Senate
17 August 1921
8th Parliament · 1st Session
The President (Senator the Hon. T. Givens) took the chair at 11 a.m., and read prayers.
page 11001
QUESTION
FEDERAL CAPITAL
Advisoky Committee’s Report
Senator THOMAS:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT
– Following on my question of yesterday, I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Works and Railways whether he can say when we are likely to see the report ofthe Committee appointed to advise the Government about the construction of buildings at Canberra ?
Senator RUSSELL:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · VICTORIA · NAT
– I shall make inquiries to-day.
page 11001
QUESTION
LEAGUE OF NATIONS
Senator KEATING:
TASMANIA
– Yesterday the
Minister representing the Prime Minis ter informed me that the Government had made arrangements for the representation of Australia at the forthcoming conference in connexion with the League of Nations. Is the honorable gentleman now in a position to disclose the name of the person who has been appointed? If not, when may we expect that information, and what are the reasons for delaying its publication?
Senator E D MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917
– The honorable senator has inadvertently misconstrued the reply I made to his question yesterday. All I said then was that it had been decided that Australia should be represented. The Government is now in communication with the Prime Minister as to the individual who shall be invited to represent the Commonwealth.
page 11001
QUESTION
GERMAN EX-MILITARY OFFICER
Senator E D MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917
– Inquiries are being made into the matter about which Senator Payne asked a question yesterday, and which, he is repeating, on notice, to-day.
page 11001
QUESTION
PURCHASE OF HYDROPLANE
Senator WILSON:
for Senator Fairbairs
asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice -
Whether the money to purchase the hydroplane recently bought in England has been provided on the Estimates?
Senator E D MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917
– The hydro plane was purchased, last financial year, under the authority of the Appropriation for Air Services. As the payment was not made before 30th June, the vote lapsed ; and it will be necessary to again make provision in this year’s Estimates.
- PRIVATE TELEPHONE FEE.
Senator THOMAS:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT
asked the Minister representing the Postmaster-General, upon notice -
What was the date of the regulationwhich provided that a private subscriber should charge only twopence for the use of the telephone?
Senator RUSSELL:
NAT
– The amount which subscribers were allowed to charge the public for the use of their telephones was limited to 2d. by Statutory Rule No. 214, dated 21st October, 1915. Priorto that date subscribers were allowedto 11002 Customs Tariff [SENATE.] Bill. charge1d. only, and the amount was increased to 2d. on the same date that the Department increased its charge. for the use of public telephones from1d. to 2d., both increases dating from 10th December, 1915.
page 11002
CUSTOMS TARIFF BILL
In Committee : Consideration resumed from 16th August (vide page 11001).
Schedule. division vi. - metals and machinery.
Item 136- .
Iron and Steel -
Senator DUNCAN:
New South Vales
– I move-
That the House of Representatives be re quested to make the duty, sub-itemc, general, per ton, 120s.
I do not propose to increase the duty against Great Britain, or that in the intermediate Tariff column. Yesterday, when we were discussing the duties provided for in sub-item a, certain honorable senators held strongly that it was not desirable to place upon the manufacturers of Great Britain a further handicap than that imposed by the schedule as it stands ; but the opinion was freely expressed, and I think rightly, that we should take all care, that German iron and steel should not come into this country.
Senator Bolton:
– Any duty on German importations affects American importations equally.
Senator DUNCAN:
– It is German importations that we have most to fear. If honorable senators will consult the statistics of imports before the war, and bear in mind the growth of the German iron and steel industry, they will realize that the danger we have to fear is the competition of German imports coming direct from that country, or through Belgium.
Senator Keating:
– Germany has not now the iron resources which she had before the war.
Senator DUNCAN:
– She still possesses huge iron resources, and, as figures which I quoted yesterday, which were accepted by honorable senators who were opposed to me then, clearly show, the cost of production is materially falling in. Belgium. The Committee has decided that pig iron shall be admitted at as low a rate as possible, and that no further restriction than that in the Tariff as it stands shall be placed on British imports of pig iron. But we should insure that our consumers, if they are not desirous of purchasing Australian iron, shall buy British iron. It is not the duty of the Committee to encourage the foreigner at the expense of the local manufacturer, or at the expense of the British manufacturer. We should see that our manufacturers are protected by proper duties, and our next consideration should be for those of the Homeland. It was pointed out yesterday by honorable senators that the iron trade of Great Britain is now passing through a period of depression, and that that depression is likely to be accentuated in the near future. It is from Great’ Britain, therefore, that we are likely in the near future to draw our heaviest supplies of iron. We should, then, give that country a substantial preference by practically prohibiting importation from other countries, if we cannot supply our own requirements. I am confident that we shall be able to supply most of our own requirements, and the fact of British importations competing with the output of local manufacturers will insure to the local consumer reason able prices. Australians do not want to favour Japan. I pointed out yesterday that Japan has recently come into possession of a new system of producing the raw material which may revolutionize the market.
Senator Lynch:
– When does the honorable senator propose that this country should begin to trade with Germany?
Senator DUNCAN:
– -Not in the present connexion, at any rate; and not until finally driven to do so. It was due to Germany’s vast resources, and to the huge industries which Australia, by heavy importations, had assisted that country to build, that our late enemy was able to hold out for so long during the recent war. The dreadful facts of that situation convinced me that I, at least, should never take any action to again assist Germany to rebuild her enterprises in order that she might once more, perhaps, embroil the world. The time is bound to come when, in certain directions, Australia must trade with Germany ; but, for the present, Australians should not be desirous of encouraging Germany to fegain her lost trade. “We should be far more ready to establish our own industries, and to assist Great Britain to readjust her industrial affairs after a period in which all her energies were devoted to war purposes. My request, if agreed to, will insure that, so far as our own requirements cannot be met by local manufacture, the necessary importations shall come from the Mother Country. If Great Britain is not able to furnish the demand- the time will then have arrived to seek elsewhere. Several Melbourne manufacturers waited on me only yesterday. They use the materials under consideration in their iron works, and they are as desirous as any one to give preference to British manufacturers. But they fear the competition of the foreigner with his cheap labour and, in many directions, his cheaper raw materials.
Senator DE LARGIE:
Western Australia
, - Senator Duncan’s proposition is even more absurd than that which he advanced yesterday. If the request frere agreed to it would mean that not one bar of rolled iron could enter Australia from any .other country than Great Britain.
Senator Duncan:
– What is wrong with that, so long as the market can be supplied ?
Senator DE LARGIE:
– It is a pity that the honorable senator has obviously not gone into the matter. To use the case of Germany as an argument in order to debar foreign products by the imposition of an unreasonable rate of duty should not be tolerated by this Committee. There are countries with which Australia is friendly - countries which were our allies - but which will be crushed if such an enormous general duty as 120s. per ton is imposed. After having fought side by side with France and Belgium against Germany, are we now to prohibit a rod of French or Belgian iron from being brought into Australia? Germany is not going to be the great exporter of iron that she was before the war.
Senator Keating:
– France hopes to take her place, to a considerable extent at any rate.
Senator DE LARGIE:
– Of necessity, she must do so. She is bound to become a .great iron-producing country, because of the enormous deposits of iron and coal which she has acquired by postwar settlements in Alsace-Lorraine arid in the Saar- Valley. France was more dreadfully crippled by the great conflict than any other country, and I am positive that it is not the wish of the Australian people that she should be discouraged and prevented, indeed, so far as Australian trade is .concerned, from re- instating her industries. As for the cheap foreign production referred to by Senator Duncan, that comment has not the application which some honorable senators may believe -to be the case. In the June files of the London Times I noted that French foundry iron, which is the basicmaterial for the making of rods. and the like, was actually quoted at a higherfigure than the British market price. Itwas £7 per ton. No one can say that such a quotation for raw foundry iron islow. It is, in fact, ‘ extraordinarily high. A country which’ is quoting itsraw product at such a figure cannot besaid to threaten the Australian market with cheap material. The proposal tomake the general duty 120s. is utterlyabsurd.
Senator Duncan:
– Does the honorablesenator realize that France can be placed under the intermediate Tariff?
Senator DE LARGIE:
– Well,- even if: that were done! 11004 Customs Tariff [SENATE.] Bill.
Senator Duncan:
– The honorable senator will see that I am not proposing to raise the rate of duty against France.
Senator DE LARGIE:
– Even then an enormous duty would have to be paid, and I trust the Committee will not agree to adopt the ridiculous suggestion submitted by Senator Duncan. If the honorable senator’s object in submitting his proposal was to absolutely prohibit the importation of German products it might have something to commend it; but he must remember that it would prejudicially affect importations from other countries, including America.
Senator Reid:
– America treats us similarly.
Senator DE LARGIE:
– If Senator Reid will only consider the duties imposed on importations into America he will see that such is not the case.
Senator GUTHRIE:
VICTORIA · NAT; UAP from 1931
– At present America is imposing a prohibitive duty on our wool, which is our principal product for export.
Senator DE LARGIE:
– That may be so; but I am sure we will not gain by imposing a general duty of 120s. per ton on bar iron. If we increase this rate others will have to be increased on a similar scale,
Senator Reid:
– Did the honorable senator notice at what rate Belgium was producing at the time to which he has referred ?
Seaator DE LARGIE. - In perusing British publications . I found it somewhat difficult to obtain reliable quotations, and I could not ascertain the cost of Belgian iron.
Senator Senior:
– It is quoted at £17 per . ton duty paid here.
Senator DE LARGIE . Middlesborough, which is the greatest ironproducing centre in the United Kingdom, quotes it at £6 15s. per ton, and the American quotation was$26.50 for foundry iron. I do not know whether the figures were correct, but the’ rate seems unusually high considering that the exchange is not operating against us. French iron was quoted at £7 per ton, and the Middlesborough product at £6 15s. per ton, which proves that these countries are not producing at very low rates.
Senator RUSSELL (Victoria- Vice-
President of the Executive Council) [11.25]. - I am unable to accept the request submitted by Senator Duncan, because up to the present we have not had any complaint from those engaged in the business, who do not appear to be adversely affected by the duties in force. A similar proposal was submitted to the House of Representatives, where the impression existed that we were endeavouring to impose duties with theobject of meeting the exchange difficulties. Although we have to keep that matter continually before us, a distinct measure will be brought before Parliament for overcoming, as far as possible, the position which at present exists, and which, as I mentioned yesterday, was of more importance than the Tariff itself.
Senator Bolton:
– Was not the Government proposal rejected in another place ?
Senator RUSSELL:
NAT
– No, it was held over. It may not be re-introduced in the same form, but it is the intention of the Government to bring down a measure at a later date.
Senator Bolton:
-That is the definite intention of the Government?
Senator RUSSELL:
– Yes; but I am not committing myself to the exact form. Conditions may not be normal for a year or two, and in the meantime we shall have to legislate accordingly, and, incidentally, to keep in view the difference in exchange. I am glad to be able to report that the Broken Hill Proprietary Company has now succeeded in producing more of these articles than we previously consumed. In 1913, a record year, we imported 2,633,847 cwt., and for the following years the figures were - 1914-15, 1,667,000 cwt.; 1915-16/1,728,000 cwt.; 1916-17, 1,329,000 cwt.; 1917-18, 293,000 cwt. ; 1918-19, 276,000 cwt. ; and 1919-20, 367,000 cwt. The production for Australia in 1920 was 2,264,666 cwt., as compared with 2,633,847 cwt. imported in 1913. Australia is to be congratulated on her production, which shows that the industry is now firmly established, and is able to meet the local demand. As I mentioned last night, the duties imposed on pig iron regulate to a large extent those which are to be levied on iron in manufactured form. In 1920 the Broken Hill Proprietary Company were charging £17 10s. to £21 for round and square iron, whilst the United Kingdom’s price on 1st May, 1920, was £26 f.o.b., and the United States of America’s price on 2nd March, 1920, was £21 13s. f . o.b.
Senator Lynch:
– And those are the countries against which you desire to protect the Australian industry.
Senator RUSSELL:
– It must bere- membered that the American Steel Trust is the strongest Combine in the world, and it would be an easy matter for it to reduce the price in order to capture the Australian market.
SenatorLynch.-I thought for the moment that it was Senator Gardiner who was. speaking.
Senator RUSSELL:
- Senator Gardiner and I. agree upon many questions. I believe with him that givena reasonable opportunity, and freedomfrom unfair or unnatural competition, Australia can produce iron and steel with any. other country in the world, and certainly our workers are well able to do their part. The price of angle iron in Australia was from £19 to £20 per ton, and in the United Kingdom £29. For tees the prices were respectively £23 and £29. per ton.. Conditions have changed in recent.times, and the alterations in the matter of exchange have revolutionized the position. That can be dealt with only by another measure. The object of the Tariff proposals is to, tide us over the transition to normal times. As a consequence of the. changing conditions, it may be found necessary to review the Tariff more often than has been the case in the past.
Senator THOMAS:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT
– How does exchange affect the matter?
SenatorRUSSELL. - It enables foreign countries exporting to Australia to undersell Australian productions by reason of the differences in the value of currency. I do not know whether the honorable senator wishes to sidetrack me into a discussion upon rates of exchange, but if so I am not prepared to follow his lead.
Senator THOMAS:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT
– We used to be told the’ difficulty was dumping, but now we are told that it is exchange.
Senator RUSSELL:
– We. want to prevent dumping, which may be attempted by reason of the difference in rates of exchange. Taking the duties: on pig-iron as a basis, the proposed duties on bars, rods, and tees exceed the duties on pigiron by about 100 per cent. There is a sufficient reason for this. In August, 1914, American prices for basic pig-iron and steel bars at factory were respectively $13 and $26.43 - a difference of over 100 per cent: In January, 1919, the respective values were $30 for pig-iron and $60.48 for steel bars, representing again a difference of over 100 per cent. In March, 1920, the respective values at factory were $41.50 and $78.40, a difference of approximately 90 per cent. Honorable senators will see that’ the duties proposed in the schedule are regulated by the difference in price in the world’s market between pig-iron and’ iron in more advanced, stages of manufacture. The difference in duties represents a fair adjustment in view of the difference in value of the articles covered by the twosubitems. The increased duties on this subitem represent a reward for the extra labour put into the more advanced manufacture.Onthe1stMay,1920, British small steelbarswere quoted at £26 per ton, and on this value, with the addition of the statutory 10 per cent. the rate of duty proposed, 44s. per ton, is equal to 8 per cent. Estimating that the price will fall by 50 per cent. within the next two or three years - which I regard as somewhat optimistic - the. proposed rate would be equal to only 16 per cent On the 2nd March, 1920, the American f . o.b. quotation for merchant’ steel bars was $84.44, equalling £21 13s. at the rate of exchange on 17th June, 1920. On this price, after the addition of the statutory 10 per cent., the rate of duty proposed - 80s. - is equal to17 per cent. Honorable senators will see, therefore, that these duties are not very high.
