proposal of the Vice-President of the Executive Council is agreed to, some of this timber will fall under paragraph c, and bedutiable at 2s., and some under paragraph d, and be dutiable at 2s. 6d. per 100 super. feet. I ask the Committee not to agree to such a proposal. If, in the opinion of honorable senators, we had better stand by our request, I shall not object, nor shall I object if the Minister is content to move that the request be not pressed. But it is impossible for any one to accept,without protest, a proposal to remove this timber from an item under which it would be dutiable at 6d. per 100 superficial feet in order to bring it under an item under which it would be. dutiable at five times that amount:
Question - That the request as to duty be not pressed, but that the request as to the wording be pressed, and that the House of Representatives be requested to further amend the paragraph by inserting the word “ White “ before the word “ Pine “-put. The Committee divided.
AYES: 20
NOES: 6
Majority … 14
AYES
NOES
Question so resolved in the affirmative.
Motion agreed to.
Request, inserting in item 303 (Timber) new paragraph bi, not pressed.
Item 303. Timber, viz. : -……
Senate’s Request.-Leave out the words “ in cluding door stocks “ ; insert new paragraph - “ (di) Timber, undressed, in sizes less than 7 ft. 6 in. x 10 in. x 21/2 in., for door stocks, per 100 super. feet, 2s.”
House of Representatives’ Message. - Amend ment not made.
Motion (by Senator Best)proposed -
That the request be not pressed.
– This is a request which was made on my motion. The duty proposed represents an increase upon the duty imposed under the 1902 Tariff. I shouldlike to say that, during a visit to Adelaide only a couple of weeks ago, I took advantage of the opportunity to speak to men employed in the door-making industry in that city.They assured me that they had made inquiries in Queensland, and were altogether unable to obtain timber of suitable quality for the manufacture of doorsin any quantity. The proposal now submitted by the Vice-President of the Executive Council involves a reduction of the protection given to the door-making industry under the 1902 Tariff. I do not know whether honorable senators are prepared to reduce that protection. They may consider that the industry is not worth preserving, or that it is already given too much protection, but there canbe no doubt that to accept the motion of the Vice-President of the Executive Council is to take from that industry some of the protection afforded to it hitherto. It is important to remember, also, that as a result not a single additional foot of Queensland timber will be used, for the simple reason that it cannot be obtained for this purpose. I suppose that the factories established in Melbourne, Sydney, Adelaide, and Perth account for seven-eighths of the doors manufactured in Australia, and unless this request be pressed the market will be supplied in future, not with doors made in Queensland, but with doors made in America. The Australian manufacturers of doors find that the increased duty imposed on their raw material cuts very seriously into their profits, which were small enough before, and as a result, whilst their industry will be destroyed, not a single additional foot of Queensland timber will be used. We shall nave American doors again imported, although, under the 1902 Tariff, the doors manufactured in Australia beat the imported American doors and captured the market.
– Does the honorable senator contend that the Australian raw material is not suitable for the manufacture of doors?
– I contend that it is not obtainable. Door-makers in Perth and Fremantle have told me that they have made every effort to get the timber they required from Queensland, and have been unable to obtain it.
– They can get millions of feet of it.
– Queensland pine, suitable for the manufacture of furniture, is obtainable, but Queensland timber suitable for the manufacture of doors is not obtainable in sufficient quantities to supply the local demand. That is the statement made to me in Perth, and it has been corroborated by statements made to me in Adelaide a week or two ago. I shall vote against the motion submitted by the VicePresident of the Executive Council. I wish to add that this request did not receive the consideration to which it was entitled. One of the reasons given in another place for the refusal to make the requested amendment was that we had plenty of hardwood, stringy bark, and blackwood in Australia suitable for the purpose. As a matter of fact, no door-maker in his senses would dream of making doors of stringy barkor blackwood. I shall certainly ask the Committee to divide on the question, and hope that the request will be pressed. I believe that if the matter had received proper consideration in another place our request would have been acceded to.
– This is a question of cutting up into sizes. According to my advice, if our request is pressed, it will mean that timber for doorstocks will be cut into sizes less than 7x6 long outside Australia, and timber 8 feet long, and upwards, will pay 2s. 6d. per 100 feet super., whilst timber 7x6 long will pay 2s. The timber can be imported, cut up in Australia, and made into doors here. If it is imported under paragraph c, it pays 2s. per 100 feet, whilst under paragraph d it pays 2s. 6d. So far as imported doors are concerned, the duty is the same as under the old Tariff, under which there were very small importations indeed.
– The duty on door stocks under the old Tariff was1s. 6d. per 100 feet.
– Thereal point is that if the request is pressed, it will have the effect of causing the cutting up to be done outside Australia.
Question put. The Committee divided.
AYES: 13
NOES: 13
Item 303. Timber, viz. : -……
(n) Prepared Hubs (not of elm), each,1s.
Senate’s Request. - Leave out “ (not of elm).”
House of Representatives’ Message. - Amendment made, with the following modification : - “n.e.i.” added after “Hubs.”