SenatorDuncan. - They are not high compared with the duties which America imposes.
Senator RUSSELL:
– They are based on the work involved in each stage of manufacture. I ask the Senate not to attempt to meet the difference in exchange by any adjustment oftheseduties, because we purpose dealing with that matter as effectively aswecan in another measure. We have not yet got back to normal conditions of industry, and we must makesome provision for the transition stage. When normal conditions have been reached, it may. be found necessary to review many of these duties.
Senator GUTHRIE:
VICTORIA · NAT; UAP from 1931
– We shall never have normal conditions under this Tariff.
Senator RUSSELL:
– That may be the opinion of the honorable senator, but it does not help the debate. I have given the reasons which have guided the Government in proposing these duties. It 11006 Customs Tariff [SENATE.] Bill. is believed that they will help to maintain an industry which was established by the courage of those engaged in it atthe most critical period of Australia’s history.
Senator PAYNE:
Tasmania
– The request moved by Senator Duncan opens up a very wide range for discussion, because it requires to be looked at from many points of view. The honorable senator proposes an increase in the duty on this sub-item in the general Tariff from 80s. to 120s. per ton. I wish to deal with the question from an Australian point of view. We must first of all recognise the necessity of imposing duties adequate to the industrial requirements of the Commonwealth. I take it that in framing this Tariff that was kept in mind. After the Minister for Trade and Customs (Mr. Greene) and his officers had conferred with those able to express opinions worth having on the subject, they eventually arrived at conclusions as to the duties which would meet the industrial needs of Australia. To-day we are asked to especially impose an exceptionally heavy burden on two countries for which in the past we have professed the greatest esteem. Time after time, when necessity arose, we have come to the assistance of those countries by giving what we could of our means to help them tide over the terrible ordeals through which they were called upon to pass.
Senator Duncan:
– The honorable senator was not prepared to accept the departmental decisions after the conferences to which he has referred in connexion withother items.
Senator PAYNE:
– I do not think that interjection is at all relevant. We have to deal with the Tariff item by item, and determine each item on the information before us. Senator Duncan, I think, has not gone so far as he intended with his request. I believe it was ‘his intention to request the other House to impose exceptionally heavy duties on the British product.
Senator Duncan:
– It was not my intention to do that.
Senator PAYNE:
– Well, I understood that that was his purpose, and I fully expected him to move in that direction. In dealing with these Tariff items we ought to allow a certain amount of sentiment to play its part. We cannot hope to progress if we adopt a policy of isolation, because, for very many years, we shall be dependent on other countries for many commodities necessary for the proper development of the Commonwealth.
Senator Bolton:
– Is not the Empire big enough to supply all requirements?
Senator PAYNE:
– The Empire is big, and I am quite prepared to do all I can to assist the Empire in this matter, but when we have an honorable senator saying that it is essential, for the success of our industrial enterprises, to shut out the manufacturers of France or Belgium-
Senator Duncan:
– They can enjoy the benefit of the intermediate Tariff by arrangement.
Senator PAYNE:
– I have taken the trouble to ascertain how the intermediate Tariff may be applied for the relief of those countries which are so vitally interested in the iron and steel trade. On this item we have a duty, in the general Tariff, of £4 per ton, and Senator Duncan’s request is for an increase of 50 per cent. The honorable senator now says that France and Belgium may enjoy the benefit of the intermediate Tariff, and, consequently, they need not be affected by his request. But what does the Bill say about the matter? It provides that the application of the intermediate Tariff shall be by means of a proclamation, which shall not be issued until the Minister has referred to the Tariff Board the question whether, having regard to the probable reciprocal benefits, it is desirable in the interests of the Commonwealth to issue the proclamation.
Senator Duncan:
– That means that if America, Belgium, or France will reciprocate they may enjoy the benefits of the intermediate Tariff. What is wrong with that?
Senator PAYNE:
– The honorable senator gave me the impression that he was thinking that the relief provided by (he intermediate Tariff could be given to France and Belgium at the discretion of the Minister.
Senator THOMAS:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT
– No; I heard the honorable senator use the words “by arrangement.”
Senator Russell:
– The application of the principle would have to be by “mutual arrangement.
Senator PAYNE:
– Of course it would ; and’ it is possible that Belgium, owing to her peculiar position, without any inten- tion of being unfriendly, would not be able to satisfy the Tariff Board that the reciprocity offered was adequate. Therefore, the principle would not be applied. We should not seek to place France or Belgium in the same position as Germany. 1 remember the sacrifices Belgium made during the war on behalf of the Allies, and I remember that when an appeal was made on her behalf no country responded more liberally than did Australia. I hope we shall never forget what we owe to Belgium.
Senator Reid:
– And Belgium ought never to forget what she owes to other countries.
Senator PAYNE:
– I do not know what change has been wrought in the minds of honorable senators. I can well remember many honorable senators making the public statement to the effect that we were very greatly indebted indeed to Belgium.
Senator THOMAS:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT
– That was before we knew as much as we know now.
Senator PAYNE:
– If gratitude is so evanescent, I want none of it. If we adopt Senator Duncan’s request, and thus increase the duties in this sub-item against France and Belgium, we shall not be acting in the best interests of the people of Australia.
Senator THOMAS:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT
– From the commercial, but not the sentimental, stand-point, I am with you.
Senator PAYNE:
– -Well, that is my attitude. Sentiment enters very largely into the composition of all British people. Our Empire has been built up largely by sentiment, and, at this stage, we cannot afford to ignore it; but, in my opinion, the difference between 44s. per ton in the British preferential Tariff, and 80s. per ton in the general Tariff, ought to be adequate for the preservation of British industries.
Senator Vardon:
– Why does not Great Britain take some steps to protect her own industries? -
Senator PAYNE:
– The honorable senator might put that question to the people of Great Britain.
Senator de Largie:
– Why do we give Great Britain preference if not because of sentiment?
Senator PAYNE:
– Of course, it is a matter of sentiment; but surely a difference of practically 100 per cent, between the British and the general Tariff ought to be a sufficient margin to insure British supremacy in the Australian trade for all time. The margin is ample, in my opinion, and, for that reason, I feel compelled to oppose the amendment.
Senator LYNCH:
Western Australia
– In the request put before us by Senator Duncan we have one of those thinly-veiled disingenuous proposals to add an additional story to the Tariff structure. The honorable senator has no hope of carrying such , a request, but his object is to induce those honorable senators who may be wavering between two opinions to come to a conclusion that it is just as well not to seek a reduction, but to pass the sub-item as it stands. This is not the first occasion on which such tactics have been adopted. Some of us think that it is not the duty of the Committee to say, meekly, “We concur in everything that is. put before us by the Government.” We believe that the Senate is entitled to express an independent opinion with regard to the Tariff just as the House of Representatives has done, but up to date we have not had sufficient back-bone to express it.
Senator GUTHRIE:
VICTORIA · NAT; UAP from 1931
– Some of us have.
Senator LYNCH:
– But not the majority. Up to date, the decisions of the Committee on the Tariff items have been but a blocked reflex of the opinion of the House of Representatives. The Government has taken its cue from another place’, and having labelled as “ Government policy “ the decisions of that House, it asks us to swallow them. I realize that the Committee is somewhat embarrassed by the fact that it agreed last night to exorbitant duties on pig iron. This division may be compared, for argumentative purposes, to a palatial edifice, erected upon substantial foundations. Sub-item a, relating to pig iron, represents the ‘f foundations, and on those foundations we are piling story after story. In the opinion of its designers this is a beautifully worked-out division. It is a kind of mosaic, and one cannot put a> needle-point into any joint of it without disturbing the relation of the parts and disarranging the whole scheme. That has been the plea advanced on behalf of the Government, sp that the move made by Senator Duncan to secure an increased duty under paragraph c must have that effect if he succeeds, in spite of his effort to be serious. 11008 Customs Tariff [SENATE.] Bill.
The duty of 20s. per ton on pig iron under the British preferential Tariff is the foundation upon which we build a many-storied Tariff building, with 15-ft. ceilings, in the shape of the duties on blooms and ingots. Then the Government come along with successive stories of 15 feet, in the shape of duties of 44s., 65s., and 80s. per ton under subitems. Senator Duncan now wants to add another 10 feet to one story by requesting the House of Representatives to increase the duty under paragraph c. My proposal yesterday was that we should . so lay the foundations of this division that we should not need to curtail or enlarge the structure proposed to be raised upon it. My desire was that we should so lay the foundations of the division that our decisions with respect to the remaining items would be in keeping with them. That, however, was not done. Senator Duncan seems to think that those who are opposed to the item as it stands cannot read or write. The Government also appear to hold the view that those who oppose it are incapable of passing an intelligent vote on the Tariff. Senator Duncan has asked us to agree to his request so as to bring the duties under sub -item c into line with those operating under the Tariff of the “United States of America. Has he read that Tariff?
Senator Duncan:
– Yes; I have it here.
Senator LYNCH:
– In the Shipping WorldYear-Book for 1921 it is set out that item 103 of the United States of America Tariff reads -
Muckbars, bar iron, square iron, rolled or hammered, round iron, in coils or rods, bars or. shapes of rolled or hammered iron, n.s.p. 5 per cent. ad val.
Senator Duncan’s proposal is that under the general Tariff we should have a duty of 120s. par ton on those items, so as to bring our Tariff into line with the 5 per cent. Tariff of the United States of America!
Senator Duncan:
– The Tariff on which the United States of America built up its iron and steel industry provided for a duty of 210s. a ton.
Senator LYNCH:
– I knew that the honorable senator would fall back upon that argument. When he, and those who think with him, are driven from one strong-post theyretreat to another. They are always in the rear. They are pelted from every post they take up. The trouble is that the arguments are all on our side and the majority of the votes on the other. The Canadian iron duties were never so high as those contemplated in this division. We cannot afford to ignore the wonderful progress and advancement made by Canada,which has set us an example that we might worthily emulate. The Canadian duty upon steel and iron bars, rods, and so on is 12s. 4d. per ton, as against the proposal of the Government in this case for a duty of 80s. per ton under the general Tariff. Canada built up her iron industry under a low Tariff. I am not advocating a low Tariff. I am prepared to give adcquate protection to any industry really in need of help. But when the Tariff wall is sufficiently high to afford ample protection I am not prepared to add an extra brick to it. When that is done the practice of local manufacturers is to make their prices just a shade below those commanded by the inflowing commodities. We are asked to add an extra brick to the Tariff wall in this case, without regard to the interests of the people throughout the Commonwealth, who have to buy, in their multifarious forms, the materials covered by the sub-item. This Tariff, as Senator Guthrie has said,is designed to aim a blow at rural, as compared with urban, production. I say, advisedly, that in its present form it is a fingerpost to rural stagnation. The reports of the Inter-State Commission arc never mentioned by the Government or Senator Duncan unless they suit their purpose, but whenever they lend themselves, even colorably, to the policy of the Government, they are put before us bythem in a lavish manner. In a report issued in 1916 the Inter-State Commission stated that -
Messrs. C. and G. Hoskins Limited, of Litlh- gow, were the only applicants for a protective duty,but the managing director of the Lion Rolling Mills Proprietary Limited, although his company did not. apply for assistance, stated, in evidence, that the duty proposed ‘by Messrs. Hoskins would materially increase the business of his mills in regard to bars.
Of course it would. He did not ask for the duty, but he said that if such a duty were passed it would be of great assistance to his company. Men will naturally take these high duties if they are flunga t them. If I were offeredsuch monumental advantages I should feel that nothing re- mained for mo to do but to accept them, and. I do not blame the manager of the Lion Boiling Mills for his attitude. According to the Inter-State Commission, Messrs. C. and G. Hoskins Limited “were the only applicants for a Protective duty. What is wrong with their concern? I do not want to pass an opinion upon it, because I .am not acquainted with its operations, but I am entitled to ask in what respect it differs from those of other firms carrying on the same industry,, seeing that no one else in the same field has asked for an ‘additional duty except them. In such circumstances. I am entitled to conclude either that Messrs. Hoskins Limited are asking for excessive protection, or that they have not brought their works up to date - for which the consumers have no right to pay - cither one or the other. Fair play is bonny play the world over, and when I see that men engaged in this industry side by side with Hoskins Limited do not raise their voices in the demand this firm has made, I must conclude that something is wrong about its position.
What protection have the primary producers ? Nothing. They take their products into the markets of the world, jostle there with producers of every shade and colour of the human species, and beat them to earth, winning through simply by the exercise of their own native energies. They do not come to this chamber and ask for anything they do not want. There are 200,000 of them producing wheat in Australia. Compare their number with the paltry 10,000 persons engaged in the iron industry.
I respect Mr. Delprat for the attitude he has taken up. But, as a matter of fact, this Senate has gone out of its way to tell him that he does not know his own business. I will not take that responsibility upon myself. I believe that Mr. Delprat knows, his own business a million times better than does any member of this Senate. However, let us get down to brass tacks, tin tacks, or any other kind of tacks, and ask ourselves what is happening in this country. Those who are engaged in producing wealth from the auriferous mines of Australia, and particularly those who have jostled in the world’s markets with so much success amongst’ outside competitors, ask no favour, but are ready to submit their products in competition with those of India, Argentine, or the Balkans. They are of the stuff of which the country is in need, and not of the stuff of. those who come to this Parliament whining for assistance which, when given, causes them afterwards to be the “ slackers “ of industry, and make no call upon those natural reservoirs of energy which alone will enable them so to establish their industry that they may stand four-square to the competition, of the world. . There are two sections in this country - one which cannot live unless it has protection, and another which, lives without asking for anything of the kind from this Parliament. Our big dailies deplore the manifest tendency, of the people to drift fr.om country districts to the city. What is the cause of this? If anything is directly responsible for it it is this iniquitous Tariff. I want to hold ‘the scales fairly. My action in respect to this schedule is not to be interpreted as meaning that I am against the people who are engaged in the particular industry sought to be protected by the duties attached to this sub-item. I am anxious to put a handicap upon foreign competition, but only so as to make the race even at the end with perhaps a slight shade of advantage to our own men. But where are honorable senators when I ask for this? Every time they are to be found voting blindly with, the Government without rhyme or reason for what they are doing, I have taken the trouble to find out the relative position of the population of the cities and rural areas’ in other parts of the world, particularly in Canada and the United States of America, which countries are comparable to ours.
The CHAIRMAN (Senator Bakhap:
TASMANIA
– While the honorable senator’s remarks might be pertinent upon the second reading of a Customs Tariff Bill, they are not particularly applicable to a discussion upon this sub-item.
Senator LYNCH:
– I am merely pointing out the effect that this duty will have upon the various opposing interests and, in turn, upon the distribution of. population, a matter which is o’f vital concern to this country. On every side we hear the fact deplored that the people are leaving country districts for the cities. My purpose is to point out what is happening in the United States of 11010 Customs Tariff [SENATE.] Bill.
America and Canada as compared with Australia.
The CHAIRMAN:
– I must point out that the honorable senator’s time has expired.
Senator GUTHRIE:
VICTORIA · NAT; UAP from 1931
– I indorse the remarks of Senator Lynch. It is somewhat like a voice crying in the wilderness to ask for sympathy in this Senate for the primary producers of Australia. However, at the present moment I am not prepared to go on with my remarks, and I prefer to give way to Senator Lynch, who is putting up such an excellent fight for the real producers of Australia.
The CHAIRMAN (Senator Bakhap:
– A certain standing order provides that an honorable senator is . not permitted to speak in Committee on the Tariff for more than fifteen minutes at one time, and another senator cannot rise and. practically defeat the object of the order by saying that ‘ he wishes the senator who has preceded him to continue his remarks. He must address himself to the subjectmatter under discussion by the Committee for an appreciable period of time. Otherwise it would appear to me that I would be allowing the standing order which governs our procedure to be contravened.
Senator GUTHRIE:
VICTORIA · NAT; UAP from 1931
– My object in rising was to oppose anyfurther increase in duties.
The CHAIRMAN:
– The honorable senator is quite in order in his remarks.
Senator GUTHRIE:
VICTORIA · NAT; UAP from 1931
– As I said ‘before, any remarks I may make will bear no weight, and it will he a waste of time for me to put facts and figures before honorable senators who have already made up their minds to vote for increased duties and higher cost of living, thus penalizing the real producers of this country. This Tariff does not attempt to encourage the primary producers or in any way protect the consumer. Its sole purpose, it seems to me, is to encourage spoon-fed, hothouse reared manufacturers, and turn millionaires into multi-millionaires. It is a magnificent Tariff for that purpose, and I should think it was drawn up by the Chamber of Manufactures. However, I am not prepared to present my facts and figures to the Senate at this juncture.
I shall do so later on, provided I get the opportunity. . For the moment I conclude , these introductory remarks. Forcible though they may be, they express what I think, and I do not care whether they offend certain sections of the electors, or indeed the whole “bally” lot of them.
Senator LYNCH:
Western Australia
– When I was interrupted by the expiration of my time limit I was about to point out what was happening as the inevitable result of the application of a high Tariff in this remote corner of the world, where the natural protection is so much in favour of the manufacturers and so much against the producers.
Senator Senior:
– Does not the manufacturer make things for the primary producer ?
Senator LYNCH:
– He does; but he does not sell under stress of competition as his customers do. He makes tilings for any one who chooses to buy them, but he always fixes his price about the width of a sheet of paper below the height of the brick wall of protection built up for him. I intend to point out what is happening in other countries in the matter of distribution of population. It is recognised by public men that it is not in the interests of the Commonwealth that the population should congregate in the cities. That has a bad effect from every point of view, economically and politically. In the United ‘States of America, the four leading cities are New York, Chicago, Philadelphia, and St., Louis, and combined they have in the House of Representatives thirty-nine members. In Canada, the four leading cities are Montreal, Toronto, Winnipeg, and Vancouver, which combined have a representation in the House of Commons of thirty-four members.
Senator Vardon:
– Both these are Protectionist countries.
SenatorLYNCH. - On the item of steel, they are practically Free, Trade countries. However, in Australia, the four leading cities have a representation of twenty-eight members in the House of Representatives. This shows that, while in the United States of America the four leading cities command one-seventh of the political power, and in Canada oneeleventh, in Australia the four leading cities command one-third. In this respect, Australia is the shocking example of the world; and yet we have members of the Government outwardly and professedly approving a Tariff which inwardly they condemn and deride.
Senator Wilson:
– The population difficulty was in existence before the present Tariff operated.
Senator LYNCH:
– But this Tariff is intensifying the tendency; and I wish to call a halt. If we take only the two cities of Sydney and Melbourne, we find- them exercising political influence that is bad and baneful for the future prosperity of the country. Let that fact be borne in mind, for some day the people of the Commonwealth will rise in revolt against such conditions. As I have- said, the figures quoted show that Australia is the one example of the world as regards the unequal distribution of population; and the policy of excessive Protection is calculated, not to arrest, but rather to aggravate the evil. If this were a country of old and impoverished lands,” such as Belgium or Holland, I could, perhaps, understand the position; but, as a continental country of vast resources, we ought to so regulate our political management as to give the whole of the Commonwealth a chance, instead of confining our attention to the mere coastal fringe. Of course, the Melbourne Age, and other newspapers, deplore this drift to the cities, and yet I suppose they would not have a friendly word in support of what I am now saying.
The Government are seeking to impose a duty of 44s. in the preferential Tariff, while the Inter-State Commission recommended only 30s., and. in support of the present duties we have the argument raised that in Australia wages and other charges are rising; but unmindful of the fact that wages and charges are rising’ in corresponding, if not greater, degree in every country in the world. I propose to move a reduction in the duty, as a reply to the sham proposal that has been submitted, for the obvious purpose of inducing honorable senators to “ split the difference.” Senator Duncan knows that he is asking something that is unreasonable, in the hope that honorable senators will take the course I have indicated, and thus leave the Government secure in its fortress of, 1 was going to say, imbecility. Ministers ought to give a lead to the Chamber in regard to this and other items; but they do not, because they are the advocates of a Tariff that strikes every time at the tap-roots of country interests. And in response to what? In response to a vague political cry that a change is desired in the Protectionist direction. But the only voice raised in this instance is that of Mr. Hoskins, who is not backed up by any of his fellow operators in this field of industry.
Senator Duncan:
– That is not correct. I have the names of many others.
Senator LYNCH:
– Of course, others are coming forward now that they see the drift of things- now that they see barrowloads of high duties being given out - and they are quite justified, from their point of view, in doing so. When Senator Duncan says that I am not correct in my statements, he must settle his differences, not with me, but with the Inter-State Commission, who, in their report, said that only one man asked for a duty.
Senator Duncan:
– On behalf of others.
Senator LYNCH:
– I dispute that entirely. The proposals for increased duties are only the result of an effort to introduce a Protectionist Tariff, based on the most vapoury and shadowy foundations, the effect of which must be to bring our primary industries to a standstill, or cause their decay. The 200,000 wheatgrowers of Australia are entitled to some consideration; but, so far from’ their getting any, they are faced with high duties on pig iron, blooms, ingots, bar iron, and so on to harvesters. All these duties are calculated to increase the cost of the tools of trade, and of the necessary commodities for opening’ up the interior of this country; there is a concatenation of Tariff proposals all depending on each other, and combining to add to the cost of the harvester and other implements required by the man on the soil. If this goes on, it means that in the long run the primary producers will have’ to come into the city and find a job in the ironworks. If they cannot live in the country they must drift to the cities, perhaps to starve there. The Tariff is imposing, for the protection of Australian manufacturers, duties far beyond those of Canada, under the pretence that we are in danger of being inundated by importations from other countries, although, as a matter of fact, we are exporting to other countries, and the returns show that the ‘balance of trade is in our favour. Honorable senators who have always an ear open to the appeals of the manufacturers, no matter how flimsy their pretext, show no inclination to listen, to the protests of those in. the back-country, who could not, if they wished to do. so,, and would not, if they could, waylay Min.insters and members to ask for exorbitant imposts for their own benefit. A false step ha3 been taken in this matter, and we shall have; to pay. for. it. Senator Duncan’s proposal is an ingenious device, like that presented during the discussion of the sugar duties, the intention, of which is to get the Committee to vote for a middle course, and. thus to maintain the Government’s proposals. I intend to propose a reduction, although I have not the least hope of carrying it. I stood for Protection at a time when many of the representatives, of this Chamber were against me, and the result was to throw hundreds of thousands of pounds into the coffers of the manufacturers of the eastern States. What did my State gain thereby? Nothing. But I stood for the policy that was calculated to advance the interests of the Commonwealth on rational lines. Now, without abandoning my earlier Protectionist principles, I ask for consideration of the, interests of a State whose area is that of one-third of the Commonwealth. These have hitherto counted for nothing in this Chamber. The appeals I have received from persons in urban centres, asking for higher duties, would fill a horse-stall; but to the credit of Western Australia be it said, that although it has some young industries, no appeal has co’me from the people of that State. That shows their independence. They are prepared to stand alone, instead of whimpering, cap in hand, for duties that are not required. Some honorable senators are saying to the ironmasters, “You do not know your business when you do not ask for higher duties, but we intend to give you them.” Of course, under1 those circumstances, the duties are accepted. I intend to move for a duty of 34s. per ton, which will be an advance on the Inter-State Commission’s recommendations.
Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN (Western the eloquent appeal of the able gentleman who is my colleague in the representation of Western Australia. He is right in saying that the people of that State have not asked for high duties, such as the manufacturers of Victoria and New South Wales are constantly demanding. We find, their representatives in the galleries, and standing about the lobbies, imploring assistance in a way that the people of Western Australia could not imitate even if they wished, to do so.
Senator Lynch:
– They would not do it.
Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA
– I agree with the honorable senator that they would not do it in any event. The people of. Western Australia, are displaying now the spirit that prompted them to send, practically the whole of their young manhood to the war.
Senator Duncan:
– They whined loudly for assistance in the building of silos.
Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
– The people of Western Australia were prepared to spend their own money in providing, for the erection of silos, yet my honorable friend dares to suggest that they came cap-in-hand to this Parliament for assistance. Never has the State done that, and I do not think that it will ever do it. Presently we shall find some’ of the representatives of New South Wales whining for higher duties on galvanized iron.
The CHAIRMAN (Senator Bakhap:
– I ask the honorable senator not to anticipate the discussion of another item.
Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
– The duties now trader discussion must affect materially industries which are directly dealt with in subsequent items. The industry that we are now considering manufactures the raw material for other industries, among which is the galvanizediron industry.
Senator Duncan:
– I rise to order. The honorable senator is now anticipating the discussion of an item. He deduces certain conclusions from private conversations, and is misusing the information thus obtained, to prejudice the minds of honorable senators against certain proposals.