AYES
NOES
.- In this case the Senate struck out the words “ not of elm “ with the object of making all prepared hubs dutiable at1s. each. Another place has accepted our request, with the modification that instead of the words “ not of elm “ they have inserted the letters “ n.e.i.” Subsequently in item 303Y another place has struck out the words “ or without “ after the words “ elm hubs with”; so that the position amounts to this - that one particular class of hubs will pay1s. each, whilst elm hubs with metal bands will be free. I move -
That the modification be agreed to.
.. - I think that the Vice-President of the Executive Council is pursuing a wrong course in this case. The manifest intention of the Senate was to give protection to Australian hubs. According to the modification made by another place all that the importer will have to do will be to shrink iron bands upon his hubs and then he will get them in duty free.
– Our advice is that it is impossible to band Australian hubs with metal. The elm hub is the only one that will stand a metal band.
– That is all nonsense. Every hub hasto be banded. I never saw one that was not banded. If that is the advice given to the Minister by his experts, the Government are paying experts for their ignorance and not for their knowledge. To evade duty, all that the importer of hubs will have to do will be to get his hubs made abroad, and have the further work of shrinking bands on them done abroad also. That certainly was not the intention of this Committee. I think that it is the duty of honorable senators to insist on this young Australian industry having the benefit of protection, and that the bands should be shrunk on the hubs by Australian blacksmiths rather than by foreign workmen. ;
– I think that a mistake has been made in this connexion. The words “ with metal bands “ certainly apply to every possible hub. I have never seen a hub onany vehicle anywhere without some kind of metal band upon it.
– There is no mistake. The particular kind of elm hub referred to in this item is the only one upon which, by hydraulic pressure, a metalband can be put.
– It seems to me that the proposed modification will admit of all kinds of hubs being imported duty free.
– No; it only applies to elm hubs with metal bands.
Senator McGREGOR (South Australia) of the Executive Council to propose a modification of the item in respect of its wording, so as to limit the introduction of wheels with metal bands to a considerable extent. I understand that hubs for Sarven wheels are not made in Australia, nor are likely to be.
– I cannot quite follow the sense of the double proposition sent to us from another place. If I understand what is proposed, it would mean that an elm hub imported with a metal band upon it would come in free, whereasif it came without the band it would pay1s. The policy to which effect has been sought to be given by all parties has been that where the Tariff was to discriminate, the discrimination was to be made against the article upon which most labour had been employed. We are now going back upon that principle. We are asked to provide that the article which has been advanced one stage more towards completion, shall come in free, whilst the article which is a stage less advanced shall pay duty.
– Unfortunately, the band cannot be put on these particular elm hubs for Sarven wheels in Australia.
– I have some knowledge of vehicles ; but I do not know of any wheel on which any particular skill or machinery is required to put a metal band. I prefer the proposition as it left this Chamber.
– There appears to be a misconception as to the metal bands. Every hub has a metal band, but the Sarven hub has the metal band on the centre of the wheel, and the spokes go through the metal as well as the wood. That hub is not manufactured here, so far as I understand. It is a small wheel, used only to a limited extent, and for that reason I would agree to the proposal if the Minister inserted the more definite description.
– When we reach paragraph y, “ Elm hubs with or without metal bands,” from which another place has struck out the words “ or without,” I shall ask the Committee to add the words “known as Sarven hubs.”
– I have made inquiries in regard to the Sarven wheel, and find from practical coachbuilders, and even from manufacturers of hubs, that it cannot be made in Australia,
– It is a patent.
– Yes. As the schedule stands at present; the matter is rather indefinite. I am glad that the Minister proposes to make it more definite. If he does, there will be no harm in adopting his suggestion.
Motion agreed to.
Item 303. Timber, viz. : - . …….
Senate’s Request. - Insert after the word “Stocks” the words “being square timber rough sawn into sizes suitable for the manufacture of broom handles.”
House of. Representatives’ Message. - Amend, ment not made.
– The words added by the Senate are descriptive. Broom stocks are imported in a partly manufactured form. The completed article is liable to duties of 35 per cent. and 30 per cent. I think our request was rejected under a misapprehension. I move -
That the request be pressed.
Motion agreed to.
Item 303. Timber, viz. : -……
Senate’s Request. - Make the duty, each,1s.
House of Representatives’ Message. - Amendment not made, but the following modification made in the wording of the paragraph : - “ or without “ omitted.
Motion (by Senator Best) agreed to -
That the request as to duty be not pressed, and the modification of wording be agreed to. provided that after the word “bands” the words “known as Sarven Hubs” be inserted.
Item 303. Timber, viz. : -……
Spokes, Kims, and Felloes of Hickory, in the rough, free.
Senate’s Request. - Insert the words “ Hickory Strips in the rough ,for “ before the word “ Spokes,” and leave out the words “of Hickory in the rough.”
House of Representatives’ Message.Amendment not made.
– The Government, relying on certain advice, thought that the better form of words would be as requested by the Senate ; but, on discussing the matter more fully with the trade, we are satisfied that the original form is the better. I move -
That the request be not pressed.
Motion agreed to.
Progress reported.
page 11257
Motion (by Senator Best) agreed to -
That the Senate, at its rising, adjourn until to-morrow, at 2.30 o’clock..
Senate adjourned at 10.20 p.m.
Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 20 May 1908, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1908/19080520_senate_3_46/>.