The CHAIRMAN (Senator Bakhap:
– I have already drawn Senator DrakeBrockman’s attention to the fact that he
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917 -- And to some of the items with which we have already dealt. {: .speaker-JXP} ##### Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN: -- Yes. I join with **Senator Lynch** in appealing to the Committee to reconsider the situation, and to reduce the duties in this item, and in some of the items that follow. {: .speaker-K5R} ##### Senator Senior: -- Is not New South Wales an agricultural State? {: .speaker-JXP} ##### Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN: -- I am making an appeal on behalf of the primary producers of Australia. Of course, New South Wales, like Western Australia and all the other States, is a big primary producer. The greatest part of our wealth comes from primary production. {: .speaker-KN7} ##### Senator GUTHRIE:
VICTORIA · NAT; UAP from 1931 -- Practically all of it. {: #debate-4-s10 .speaker-JXP} ##### Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · NAT -- BROCKMAN. - Therefore, it is essential to have regard first to the interests of the primary producers, and it is extraordinary that more voices are not raised here to protest against the fostering of secondary industries at their expense. If the Senate is a reflex of the opinion of the people, as it must be presumed to be, Australia has gone protection mad, and must pay dearly for it in the future. Of course, the voting power of the Commonwealth is concentrated in the cities, whose voice is more easily heard, and more quickly influences honorable senators than the voice of the country. More notice is taken of what isprinted in the *Age* and the *Argus* than of what is to be read in the provincial press. {: .speaker-K2C} ##### Senator Bolton: -- I do not think that you are justified in saying that. {: .speaker-JXP} ##### Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · NAT -- BROCKMAN.- A few, like **Senator Bolton, Senator Lynch,** and myself, may take notice of what appears in the country press; but I judge by their utterances here that the majority, in respect to this and every other item, are disciples of the *Age* newspaper, and will vote for high duties. {: #debate-4-s11 .speaker-K1J} ##### Senator PRATTEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT -- I do not intend to go back on my determination regardingthe great iron industry of Australia. So far as my vote is concerned, it shall be given fair protection against the cheap labour of foreign countries, and no dumping shall destroy it. The Tariff schedule of the United States of America, protecting the iron industry there, has been interesting to study. In volume,tonnage, strength, and world-wide ramifications,the iron 11014 *Customs Tariff .* [SENATE.] *Bill.* industry of the United States of America has attained a greater degree of production than that of any other country. {: .speaker-K5R} ##### Senator Senior: -- Since the war. Germany was first before the war. {: .speaker-K1J} ##### Senator PRATTEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT -- I will not argue concerning whether or not Germany was first, but during the past ten years the volume of iron produced in the United States of America has been greater than the production of any other country, and the progress of the industry's development has been extremely rapid. Forty or fifty years ago, the output of iron and iron products in the United States of America was negligible. In 1874 very heavy import duties were imposed, for the first time, upon iron. {: .speaker-JXP} ##### Senator Drake-Brockman: -- What was the population about that period ? {: .speaker-K1J} ##### Senator PRATTEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT -- Probably between 50,000,000 and 60,000,000 people. {: .speaker-JXP} ##### Senator Drake-Brockman: -- Can a fair comparison be made with Australia, having a population of 5,000,000 ? {: .speaker-K1J} ##### Senator PRATTEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT -- Yes ; but our distance from the world's markets, and our geographical position in relation to the Pacific, make it much more urgently Accessary for Australia to be selfcontained with respect to iron production than is the case with any other country. With respect to the duties decided upon by the United States Congress, in order to build up an industry which to-day is of vaster dimensions than that of any other nation, the rates imposed in 1890 upon iron of a value of from 3 to 4 cents. per lb., amounted to £7 9s. 4d. per ton. There was, in addition, a super duty of 1 cent per lb. - another £4 per ton. The Tariff imposed in 1909 on the same item was a reduction upon that of 1890. Still, however, the duty was equivalent to £5 2s. 8d. per ton. As the industry developed and became more self-supporting, Congress, in its wisdom, began to reduce the duties; until, to-day, America is an exporter against the whole world, and the imposition of duties would not help her for the reason that her iron industry requires no measure of fiscal encouragement. {: .speaker-KRZ} ##### Senator Lynch: -- If the honorable senator were to give particulars of the duties in the United States of America, when that country was as old as Australia now is. the comparison would be more intelligible. {: .speaker-K1J} ##### Senator PRATTEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT -- I have given particulars of the rates imposed before the iron industry had been established. It is obvious that by the imposition of duties the industry was created. And it has so flourished, meanwhile, that it has become self-contained. So far as my individual efforts may go, I desire to help Australia to follow that excellent example. {: .speaker-KRZ} ##### Senator Lynch: -- The honorable senator is not quoting existing duties in the United States of America. {: .speaker-K1J} ##### Senator PRATTEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT -- I have just pointed out that, as an outcome of the imposition of duties, the industry has grown so strong that no such form of encouragement is required to-day. With the materials which Nature has given to Australia, the iron industry can be developed in this land, and it may so expand within a decade or so that Australia should become, comparatively, as strong in relation to her iron industry as the United States of America. Of course, with a population of 6,000,000, the industry cannot be expected to grow so rapidly or to the dimensions existing in a country which has a population of more than 100,000,000. Something has been said with respect to the drift to cities. Such a thing is regrettable, but it is going on all over the world. {: .speaker-JXP} ##### Senator Drake-Brockman: -- Why accelerate it ? {: .speaker-K1J} ##### Senator PRATTEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT -- I am not at all sure that this Tariff will do so. The development which is taking place in regard to Australia's woollen industry is in the country and is spreading over the Continent. The iron industry is responsible for the formation of expanding centres outside of the big cities. There are numbers of other industries which will tend to decentralize the population as an outcome of the encouragement afforded by this Protective Tariff. All these factors will almost entirely counteract any drift to the cities which is now occurring owing to circumstances over which the Commonwealth Parliament has no control. I have certain fixed principles. One of them may be stated thus : I shall do everything in my power that will safeguard and develop the secondary industries of Australia. It is just as important to get a ton of iron out of Mother Earth as it is *by* grow a ton of wheat or wool upon Mother Earth. {: .speaker-K3B} ##### Senator Rowell: -- But no one is asking for a duty of £4 per ton on wheat or wool. {: .speaker-K1J} ##### Senator PRATTEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT -- If such a duty could be, it would be imposed. But what this Committee is now discussing is really the question of producing further wealth from the soil, and the undoubted fact is that the more we can produce the more independent shall we become, and the better will it be for Australia. In the course of dealing with items yet to be reached, I propose to set down in terms of pounds, shillings, and pence what the Tariff will mean to the farmer. And, if Parliament is found to be imposing undue burdens upon producers, I shall be agreeable to try to devise some means by which such imposition - it may be called an extra tax - can be reduced. {: .speaker-KRZ} ##### Senator Lynch: -- The farmers will have the honorable senator's sympathy, but not his votes. {: .speaker-K1J} ##### Senator PRATTEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT -- My votes shall be cast in the direction of giving fair play to the farmer. No country was ever1 great unless, besides its primary activities, lt possessed practically self-supporting secondary industries. No country ever became great by way of agriculture solely. While primary production amounts to the greater part of the total production of Australia, this Committee . will not be justified in " hitting up" every secondary industry, which also produces wealth from our own soil. {: #debate-4-s12 .speaker-K5R} ##### Senator SENIOR:
South Australia -- Some important facts are being overlooked. Honorable senators declare that it is their desire to do that which is just; but, directly an industry begins to draw about it a group of individuals, a charge is laid that an unhealthy concentration of the population is, being encouraged, and the industry responsible is branded, as not being of a primary character. The production of iron is as much a primary industry as the production of apples, or wheat, or wool. It is the raw material upon which other industries depend, just as wheat is the raw material on which the miller and the baker must rely. {: .speaker-JU7} ##### Senator de Largie: -- Then everything is primary, and nothing is secondary ? {: .speaker-K5R} ##### Senator SENIOR: -- What is primary in one man's view is a finished product in the case of another. When coal mining was begun at Newcastle, the countryside was barren; few people lived in the neighbourhood. To-day, however, Newcastle is a city. When gold was discovered at Ballarat, there was no city of Ballarat. The population followed, and grouped around the industry. The effect of the inauguration of the iron industry has been to open up mining activities in Tasmania and South Australia; and if Western Australia should develop similar deposits of iron ore, and should there be coal discovered in that State, Western Australia would undoubtedly become a rival of the eastern States. {: .speaker-K8L} ##### Senator THOMAS:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT -- Waa not the Iron Knob deposit, in South Australia, worked before the opening of the Broken Hill Proprietary Company's steel works at Newcastle-? {: .speaker-K5R} ##### Senator SENIOR: -- Yes, but not for the manufacture of iron. The deposits were drawn upon for flux. Iron Knob became material to the development of Broken Hill, and mining at Broken Hill was, and is, a primary industry. **Senator Lynch** has described what occurred in 1916, but he knows that4 the conditions ruling to-day are different from those which existed five years ago. {: .speaker-JU7} ##### Senator de Largie: -- What is the difference? {: .speaker-K5R} ##### Senator SENIOR: -- At present the cost of production in Belgium, Japan, and America has fallen considerably. {: .speaker-JU7} ##### Senator de Largie: -- Has the honorable senator perused the prices? {: .speaker-K5R} ##### Senator SENIOR: -- Yes. I have considered the cost at which these countries can land their products here, and I know what America is capable of doing. {: .speaker-JU7} ##### Senator de Largie: -- What is the price of bars, angles, and tees? {: .speaker-K5R} ##### Senator SENIOR: -- The American quotation is three or four dollars less than it was twelve months ago, which means that American manufacturers will be able to land their products in Australia more cheaply than they have been able to do in the past. I desire to see the Aus. tralian iron industry in a position to compete with outside manufacturers; but I do not wish it to be protected to such an extent that it will be able to raise its prices to the Australian consumers. {: .speaker-JU7} ##### Senator de Largie: -- Are these articles cheaper to-day than they were in 1916? {: .speaker-K5R} ##### Senator SENIOR: -- No; because in 1916, even if the prices had been exceptionally low, foreign manufacturers could not enter into competition with Australian manufacturers owing to the scarcity of freights. I have carefully considered the figures relating to our output, and as our production is within 300,000 tons of our consumption I do not think we are justified in increasing 11016 *Customs.Tariff* [SENATE..]. Bill. the duty. On the other hand, if we reduce the protection already provided we shall be placing foreign manufacturers in a position to dump. The Tariff will not prevent dumping to the extent that the proposed Anti-Dumping Bill will. America can land iron here cheaper than we can produce it, and in the absence of adequate protection to our' own iron industry we would be largely at the mercy of the producers in Japan and in America. I cannot support the request submitted by **Senator Duncan,** because. I do not believe increased duties are necessary, and I have yet to be convinced that it would be wise to reduce the proposed rate.. Reference has been made to the disabilities; experienced by primary producers in consequence of the duties imposed to protect local industries; but it must be remembered that owing to the improved methods of cultivating and harvesting the costs incurred by the primary producer are much less than they were some years ago. In addition to the advantages derived from the use of modern implements the primary producers have also benefited: by improved carrying and marketing facilities. Farmers have now gone further afield, and we have to seriously consider at this juncture whether, in imposing duties, we are to follow those who are developing country on the outer fringe. If such important undertakings as the iron industry are squeezed out of existence," others will follow, and we shall then be depending upon the products of foreigners, which, in effect, is the policy of Free Traders. {: #debate-4-s13 .speaker-JXZ} ##### Senator DUNCAN:
New South Wales -- I desire to refer to the statement that **Mr. Delprat** said his company did not need duties, as they were unnecessary. {: .speaker-JU7} ##### Senator de Largie: -- The honorable senator is referring to pig iron, which we are not now discussing. {: .speaker-JXZ} ##### Senator DUNCAN: -- **Senator Lynch** and others referred to the statement alleged to have been made by **Mr. Delprat,** and I should have the opportunity of replying. {: .speaker-JU7} ##### Senator de Largie: -- It is merely wasting time. {: .speaker-JXZ} ##### Senator DUNCAN: -- I am not going to waste my time by replying to the silly interjections of the honorable senator. {: .speaker-JU7} ##### Senator de Largie: -- I rise to order. The honorable senator is now referring to pig iron, which has already been dealt: with by the Committee. We are now discussing Tolled iron, and if he knows the difference - I do not think he does- he will admit that he is not in order. The opinion expressed by **Mr. Delprat** concerning duties on pig iron has no bearing on this sub-item, and I therefore submit that the honorable senator is not in. order.. {: .speaker-K18} ##### The CHAIRMAN (Senator Bakhap: -- I understood the honorable senator was referring to some correspondence indicative of the company's attitude on ironduties generally. If the honorable senator intends to refer to articles included in the sub-item he will be-in order. {: .speaker-JXZ} ##### Senator DUNCAN: -- If some honorable senators would not be so impatient I would show that there is a connexion between pig iron and the sub-item under discussion. When the Joint Committee of Public Accounts was inquiring into the question of ship construction, they dealt with supplies of rolled iron, and called asa witness **Mr. Delprat;** the gentleman whom it is alleged said that duties were not required. *Sitting suspended from 1 to 2.30 p.m.* {: .speaker-JXZ} ##### Senator DUNCAN: -- In reply to the argument that **Mr. Delprat** some years ago. expressed the opinion that Customs duties were not necessary to foster the iron and steel industry, I submit the following extract from a report of the Joint Committee on Public Accounts, dated 17th November,. 1920,. on evidence given by **Mr. Delprat.** When he made the statement, which has been. so often quoted, not a single ton of. icon or steel had been produced at the Newcastle works. In view of the evidence given by **Mr. Delprat** in the light of the fuller experience he had gained in the meantime, the. Public Accounts. Committee reported - >The Broken Hill Proprictary CompanyLimited have decided upon considerable expansion of their works and plant, including a mill for rolling large plates for shipbuilding, which hitherto have had to be obtained from abroad. The general manager of this company was: confident that all materials for shipbuilding-, could be produced in Australia as cheaply as anywhere if protection by a Tariff were: afforded against the. powerful Combinations in other countries, which might otherwise wipe the industry out by dumping.
VICTORIA · NAT; UAP from 1931 -- We have been very glad to have it. {: .speaker-JXZ} ##### Senator DUNCAN: -- It may be that the company left it to honorable senators to make representations to the Government on their behalf. I have putthe facts before the Committee, and I hope that honorable senators will take into serious consideration the position of the industry atthe present time. I realize that perhaps the imposition of a duty, however high, might not meet the position except in a very small way. {: .speaker-K3E} ##### Senator Russell: -- That is what the company recognises. {: .speaker-JXZ} ##### Senator DUNCAN: -- That isso, and the Minister has given a promise of the early passing of the Anti-Dumping Bill, which I considerwill go a great deal further in the -protection of the Australian industries than, perhaps, any duties we might impose. Some honorable senators may considerthat the duty for which I ask is rather high, but if, in the opinion of Parliament, (conditions in the industry throughout the worldchange so much in the next twelve months that ithecontinued imposition ofso higha duty would be unfair, the matter can be referred to the Tariff Board, and upon its reconamendation Parliament could take action, if that were found desirable, to reduce the duty. {: .speaker-KBJ} ##### Senator Wilson: -- Does the honorable senator not think thatthe Committee should back its ownopinion now? {: .speaker-JXZ} ##### Senator DUNCAN: -- That maybe so, but I point out the procedure whichcould be followed -under the Customs TariffBill if it should be discovered that the duties we now impose operate prejudicially to the interests of Australian consumers. {: .speaker-JXP} ##### Senator Drake-Brockman: -- Doesnot the converse apply ? {: .speaker-JXZ} ##### Senator DUNCAN: -- To acertainextent Iadmit that it does, but I thinkthat I haveplaced sufficient fasts before the Committee to show thatthe needis urgent fordoingsomething in -the direction I have indicated. The Anti-Dumping Bill may not pass for some months, and before it is passed almost incalculable damage might be done. Adequate duties would prevent thatto some extent,if not entirely, and I hope that the request I have submitted will be agreed to. {: #debate-4-s15 .speaker-K2L} ##### Senator REID:
Queensland -- There can be little doubt that **Senator Duncan's** request, if carried, would mean the imposition of an extra tax on many of our primary producers. The duties proposed by the Government in connexion with this sub-item are amongst the heaviest to be found in the Tariff. {: .speaker-JU7} ##### Senator de Largie: -- No such duties can be found in any other 'Tariff in the world. {: .speaker-K2L} ##### Senator REID: -- If the Committee ap proves of the duties proposed by the Government, those concerned in the industry will have no reason to complain. {: .speaker-K8L} ##### Senator THOMAS:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT -- These duties are not as heavy as the duty on bananas. {: .speaker-K2L} ##### Senator REID: -- I am not discussing bananas at present. {: .speaker-KUL} ##### Senator E D MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917 -- I am not certain that **Senator Thomas** supported the duty on bananas. {: .speaker-K2L} ##### Senator REID: -- I do not think that he did. **Senator Lynch** emphasized very strongly the fact that our people are drifting into the large cities to a very great extent. That is undeniable, but I. should like to remind the honorable senator that so far as agriculture in Australia is concerned it is confined to a more or less limited fringe along , our coast. In Canada the conditions are otherwise. Because of the fall of snow and the climatic conditions generally, interior districts of Canada have the benefit of a sufficient rainfall throughout the year. That cannot be said of Australia. One reason why I am in favour of a Tariff to build up our secondary industries is that they may serveto attract population to this. country, and until. we have a much larger population than we have now we cannot expect that Australia will be developed as it should be. {: .speaker-JXZ} ##### Senator Duncan: -- The big cities afford the best markets for the primary producers. {: .speaker-K2L} ##### Senator REID: -- As one who knows something of the interior of Australia, I regard its settlement and development as one of the most gigantic problems with which we have to deal. Until we have a very much larger population than we have at present we shall not be in a position to undertake the work of water conservation and irrigation in the interior of Australia, which must be carried out before it can be closely settled.' Until we have done so we can only expect that it will be occupied in huge areas for the depasturing of stock. I am not anxious that wealthy industrial Combines, should be established here. I do not regard the production of wealth as the most important thing. In my opinion the greater the variety of industries we have the better it will be for our people. {: .speaker-KBJ} ##### Senator Wilson: -- Will they not represent wealth? {: .speaker-K2L} ##### Senator REID: -- They may; but I am not particularly anxious for the building up of industries from which a few people may derive a great deal of wealth. I believe that it is better to have our population engaged in a variety of industries which will enable a great many people to make a moderate living, and will offer inducements to other people to come here, so that in time we may be in a position to supply our own needs, and also to enter into competition with industries in other parts of the world. {: .speaker-KN7} ##### Senator GUTHRIE:
VICTORIA · NAT; UAP from 1931 -- If it were not for the primary producers the people in the cities could not live. {: .speaker-K2L} ##### Senator REID: -- If it were not for the men in our towns engaged in the secondary industries, the man on the land could not live. {: .speaker-KN7} ##### Senator GUTHRIE:
VICTORIA · NAT; UAP from 1931 -- Nonsense! We are exporters of all our primary products. {: .speaker-K2L} ##### Senator REID: -- I do not object to **Senator Guthrie's** defence of the primary producers; but if all our people were primary producers it would not be good for the country. We must have secondary industries to supply the tools pf trade required by our primary producers, and it is better for them that we should have a large population to con sume their products. Many of the secondary industries which have been built up by Protection have been of very great benefit to our primary producers. It is true that Protection may hamper more or less some branches of primary production, but we have to consider the interests of Australia as a whole. We must offer inducements to a greater population to come here, and the primary producers must bear their share of our burdens. A good, deal has been said about consideration for our Allies and about preference to Great Britain. I take second place to no one in Australia in my anxiety to preserve the connexion between ourselves and the Old Country, but our first duty is to Australia. We have no right to do anything which would injure Australia in order to benefit the Old Country or our Allies. ' The first duty of every father is to look after his family, and this nation should look after its own industries before it talks of being generous to other people. I would not go out of my way to injure the Old Country; but the first consideration with me is the protection of Australian industries in the interests of the young people who are growing up amongst us, and in order to attract a larger population to our shores. I have said that the most gigantic problem with which we have to deal is the settlement of people on the millions of acres of comparatively unoccupied territory in Australia inside the coastal fringe. The introduction of population and the reduction of our debt will enable us to enter upon schemes for the development of the interior of this great continent. Some honorable senators have been pessimistic about the effect of the imposition of Customs duties; but I have heard their jeremiads so often that I do not now take much notice of them. {: .speaker-K8L} ##### Senator THOMAS:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT -- Talking about population, I venture to say that families in the country districts are larger than families in the cities. {: .speaker-K2L} ##### Senator REID: -- That may be, but it may surprise honorable senators to know that my experience has convinced me that the general health of families in the cities is better than that of families in the country. {: .speaker-KN7} ##### Senator GUTHRIE:
VICTORIA · NAT; UAP from 1931 -- That is because the people in the cities have so many advantages, and doctors are always at hand. {: .speaker-K2L} ##### Senator REID: -- My personal experience is that because of the improved sanitary conditions, those engaged in the secondary industries that are being built up in our cities are, on the whole, healthier than people engaged in rural occupations. {: .speaker-K2C} ##### Senator Bolton: -- That has not been the experience in Great Britain, at all events. Kitchener's Army was a refutation of that statement. {: .speaker-JXP} ##### Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · NAT -Brock man. - And so was the Australian Army. {: .speaker-K2L} ##### Senator REID: -- I have no official figures dealing with the point raised by the honorable senator. I can only draw conclusions from my own observations in our agricultural areas in the back country of the Commonwealth. I have come into contact with country people in all the States, and I say that, on the whole, those living in our cities are healthier. {: .speaker-KKZ} ##### Senator Gardiner: -- The average life of a farmer is fifty-six years, while the average life of a business man is thirtysix years. These are official figures. {: .speaker-K2L} ##### Senator REID: -- As I have said, I speak from personal observation, and this is the conclusion I have arrived at. {: .speaker-JXP} ##### Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · NAT -brockman. - The honorable senator lacks observation, apparently. {: .speaker-K2L} ##### Senator REID: -- Perhaps I do; but if the honorable senator will go into the average country storekeeper's premises he will find that quite a large trade is done in all kinds of patent medicines. Most of these articles are sold in country districts. {: .speaker-KN7} ##### Senator GUTHRIE:
VICTORIA · NAT; UAP from 1931 -- That is because doctors are not so readily available. {: .speaker-K2L} ##### Senator REID: -- By building up our secondary industries under proper sanitary conditions and by encouraging the growth of population we shall be developing this country on sound lines. Our important secondary industries require protection to the same extent as do our wool-growers. {: .speaker-KN7} ##### Senator GUTHRIE:
VICTORIA · NAT; UAP from 1931 -- The wool-growers do not want protection, and have never asked for it. {: .speaker-K2L} ##### Senator REID: -- Nevertheless, in respect of some items connected with that industry **Senator Guthrie** lashed himself into a fury because he did not get all he wanted. {: .speaker-KN7} ##### Senator GUTHRIE:
VICTORIA · NAT; UAP from 1931 -- Not at all. That statement is quite untrue. {: #debate-4-s16 .speaker-K18} ##### The CHAIRMAN (Senator Bakhap: -- Order ! I must ask honorable senators not to interject, but. to allow **Senator Reid** to continue the discussion on the sub-item before the Chair. {: .speaker-K2L} ##### Senator REID: -- I cannot see my way at present to support **Senator Duncan's** request. I think the protection of 80s. in the general Tariff is quite sufficient. {: #debate-4-s17 .speaker-KRZ} ##### Senator LYNCH:
Western Australia -- I merely wish to correct a false impression sought to be created by some honorable senators - notably, **Senator Pratten** - that the duty in the United States of America was higher than is proposed in this schedule, and I quote from *Modem Tariff History,* by Percy Ashley, page 187 - >The result of this policy of the President and his advisers was the Tariff Act of 1846, adopted after only a short, though at times exciting Parliamentary struggle. All minimums and specific duties were abolished, and commodities were divided into a number of classes with duties ranging from 5 *per cent,* to 40 per cent., and in the one case of brandy and spirits, to 100 per cent.; there was also a class of free articles, the chief being tea, coffee, and iron and copper ore. Manufactures of iron and other . metals, wool and woollens, paid 30 per cent., as did the manufactures of leather and glass; cotton goods paid 25 per cent. {: .speaker-K1J} ##### Senator PRATTEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT -- What date is the honorable senator referring to? {: .speaker-KRZ} ##### Senator LYNCH: -- I am referring to the United States Tariff Act of 1846. {: .speaker-K1J} ##### Senator PRATTEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT -- I think the honorable senator must have misunderstood me. I mentioned the Tariffs of 1883, 1890, and 1909. {: .speaker-KRZ} ##### Senator LYNCH: -- Then the honorable senator's reference was to comparatively recent times. I am going back to the period when the position of the United States of America approximated rather remotely to the circumstances of our own time, as regards population and development. This attempt to fasten high protective duties upon a community that is not commercially or industrially highly developed is much like putting a suit of clothes designed for a fully-developed man upon a schoolboy. America, when she imposed these protective duties, was much ahead of the position in which Australia finds herself to-day. In 1850, only four years after the passage of the Tariff Act to which I refer, she had a population of 23,000,000 people, whilst we have little more than 5,000,000; and yet the wisdom of the time, in a country very near to the manufacturing centres :of the world as compared with Australia, suggested a 30 per cent, duty in die case of iron manufactures, and 25 per cent, in the case of 'cotton goods. {: .speaker-K1J} ##### Senator PRATTEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT -- Does the honorable senator suggest that we must wait till we have 20,000,000 people before we establish 'such industries in Australia'? {: .speaker-KRZ} ##### Senator LYNCH: -- No. I am merely considering the natural effect of a protective policy, and pointing to the experience in America. Let us consider the process of development of all our flourishing towns. Let us take the history of Toowoomba, Ballarat, Bathurst, Lismore, or almost of any other town. The country exists before the towns. I should like **Senator Reid** to remember this elementary fact, because he seems to be under the impression that towns come first and must be catered for accordingly. As settlement in country districts proceeds, the first step in the establishment of a town is the appearance of a blacksmith's shop, to which, afterwards, is added the business of a wheelwright. Then we may find an engineering shop, and as business grows, many branches of that technical trade may be added to meet the increasing requirements of the district. This is the history of all towns. They grow in proportion as the district for which they cater develops. It would be just as foolish to plant, in a town like Toowoomba, in Queensland, a high-class engineering and manufacturing establishment from Birmingham as to apply this Tariff to the needs of Australia until we have developed to a greater extent industrially and economically. {: .speaker-JRT} ##### Senator Cox: -- Let us put the sub-item. {: .speaker-KRZ} ##### Senator LYNCH: -- The honorable senator, I notice, is always lolling about in his seat in this chamber. He now says, " Put it." I am not prepared to do that. I speak on behalf of people who represent two-thirds of this continent, and I say that up to date their interests have 'not been fully considered in this Tariff. If anything is calculated to' arouse my resentment. it is the consideration given to this Tariff schedule. I come here to exercise my independent opinion, and I am not prepared, by my rote, to do anything towards shovelling into *the* coffers of any great industrial enterprise millions of pounds at the expense of our primary producers. The maws ©f these .great industrial en terprises are ever ready to get something from the producing interests of this country. They remind me of ia huge, insatiable vacuum pump, 'everything movable or mortgagable in the Commonwealth being <drawn into its insatiable vortex, and, feeble though my voice may fee, I intend to do what I oan on behalf of the people who are carrying out the development of this continent. There are two sets of people in this country - the one set that goes out and does things ; that does not seek any advantage from Parliament, or expect any of the largesse that is being ladled out; that stands erect and prefers not to lean on the Government for protective patronage of any kind. This is the class that has made Australia what it is to-day. The other class is . represented by certain manufacturers - and the host of *claqueurs* surrounding them. We are almost told that no industrial enterprise will grow in Queensland unless a big lump of protection is planted at its root. These people have been too long sheltered by a Protective Tariff. But we do not require any such assistance in Western Australia. Our manufacturers there, as **Senator Drake-Brockman** will testify, are .not to be found on the door-mat of this Parliament, pleading that without protection they cannot grow. The United States of America, with four times the present population of Australia, were satisfied with a 30 per cent, duty on the manufactures of iron ; and under this stimulus the business of manufacturing steel rails increased from 24,000 tons in 1S49 to 184,000 tons in 1856; while under a protection of 25 per cent., the number of cotton spindles employed in the United States of America rose from 3,000,000 in 1840 to over 5,000,000 in 1S60. I recognise the hopelessness of submitting any proposition having for its object the lightening of the burdens of the men engaged in metalliferous mining and other forms of primary production. Throughout the Tariff debate they have received the least consideration. Their voice is inarticulate. The only voice that echoes and re-echoes through this chamber is that raised on behalf of the manufacturer and that section of the primary producers who say that they cannot grow anything without the stimulus of Protective duties. This Tariff will put a. heavier burden on the backs of those who are- already bending under the load they are carrying. It will strain to the utmost the muscles of those who do not ask for Tariff assistance, while it will make flaccid and flabby the muscles of the men inside the Tariff barrier. I do not want to see that sort of thing. My desire is that the race shall be maintained with some semblance of sport. This is not sport. The Government are imposing a handicap on. the whole community,, so that those sheltered behind the Tariff wall may gaze at their shelter and say, " We will go slow, there is. no need to extend ourselves like the people outside." The primary producers, who enjoy no protection,, but are exposed to the unfriendly blasts that blow from, every quarter on, the markets of the world, will have to pay for this assistance. They are the men for whom I am speaking. W e have before us a proposal to increase, by more- than 100 per cent, the duty of 40 per cent, recommended by the InterState Commission. We are told that since that recommendation was made wages and manufacturing costs have- increased; but, since they are- rising, to. a correspoaiding, . if not to. a greater, extent in the competing countries, that argument falls to the ground. The Government set off with a duty of' 20s. per ton on pig iron under the- British- preferential Tariff; and, if we follow the steel and iron produced from that pig. iron until it is put into the harvester or. the battery - and gold mining is fast becoming only a memory in Australia - we shall find that, having regard to. the duties imposed on the various commodities employed in the manufacture of those machines, the users of them will have to pay upon them a tax of over 100 per cent. These increased duties are passed on. to the primary producers, because the- manufacturers working inside the Tariff barrier raise their pricesto the very edge of the protecting- wall. I intend to move a request that the duty be reduced, but that it shall still be above the rate recommended by the Inter-State Commission. I shall submit such a request for the reason, that the- various stages in iron production,, from the crude ingots, slabs,, and blooms- to the bar iron and angleiron, can be carried out in the same works iti which thosei ingots and slabs are. pror duced, so that we may reasonably reduce, the duty in this case. We should hesitate to take another false -step, immediattely following- that taken by us in, rC gard to the duties on pig inon, and whenthe proper time comes I shall move, a request on the lines I have indicated. {: #debate-4-s18 .speaker-KKZ} ##### Senator GARDINER:
New South Wales -- Now that, we have arrived, at whatis the usual hour- of meeting; I shall address, myself to this question.. I have listened with, a good deal of interest to the way in which the- Protectionist, members of the- Committee have debated this scientific Tariff. **Senator Lynch,** said that he was raising a feeble voice against the request fon an increased duty. I hope to live until the voice of protest becomes normal. When that day arrives,, there will be poured upon this scientific Protectionist Tariff such a torrent of condemnation as will almost overwhelm it. {: .speaker-JXP} ##### Senator Drake-Brockman: -- As it de- serves to be. {: .speaker-KKZ} ##### Senator GARDINER: -- Yes. **Senator Lynch** and **Senator Guthrie-** have shown that the proposed increased duty will have to be paid by the primary producers. I agree with that view, but would add that it. will have also to be- paid by- the wage earners and salaried men of the community. Public servants who, having regard to the increased, cost oi living-,, are, perhaps, the most underpaid section of the community, will be . among those who will have the privilege of paying more if this duty is increased. {: .speaker-JYG} ##### Senator Elliott: -- Is not the cost of living going down? {: .speaker-KKZ} ##### Senator GARDINER: -- There may be a slight fall in the price of a few commodities, but no one. will contend that the cost of living has returned to the level of pre-war days. Public servants, the coal and metalliferous miners,, primary producers on the land, and wage-earners employed in industries that cannot be protected, will have- to pay this inciieased duty. That being so, I, like **Senator Lynch,** raise my feeble voice in protest. The Government have brought down what they describe as a scientific Tariff, but **Senator Duncan** thinks he can improve upon it by securing increased duties in respect of this sub-item. He hopes, by protecting a very small section of the community, to make the position better for the rest of the people. According to the figures produced by the Minister **(Senator Russell)** the iron industry in New South Wales is practically producing all the iron required in the Commonwealth. That being so, it cannot be said that these duties are designed to induce others to enter into the industry. There is no room for any one to set up in the industry in competition with those already engaged in it. The Broken Hill Proprietary Company have from £2,000,000 to £4,000,000 invested in the industry, and Messrs. Hoskins Brothers Limited may also have a capital of £1,000,000 or £2,000,000 invested in it, so that these increased duties are designed, not to induce others to come into competition with those two companies, but really to enable those companies to charge an increased price for their products. **Senator Lynch** has produced balance-sheets showing the enormous profits which have been made year after year by the Broken Hill Proprietary Company's steel works.' That a new industry should pay well from its very inception is quite an extraordinary experience. The profits made by the Broken Hill Proprietary Company's steel works are altogether beyond what the promoters of the industry imagined they would be. Free Trade England will be our chief competitor in the iron trade. For over seventy-five years England has been easily first, and is still first, in the manufacturing industries of the world. She has achieved that success without taxing the rest of the community, despite the fact that she has to obtain iron ore from Spain and elsewhere, and that the price of coal there is higher than it is in Australia. It is said that the increased price of coal in the Old Country is due to the reduced production of the coal miners. The real explanation may be that the coal mines there have been worked, in some cases, for centuries, so that the coal is obtained, perhaps, at greater depths than here, and that the machinery used is not so uptodate as that employed in coal mining in Amenca and Australia. The fact that the tonnage of coal produced per coal miner in Australia is double that produced in Great Britain is, no doubt, due to our coal seams being wider, as well as to the energy of our workmen and to the up-to-date machinery employed by us. {: .speaker-KOS} ##### Senator Henderson: -- The face in most cases here is four times the size of the face in the average coal mine in the Old Country. {: .speaker-KKZ} ##### Senator GARDINER: -- I acknowledgedthat in my reference to the larger seams. With all these advantages, added to the fact that there is no room for others to enter into the industry here, since those already engaged in it are producing all that we require, why should we go out of our way to increase the profits of the two companies ? This industry was established by them, before they had anything like the protection for which **Senator Duncan** asks. Honorable senators may inquire what is going to happen when we get back to normal times - when prices fall, and Belgian iron is obtainable here at £7 or £8 per ton? When that time comes, Protective duties will be of no avail to the local industry. If the iron-masters in other parts of the world can develop more intelligent methods of production - and, as I said last night, the chief factor in the economical production of iron is the use of up-to-date plant and machinery - a Protective Tariff will not help the industry in Australia. Rather than impose additional taxation in order to keep the industry going when it cannot legitimately compete in the open market, it would be better for us to install in these works the very latest machinery. I do not think those engaged in the industry are unable to do that for themselves, but it would be cheaper for the Government to put in such plants than, for the rest of the community to be called upon to pay additional taxation to keep the industry going. The larger the profits made in some of these industries, the greater is the demand for protection. If it is beyond the capacity of those engaged in the industry at present - and I do not think it is - to install in their works the latest and most scientific machinery, let the Commonwealth do that for them. That would be described as Government interference, and some honorable senators think that Government interference in production means disaster. {: .speaker-KBJ} ##### Senator Wilson: -- Hear, hear! {: .speaker-KKZ} ##### Senator GARDINER: -- I am glad to hear **Senator Wilson's** approval of that statement, because I propose to give just one illustration of the result of Government interference in an industry that had hitherto been carried on by private enterprise. I refer my honorable friend to the Commonwealth Clothing Factory, which is close at hand, and may be easily visited by honorable senators. Since 1911, when the Commonwealth Government established the Clothing Factory, £91,000 has been expended in the concern, and it has made a net profit of £139,000 over working expenses. {: .speaker-KBJ} ##### Senator Wilson: -- Would that not be called profiteering? {: .speaker-KKZ} ##### Senator GARDINER: -- The honorable senator cannot say, " Hear, hear !" to the remark that Government-controlled concerns follow the go-slow policy and are badly managed, and then applaud the fact that at least one Government factory has earned a profit of £139,000 in ten years. It has paid back to the Treasury every penny spent upon it, and has a credit balance of £52,000. {: .speaker-KBJ} ##### Senator Wilson: -- What price was charged to the other Departments during the war? {: .speaker-KKZ} ##### Senator GARDINER: -- I can tell the honorable senator with a great deal of pleasure. When the war had been raging for two years, the Government were able to reduce the cost of each overcoat worn by our soldiers, in the case of mounted troops, from £2 0s. 7d. to £.1 13s., and, in the case of infantry, from £1 12s. to £1 10s., and these reductions were only made possible by reason of the fact that we -owned this Factory. Further than that, every garment made by private enterprise for our soldiers was first made in the Clothing Factory in order that we might ascertain what it would reasonably cost to make it. {: .speaker-K18} ##### The CHAIRMAN (Senator Bakhap: -- The honorable senator must not enter into a discussion of the Commonwealth Clothing Factory on this sub-item. {: .speaker-KKZ} ##### Senator GARDINER: -- I am arguing that it is much better to use the people's money for the development of an industry by putting it directly into that industry, and I am using this Factory as an illustration of the huge success that has followed the adoption of the method I propose. If this Factory could make the profit I have mentioned in ten years, what could be done by Government enter prise in the manufacture of iron? The profit ought to be greater, because the return would come more from the use of machinery than from the employment of labour. My illustration may be long drawn out, but I contend that it is perfectly in order. At any rate, it serves to uphold my point, that before I would apply one shilling of the public money to any industry I would see that when the profit-making period arrived the public would get a return. On the other hand, when private enterprise gets into difficulties and cannot be carried on without assistance, the hat is taken around, and the people of the community at large are even compelled to put their money into it, but when the profit-making period comes the dividends earned are not taken around and distributed to the people, but go to the individuals who control the industry. {: .speaker-KBJ} ##### Senator Wilson: -- Taxation takes all the profits now. {: .speaker-KKZ} ##### Senator GARDINER: -- Yes ; and this Tariff means more taxation. {: #debate-4-s19 .speaker-10000} ##### The CHAIRMAN: -- I must call the honorable senator's attention to the fact that the time allowed to him under the standing order has expired. {: .speaker-KKZ} ##### Senator GARDINER: -- I very much regret that the standing order prevents one from concluding his argument. {: .speaker-KRZ} ##### Senator Lynch: -- At what stage will I be in order in moving the request of which I have given notice? {: .speaker-10000} ##### The CHAIRMAN: -- The procedure followed is. to take motions for requests in connexion with the general Tariff first. **Senator Duncan's** motion is to request the House of Representatives to increase the general Tariff to 120s. in lieu of 80s., and if the Senate agrees to that motion it will not be possible for **Senator Lynch** to move that the House of Representatives be requested to make the duty at a lower rate, because the duty will have already been fixed by a decision of. the Committee at 120s. On the other hand, if **Senator Duncan's** amendment is negatived the honorable senator can submit his request. {: .speaker-KRZ} ##### Senator Lynch: -- Under that arrangement the only choice before the Committee is between **Senator Duncan's** request for an increase and the Government's proposal, as set out in the Tariff. {: .speaker-10000} ##### The CHAIRMAN: -- If **Senator Duncan's** motion is negatived, **Senator Lynch** will be in order in submitting a request to reduce the duty. {: #debate-4-s20 .speaker-KKZ} ##### Senator GARDINER:
New South Wales -- I am obliged 'to **Senator Lynch** for affording me the opportunity tocontinue my remarks. {: .speaker-10000} ##### The CHAIRMAN: **- Senator Lynch** merely rose to aSk for an explanation. He did' not speak' to 'the sub-item. **Senator Gardiner** is therefore not in order in speaking again atthisstage. {: .speaker-KRZ} ##### Senator Lynch: -- I rose, not only to ask 'a 'question, but 'also to ascertain wha't my position will be if the procedureoutlined by the Chairman is adhered to. . {: .speaker-10000} ##### The CHAIRMAN: -- The 'honorable senator did not intima'te 'that he intended to speak to 'the sub-item, but if he intends todo so he may proceed. {: .speaker-KRZ} ##### Senator Lynch: -- As **Senator Duncan's** proposal is to increase the duty, the only alternative before . the Committee is the maintenance of 'the duty at the present level, as proposed by the Government. Where, then, does my proposition come in'? {: .speaker-10000} ##### The CHAIRMAN: -- If **Senator Dun-** can's motion is negatived, any motion to request 'the House of Representatives to reduce the duty will 'be in order. On the other hand, if **Senator Duncan's** motion : is agreed to the Committee will have fixed the duty 'at 120s. {: .speaker-KRZ} ##### Senator Lynch: -- If **Senator Duncan's** motion is carried there will be no opportunity of discussing . or voting upon any suggestion. The only alternatives before the Committee at the present moment are therefore **Senator Duncan's** proposal ror the Government's. {: .speaker-KUL} ##### Senator E D MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917 -- No, we . can give you the opportunity of moving for the . reduction you seek. {: .speaker-10000} ##### The CHAIRMAN: -- The procedure is well 'established. The honorable senator must -not think that he is to be-shut>out from submitting his request. If the <maijor'ity of the Committee decide . against the-duty-of 120s., as proposed by **Senator Duncan,** any motion to reduce the -duty will be, in order. - {: .speaker-KRZ} ##### Senator Lynch: -- The position . is unique. **Senator -Duncan** stands at one extreme,andpropose to take my stand at "the other. YetIcannotsee howmy proposal can be voted on as intelligently as it should be. {: #debate-4-s21 .speaker-KKZ} ##### Senator GARDINER:
New South Wales -- **Senator Lynch** having intervened, I now claim my right to discuss this question. It was never dreamt that the standing order was intended to close discussion. -The 'Committee should be the judge of how long discussion should proceed on any item. In any case, I cannot . be accused of having wearied honorable . senators to-day. However, apar.t from sympathy, I claim ithat I am entitled to speak, . and that there should be no curtailment of -an honorable senator's rights by -too strict an interpretation of the standing order. {: .speaker-10000} ##### The CHAIRMAN: -- Is the honor able senator 'raisinga point of order ? {: .speaker-KKZ} ##### Senator Gardiner: -- You, sir, ruled me out of order previously because **Senator Lynch** had not spoken to : l5he , subitem. {: .speaker-10000} ##### The CHAIRMAN: -- There is no doubt as to what I 'ruled. **'Senator Lynch** was seeking 'an explanation from the Chair in regard to a motion which he said he intended to move, and I was endeavouring to make the position clear to . him. He was not speaking to the -sub-item. {: .speaker-KKZ} ##### Senator Gardiner: -- *I* propose to address myself to the sub-item. {: .speaker-10000} ##### The CHAIRMAN: -- No honorable senator having intervened in the discussion on the sub-item, it would have been a contravention of the standing order if **Senator Gardiner** had been permitted to follow on the remarks he was making when he was previously on his feet. SenatorGardiner. - I presumeI am permitted to do so now. {: .speaker-10000} ##### The CHAIRMAN: -Is the 'honorable senator challenging 'my 'ruling'? {: .speaker-KKZ} ##### Senator Gardiner: -- I 'do not wish 'to challenge your ruling. Now ' that **Senator** Lynch -has concluded 'h'is 'remarks, I would prefer 'to ; be allowed 'to 'speak in accordance with the standing order. {: .speaker-10000} ##### The CHAIRMAN: -- **Senator Lynch** did -not . address '.himself '.to -the isub-item. The . honorable senator ds . not permitted to speak . a -second time. at this stage. SenatorGardiner. - I 'claim that . **Senator Lynchs** statement, that . **Senator Duncan** -was at -one extreme and . he was at *-the* other, and that . he -would rnot have a' -fair- opportunity -pf . hawing' his proposal discussed, wasa discussion -of the'isubitem.' In. any . case,' I do , not . wish ..this standing order, which interferes, so much with honorable senators, to be narrowed down any further,, and if the Chairmanrules me out of order I shall take exception to his ruling in the ordinary way.. The standing order provides - 407a. No senator shall speak for more than one hour in any debate in the Senate, except, that in the debate on the Address-in-Reply, or on the first reading of a. Bill which the Senate may not amend, or in moving the second reading of a Bill, he shall be at liberty to. speak for one hour and a half. Any senator may move that the limit of one hour or of one hour and a half may be extended for thirty minutes; such motion shall forthwith be put without debate. In Committee no senator shall speak, for more than a quarter of an hour at any one time on any one question. I take exception to the concluding words. The standing order is quite bad enough as it is worded, without having it limited. I claim that **Senator Lynch,** whether merely by asking questions or not, addressed himself to the question. When an honorable senator is called by the Chair, he can fairly be taken as addressing himself to the question, if he speaks to the question at all. I submit the following dissent from the Chairman's ruling : - >That **Senator Lynch,** having addressed himself to the item by asking a question, I rose to speak. The Chairman ruled that I could not do so, as **Senator Lynch** had not addressed himself to the question. I dissent from: the Chairman's ruling. {: .speaker-10000} ##### The CHAIRMAN: -- The position is that, in connexion with standing order 270, and standing order 407a, **Senator Gardiner** has objected to my ruling in the terms he has just read. Honorable senators will have noted the reasons for my taking the action I did; and the position must now be cleared up by the President. *In the Senate:* {: .speaker-K18} ##### The CHAIRMAN (Senator Bakhap: -- I have to report that during discussion in Committee on sub-itemC of item 136, **Senator Gardiner,** having resumed his seat after making some remarks, **Senator Lynch** rose and addressed himself, so faras I could comprehend hismotive, to the Chair, requiring an explanation of his position in regard tosome intended request of his which was contingent on the fate of a request moved by **Senator Duncan.** The request moved by **Senator Duncan** was under discussion by the Committee when **Senator Gardiner** had addressed himself to the Chair. That-hon orable: senator had occupied his fifteen minutes: under the standing order, and -I did my best to enlighten **Senator Lynch** in regard to the particular position in which he was respecting his intended request. **Senator Gardiner,** after **Senator Lynch** had resumed hisseat, arose and wished to address himself once more to. the Committee regarding the item.I ruled that that would be a breach of the standing order which enjoins on the Chairman the duty of observing that no honorable senator in Committee shall speak more than fifteen minutes at anyone time on any one question. **Senator Gardiner** has taken exception to that ruling in the following terms: - >That **Senator Lynch,** having addressed himself to the item by asking a question, I rose to. speak. The Chairman ruled that I could not do so, as **Senator Lynch** had not addressed himself to tho question. I dissent from the Chairman's ruling. **Senator Gardiner** has put the matter fairly enough except that he says, that **Senator Lynch** rose to address himself to the item. Such was not my conception of **Senator Lynch's** action. I understood **Senator Lynch** to rise to ask an explanation from the Chair as to his position respecting the request he intended to move later on. That being so, I respectfully submit, to you, **Mr. President,** that if I had permitted **Senator Gardiner** to speak twice just because- **Senator Lynch** had risen to address the Chair in explanation, I would be - permitting a. practical overriding of the standing order, and that to permit such a contravention of the spirit of the standing order by a technicality is. not within my competency and power. {: .speaker-KKZ} ##### Senator Gardiner: -- I am asking your ruling; **Mr. President,** in accordance with my usual practice not to permit any irregularity to pass unchallenged. **Senator Lynch,** while asking questions as to hisposition, also stated that the request of **Senator Duncan** and his own intended proposal represented the extremesof this question. **Senator Lynch** having made that statement, he, to my mind, had addressed himself to the Committee in such a way as to entitle me to challenge the ruling of the Chairman. I call your attention, **Mr President,** to the first part of' the standing order which deals' with proceedings in the House,' and permits a; senator to speak for one hour, a period which may be extended by thirty minutes on motion to be put forthwith. The second portion of the standing order deals with proceedings in Committee, and provides that a senator shall not speak more than a quarter of an hour at one time on any one question. I did not speak for more than a quarter of an hour, at the expiration of which I was properly called upon to resume my seat. I did not rise to resume that quarter of an hour's speaking, but to commence another one, and I hold that it will be an interference with debate in Committee if the ruling of the Chairman is upheld. {: .speaker-KRZ} ##### Senator Lynch: -- In my question to the Chair and the remarks thereon, I was referring especially to the fate of my proposed request. Previously I had addressed myself to the proposition on its merits, but when I spoke at the time referred to by the **Chairman (Senator Bakhap),** I was referring particularly to my proposed request, which was of equal, if not more, importance than the question previously discussed. Whether or not my reference to the fate of my request is to be taken into account and described as speaking to the question, is for yourself, **Mr. President,** to decide, but, so far as I am concerned, the information I was trying to elicit was quite as important as were my previous efforts in discussing the merits of the proposition. {: .speaker-K09} ##### Senator Payne: -- It appears to me that the new standing order was framed with a specific object. In the ordinary business of the House, a certain length of time is allowed to a senator to address himself to the question, and it will be observed that that time is much longer than that allowed in Committee. Evidently the framers of the standing order recognised that it would often occur that an honorable senator in Committee would not be able to express himself fully in a quarter of an hour, and provided that he might speak more than once - no limit being placed on the number of times a senator may speak. The object appears to me to have been to compel honorable senators to confine their remarks to a quarter of an hour, so that every senator might have opportunity to take part in the discussion. When an other senator had thus taken part in the discussion, the senator who had been unable to complete his speech within a quarter of an hour was intended to be allowed to continue. If **Senator Gardiner's** contention is admitted, to what position are we brought ? If **Senator Gardiner** were speaking in Committee, and his quarter of an hour had expired, and I rose simply to express a desire that the discussion might be adjourned, not beingprepared to continue it, and my request was refused, would that give **Senator Gardiner** the right to continue for another quarter of an hour? {: .speaker-KKZ} ##### Senator Gardiner: -- That is my claim, because you would have been called on by the Chairman. {: .speaker-K09} ##### Senator Payne: -- It seems to me that such a claim is opposed to common sense. I take it that something must intervene between the time when one honorable senator's time has expired - something in the nature of the continuance of the debate - before that -senator can be permitted to occupy the floor again. This seems to me to be the intention of the standing order. I have no desire to curtail any of the privileges of honorable senators, but at the same time we must regard the Standing Orders from a commonsense point of view, and endeavour to ascertain the intention of those who framed them. In my opinion, **Senator Gardiner's** contention ought not to be sustained. {: .speaker-KUL} ##### Senator E D MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917 -- I almost feel I ought to apologize to you, **Mr. President,** and to the Senate, for taking part in this discussion. It seems to me that the discussion is for the purpose of assisting you to arrive at a decision, and I am afraid 1 am not able to render much assistance. T,o me, the point is not so simple as, apparently, it seems to those who have addressed themselves to it. Let me remind honorable senators that this is a standing order of which we have not had much experience, and that if, in the light of what has taken place here to-day, we were called upon to draft another with the same object, we should probably employ different verbiage. **Senator Lynch** himself admits, that when he addressed the Chair he did so not on the item itself, but on a matter of procedure. What that matter was is immaterial to the argument; the honorable senator did not speak to the item, and therefore, when **Senator Gardiner** rose, he was resuming, so far as the discussion on the item is concerned, a continuous address. If **Senator Gardiner's** view were to be maintained, that any one speaking in between, however briefly, restores his right to speak again, it would be possible to destroy the continuity of an honorable senator's remarks by a mere interjection, or by one of those friendly or unfriendly altercations which occasionally take place even in this well-ordered Chamber. On the other hand, it is well known that no one may do indirectly that which he has not the right to do directly. Here we have direct prohibition against honorable senators speaking more than a quarter of an hour at any one time on any one question; and I submit that if **Senator Gardiner's** claim were upheld, it would enable a senator to do indirectly that which is prohibited by the standing order. The standing order is for the purpose, not merely, as **Senator Payne** suggests, of giving other honorable senators an opportunity of speaking, but of placing a restraint on unlimited debate. That purpose could be defeated by a mere interjection, or series of interjections. {: .speaker-KKZ} ##### Senator Gardiner: -- But I claim that, as **Senator Lynch** was called by the Chairman, he was addressing himself to the question. {: .speaker-KUL} ##### Senator E D MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917 -- The Chairman asserts, and **Senator Lynch** himself admits, that he was not addressing himself to' the question; with the exception of **Senator Gardiner,** that is not disputed by any one. I stress the point that this seems to me to be an indirect attempt to do what the standing order prohibits; and on that ground I think the balance of merit is with the Chairman's contention. {: #debate-4-s22 .speaker-KLS} ##### The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon T Givens:
QUEENSLAND -- The Minister for Repatriation is right in saying that this is the first time that the point on which I am asked to rule has arisen. In my opinion, the Standing Orders are clear regarding it. They say that in Committee no senator shall speak for more than a quarter of an hour at any one time on any one question, the object being to prevent the making of long speeches on questions in detail. In Committee it is to matters of detail that discussion is directed, and this necessitates the making of frequent rather than of long speeches. The Chairman of Committees says - and it has not been contradicted - that on this occasion **Senator Lynch** addressed him, not on the question before the Chair, but on a matter of procedure - that is, that he simply asked for information. It is obvious that, were such an intervention taken to constitute a break of the discussion sufficient to enable a previous speaker to resume, the Standing Orders could be defeated by an arrangement with senators that they should occasionally intervene with questions of procedure. This would allow a speech to be continued for an hour, or even longer. The rule, if it is to have any force, must be respected in the spirit as well as in the; letter, and I hold strongly that it is the Chairman who must be the judge of whether any interruption was sufficient to permit of a senator again having the right to speak. If a casual remark or two in the nature of an interjection were regarded as a sufficient break, the object of the standing order would be defeated. I am certain that honorable senators have sufficient confidence in the Chairman to feel sure that he will give fair, play and due consideration to every member of the Committee. {: .speaker-KBJ} ##### Senator Wilson: -- During **Senator Crawford's** speech last week there were several short breaks. {: #debate-4-s23 .speaker-10000} ##### The PRESIDENT: -- How often this practice may have been followed, it does not therefore become the right one, and the interjection confirms me in the view that it is at the Chairman's discretion to say whether an intervention is sufficient to permit of a senator who has previously spoken being entitled to the right to speak again. I uphold the ruling of the Chairman. *In Committee:* Request negatived. Request (by **Senator Lynch)** proposed - >That the House of Representatives be requested to make the duty, sub-item (c), British, per ton, 34s. {: #debate-4-s24 .speaker-KKZ} ##### Senator GARDINER:
New South Wales -- I thought that **Senator. Lynch** would have given reasons for this request. In accordance with my usual practice, I wish to move to make trade with Great Britain free. {: #debate-4-s25 .speaker-K18} ##### The CHAIRMAN (Senator Bakhap: -- If the honorable senator moves for such a request, his motion must be taken before that of **Senator Lynch.** {: .speaker-KKZ} ##### Senator GARDINER: -- To expedite the business of the Committee, I shall support **Senator Lynch's** request. We should trade freely with Great Britain in the iron industry, if in no. other. We have been informed that our own iron works make nearly all our requirements, and we might well go to Great Britain to make good any deficiency. In the Old Country the manufacture of iron has reached the height of perfection, and neither the wages, nor. the conditions there warrant us in. handicapping British manufacturers should they wish to trade with us. It has been, said that iron may be brought out as ballast. That would occur only now and again, but even when it did, British iron would not be in free competition with the local manufactures because it would be- handicapped, by the cost of transport from, the works to the ship and from the ship to the store. At the present time, Australian manufacturers are at an advantage of 25 per cent, in this market in comparison with their British rivals; because of the shipping charges, and the preferential duty is equivalent to about 33 per cent, *ad valorem,* so that our iron manufacturers have an advantage of something like 58 per cent., against their British rivals'. The Minister has told us that our workmen are superior to all. others in the world, and that being so> our industry cannot need such an advantage. I support the request, because ifr is better to have the British Tariff 34s. per ton than to have it 44s. per ton ;: but I think there should be absolutely Free Trade with Britain in this, as in other commodities. It is the links of trade that hold' the Empire together. A Tariff war. is one waged between different trading, sections of the community, and I have no desire for a Tariff war with Great: Britain. All our interests lie in maintaining our- connexion with that country. I do not know what the normal, price- of ' iron will be in the future, but if Belgium, as has' been said, can put iron on the market at about £T per ton, British iron would cost about the same price> and, therefore; even the lower duty proposed would be a heavy tax on British importations. Whilst there may be 10.000 persons employed in the iron industry here, there are possibly hundreds of thousands' who use manufactures- ! of iron. I have heard grievous and wellfounded complaints by persons who-' can not get in Australia the iron goods they require. Near where I live, at Waverley, there is a man in the iron business- who travels to buy iron wherever it is to- be obtained, but he cannot get sufficient in this country of the particular kind, he requires, and must therefore import. Ac* cording to- his statement, the local iron works prefer to turn out bigger classes of iron, which they can manufacture more profitably. We ought not to say to Great Britain, "We are an independent nation," thus' severing the link which binds us. The preference given to the Old Country in this instance is not very great.. It will be only 21s. if the proposed request be agreed to. The Tariff on iron imported from cheap-labour countries is- only 80s. per. ton. I know that present prices are abnormal,, and will drop, but the drop is not likely to be sufficient to seriously affect the price per ton at which iron can be produced in Great Britain. I' believe that our industries, now that they are established, would prosper under Free Trade, and as we have factories sufficiently large, to produce nearly the whole of our requirements, we should not increase the price of these iron goods by 44s. per ton. Nothing will' unite the peoples of the Empire so firmly as trading for mutual benefit. I am not prepared to sacrifice the links, of Empire to please those who think that industries are- to be -built' up only with the protection of high Tariffs. I have not seen a successful industry so built up. The iron industry, in my opinion, does not require the protection of a high Tariff. I regret that. **Senator Lynch** did not move to make trade . with Great Britain free. {: #debate-4-s26 .speaker-KRZ} ##### Senator LYNCH:
Western Australia .: - What. I said when speaking on **Senator Duncan's** amendment applies, to the present- proposal; but there is one matter that needs- to be- emphasized, and that is that. before moving to increase a duty in this; item,, it will be necessary to pave the way to? further action-: The Inter-State Commission reported - >The item covers a great variety ofl sizes; shapes, and sections, used in iron and. steel structural work, and,, with, the exception of galvanized and corrugated sheets, and steel rails, is the principal item of general and widespread demand, connected- with any progress that may be expected in ' iron and' steel manufacture in. Australia. > >I wouldlikethat paragraphto sink into the minds of honorable senators in order that they may understand how their future actions will square with their lack of action at the present moment. The rates of duty uponthese -commodities, which had previouslybeen free, andwhich are now about tobear heavy imposts, are ofspecial importance in thatthematerials themselvesenter into the manufacture of almost everyfinished articleofironware. At later stages I shall endeavour - if otherhonorable 'senatorsdo notsee their way clear to consistently doso - to reduce the duties upon those -finished articles'; but I would not be able to take such action with justice and Teason unless I were to move similarly 'in respect of 'the raw material grouped in the present subitem. The proposal ofthe Inter-State Commission was for a '30s. preferential rate , and 40s. general ; but in the schedule those rates have been -raised in the case of the general Tariff one hundredfold, and very nearly . as much with respect to the British : duty I do not know . that I can more strongly impress honorable senators. I have quoted the Tariffs of the Uinited States of America . and Canada. I urge that if honorable senators desire intelligently to remodel the schedule they must begin straightway upon rawmaterials. The Australian firms which supply . the commodities under review . are exactly . the . same firms which make the original raw material, namely, pig iron.; and, while . there . has been far too much protectiongiven in connexion "with subitems a and b, there is still the present opportunity to even matters down to a fair average. In view of the fact that the processes concerned in turning out the articles mentioned in sub-item c are conducted in the same factories andunder the same management as those- which produce the pig iron itself, I press my . request as already moved. The proposed preferential rate of 34s. per tonrepresents an, advance' of 4s. lUjpon the recommendation of theInterStateCommission, which examined the whole of the circumstances in1916. Honorable senators should beglad to note that there has actually been some export of these commodities. > >SenatorRUSSELL (Victoria -Vice- President of tha Executive Council) [4.5]. - The Government cannot support the request..There is. animportant relationship between the matters covered by sub-items' a, b, and c. The rates of duty in respect of the two first-mentioned have been fixed on the basis of those imposed on pig iron, which is the raw' material for the commodities now under consideration. If **Senator Lynch'srequest** were accepted, and the schedule amended accordingly, the rates would be thrown out of proportion. {: .speaker-KN7} ##### Senator GUTHRIE:
VICTORIA · NAT; UAP from 1931 -- Will these arguments hold good in respect of wire and wire netting? {: #debate-4-s27 .speaker-K3E} ##### Senator RUSSELL:
NAT -No, forthe reason thatthose . wires are finished articles. Bars and rods are (partially manufactured.; but, to an extent, they prosdde the raw . material for other industries. When this sub-item has been dealt with, the remaining commodities covered by item 136 may be considered from a different angle. That is to say, each, being a completed article or process in itself, may be dealtwith - in respect of the imposition of duty - upon . its own merits. {: #debate-4-s28 .speaker-JXZ} ##### Senator DUNCAN:
New South Wales -- **Senator Lynch** appears to be labouring under a misapprehension.He stated that the firms engaged in rolling bars and rods from ingots and blooms are the same firms which produce the pig iron. That is not the case. I have been interviewed by several Melbourne manufacturers whose foundries are . engaged in rolling the more or less raw material obtained from Newcastle or 'Lithgow. There are other such activities in different parts of. the Commonwealth. **Senator Lynch** now proposes to interfere, not so much with the Broken Hill Proprietary 'Company's . works and those of Hoskins Limited, 'but with a number of smaller enterprises -whose proprietors 'draw from those works to carry onvery necessary work, andwho, inso doing, are employing a good deal of labour. Question - That the request **(Senator Lynch's)** be agreed to - put. TheCommitteedivided. Ayes . . . . 6 Noes . . . . . . 17 Majority ... 11
Western Australia -- Sub-item d relates to plate and sheet iron, and in this connexion the proposal of the Government is to enormously increase the duties over those recommended by the Inter-State Commission in 1916. {: .speaker-K3E} ##### Senator Russell: -- These are deferred duties, and will not come into operation until 1922. In the meantime, the manufacturers are receiving a bonus. {: .speaker-KRZ} ##### Senator LYNCH: -- Is it not the intention to impose the duties in addition to the bonus? {: .speaker-K3E} ##### Senator Russell: -- No ; when the duties are imposed, the bonus will be discontinued. {: .speaker-KRZ} ##### Senator LYNCH: -- Plate and sheet iron is required in the manufacture of all kinds of articles, including galvanized iron, and at this juncture we have to seriously consider the position in which subsidiary industries will be placed if unnecessarily high duties are imposed upon this material. The operations of manufacturers will be seriously interfered with, if not altogether retarded, if we impose high duties, because the cost of the raw material which they have to work up will be unduly high. Unless we are very careful, we will be making a false step in imposing high duties on this material. {: .speaker-K1J} ##### Senator PRATTEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT -- There is only a difference of 7s. {: .speaker-KRZ} ##### Senator LYNCH: -- There is always the same excuse - that it is only a little one; but these so-called small sums amount, in the aggregate, to a good deal, and prevent manufacturers producing articles at a reasonable price. As values recede, these fixed duties will become higher than at present, and, although the duty after 1st January, 1922, is set down at 65s. per ton, when values recede the Protective duty will be much higher. This particular proposal should receive very careful consideration, because our decision as to the duty to be imposed on this material will largely affect the question of the duty upon galvanized iron, which is to be considered later. The proposal of the InterState Commission was a British preferential duty of 40s., with a special proviso that the duties should not operate until the manufacturers were 'in a position to guarantee to supply a large proportion of our requirements. {: .speaker-JXZ} ##### Senator Duncan: -- The honorable senator has a strong belief in the recommendar tions of the Inter-State Commission. {: .speaker-KRZ} ##### Senator LYNCH: -- I am adhering to the recommendations of that body in this instance, because they were made when the war was in progress, and when the members of that Commission had an opportunity of considering the disadvantages confronting us in troublous times. The duties we are asked to impose would considerably enhance the cost of raw materials required by subsidiary industries, and are based on visionary arguments, which have not been supported by facts. I am positive that they are not based upon the applications which have been made by men engaged in the industry, because we have had the evidence of at least one man who said that he did not require protection by the imposition of duties. I propose to move - >That the House of Representatives be requested to make the duty, sub-item D, British, per ton, 55s. {: #debate-4-s30 .speaker-JXP} ##### Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
Western Australia -- I desire to submit a request to amend the sub-item by leaving out " 1922 " and inserting in lieu thereof "1924"; but before doing so I desire your direction, **Mr. Chairman,** as to the stage at which such a request should be submitted. {: #debate-4-s31 .speaker-K18} ##### The CHAIRMAN (Senator Bakhap: -- A request relating to the language employed in the sub-item has precedence, and the honorable senator will, therefore, be in order in moving in the direction indicated. {: .speaker-JXP} ##### Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN: -- I move - >That the House of Representatives be requested to amend paragraph (1) of sub-item {: type="a" start="d"} 0. by leaving out " 1922," and inserting in lieu thereof " 1924." I understand that- plates and sheets are not manufactured in any considerable quantity in Australia, and with a view to encouraging the manufacturers to further develop this branch of the industry, it is proposed to -impose the duties set out in the schedule after the 1st January, 1922. I also understand that until the proposed duties are imposed, a bonus is being paid to the manufacturers of this commodity, which -bonus will continue until the duty is imposed. When we desire to encourage new industries the system of paying a bonus is preferable to the imposition of high duties, and, consequently, I would like to see the bonus system continued for at least two years longer than the Government proposes. I shall deal with the merits of the proposed duty when **Senator Lynch's** request is considered; but in the meantime I trust the Government will be prepared to accept my request. {: #debate-4-s32 .speaker-K3E} ##### Senator RUSSELL:
VicePresident of the Executive Council · Victoria · NAT -- I am afraid **Senator DrakeBrockman** is labouring under a misapprehension in moving for an extension of two years. The time at which the proposed duties will come into operation ' depends upon when the manufacturers will be in a position to supply the Australian requirements. During the war period, when raw material of this type was particularly scarce, a representative of the firm of Lysaghts paid a visit to Australia to inquire into the conditions then prevailing. Prior to that time sheet iron had been selling at £15 and £16 per ton, and as large supplies were required for the erection of wheat sheds, and we could not obtain British iron, we had to purchase an inferior article from America at prices ranging from £55 to £60 per ton. When a representative of the British firm came to Australia, we gave him information concerning our requirements, and after fully considering the matter, and hearing representations from the Board of Trade, he submitted an estimate of the time required to produce plate and sheet iron. After further consultation and investigation, the firm expended £100,000 in estab lishing a plant in New South Wales, and commenced the manufacture of sheets for making galvanized and corrugated iron. When production commenced the Government granted a bonus based on shipping freights. When freights on black steel sheets were 50s. or under, we allowed a bonus of 30s. per ton, and when the freight exceeded 50s., a bonus of £1 10s. per ton v was paid, less the amount by which the freight exceeded 50s. per ton. When the freight on galvanized sheets was £2 10s. or under, we paid a bonus of £2 per ton, and when the freight exceeded 50s. per ton, a bonus of £2 per ton, less the amount by which the freight exceeded £2 10s. per ton. {: .speaker-K1J} ##### Senator PRATTEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT -- As the freights came down the bonus was increased? {: .speaker-K3E} ##### Senator RUSSELL: -- Yes. Protection is based on the ruling freights. The firm is now producing a fair quantity of iron, and is, I believe, able to meet our ordinary requirements. When the proposed duties are imposed, the payment of bonuses will cease. I am informed that since the 1st May last the company has been in a position to supply the whole of our requirements of galvanized and corrugated iron. **Senator Drake-Brockman** has submitted a request to extend the period from 1922 to 1924, but the whole question is governed by the rapidity with which the firms' works can be completed. They failed to do what was promised within the period first suggested, but we saw that they were honestly endeavouring to carry out their undertaking. We have declined to put the duty into operation until they are in a position to meet Australian requirements. {: .speaker-KRZ} ##### Senator Lynch: -- The Minister is referring to the manufacturers of black sheets ? {: .speaker-K3E} ##### Senator RUSSELL: -- Yes. {: .speaker-KRZ} ##### Senator Lynch: -- The honorable senator has been referring to galvanized iron, which is not covered by the item. {: .speaker-K3E} ##### Senator RUSSELL: -- That is so; but the same firm has been making galvanized iron. It is proposed that the duties set out in the schedule shall come into operation on the 1st January, 1922. If the firm in question is not in a position to supply the reasonable requirements of Australia for this material, the duty will be further deferred. {: .speaker-JXP} ##### Senator Drake-Brockman: -- Who will defer it? {: .speaker-K3E} ##### Senator RUSSELL: -- The Minister for Trade and Customs. . {: .speaker-JXP} ##### Senator Drake-Brockman: -- He cannot defer it. {: .speaker-K3E} ##### Senator RUSSELL: -- Yes. "He "has the power to decide when the duty shall be brought into operation. {: .speaker-JXP} ##### Senator Drake-Brockman: -- Where is he .given that power.? {: .speaker-K3E} ##### Senator RUSSELL: -- The honorable senator will find that it is contained in clause 11 of the 'Customs Tariff Bill which w.e are now considering. That clause provides that - > If 'the Tariff Board certifies to the .Minister that any goods .in the schedule upon which a' deferred duty 'is imposed 'will 'not be 'made or produced in Australia in .reasonable quantities and of (satisfactory qualify, .on .or immediately after the date specified :in the schedule for the collection of the duty, the Minister .may, by notice published in ihe *'^Gazette, <* defer the duty from time to time until the date ' specified -by the Tariff Board as being the -.date by which, in its opinion, .the goods will be .made or produced in Australia, in reasonable quantities and of satisfactory quality. {: .speaker-KPE} ##### Senator Keating: -- Then it will depend on the Tariff Board. Surely the proposal with respect to the Tariff Board will not be given effect, in view of the way in which the Tariff Board Bill has been mutilated by the Senate. {: .speaker-K3E} ##### Senator RUSSELL: -- I do not know that it was mutilated. {: .speaker-KPE} ##### Senator Keating: -- One could scarcely recognise the Tariff Board after the mutilation of the Bill by the Senate, as that' provided for under the Bill as received by the Senate. {: .speaker-K3E} ##### Senator RUSSELL: -- There was very little mutilation df the Tariff Board Bill by the Senate, although I admit that many attempts .to mutilate it were made. The measure still stands. {: .speaker-KPE} ##### Senator Keating: -- It is a totally different Bill from that which was received from another- place. {: .speaker-K3E} ##### Senator RUSSELL: -- I can assure honor.able senators that if the manufacturers are not ready to carry out the virtual contract which was .made with them, the operation of these duties will be suspended, if .not by .the intervention of the Tariff Board as provided for in this 'Bill, then "by some other means. If the "Tariff Board is not in a position to deal with the matter, the 'Government will accept the responsibility of deferring the operation of these duties if, in >order to do so, it may be necessary to submit the matter to Parliament. The firm to which I have referred is extending its buildings, and putting in a plant costing many thousands of pounds, and the Government will take no action which might lead to the destruction of an industry the establishment of which in Australia has been due to the encouragement they held out. We are glad to have this important industry established in Australia. If it had been established long before it was, we should have saved an immense amount of money which .had to be spent upon imported galvanized .iron during the war period. Under the Government proposal these materials were to be free from Great Britain and dutiable in the intermediate and general columns respectively at 5 and .10 per cent. 'On and after the 1st January, 1922, subject to the manufacturers complying with the condition to which J have referred, of ability to supply reasonable quantities, plates and sheets up to and including l-16th inch in thickness will be dutiable at - British, 65s. per ton; intermediate, '82s. 6d. per ton; and general, 100s. per ton. As the Tariff was first introduced, plates -and sheets exceeding l-16th inch in thickness were free from Great Britain, and dutiable in the intermediate and general columns at 5 "per cent, -and 10 per -cent, respectively; and on 'and after the 1st January, 1922, it is proposed that they shall be dutiable 'at, -per ton, British, 4'8s. ; intermediate, .68s. ; and general, 85s. 'We promised these people that if they established their industries here they would receive a bonus .during the transition period, and when they were in a position to supply these goods in reasonable quantities we would give them the protection of Tariff duties. Some honorable senators may suggest that that has the appearance pf .a prearranged -affair, but we were .compelled to make such arrangements during the war period in order to make provision for necessary supplies. I would not be prepared to support such arrangements in 'normal times, but we had. to do "many "things during the war period that -we' would not do under normal conditions. 'We. committed ourselves to a promise of "their -protection -if these people, established their industry here; Australia has greatly benefited by the introduction of the millions, of. capital that has followed upon the inducements offered to important British firms, to establish industries here. The firm to which I have referred has rendered very important service to Australia, and, whilst the Government will see that they do not secure the benefit of a duty until they are entitled to it under the conditions which have been agreed upon, we will keep our promise to these people by , a direct appeal to Parliament if we cannot do so under' this. Bill. On the 1st May, 192.0, British steel sheets were quoted for export at from £46 to £47 15s. per ton. {: .speaker-K18} ##### The CHAIRMAN (Senator Bakhap: -- The honorable senator's' time has expired. {: #debate-4-s33 .speaker-KPE} ##### Senator KEATING:
Tasmania .. - I have to confess that I do not entirely appreciate the justification^ f or a deferred duty. At one stage of the Minister's remarks I thought I was beginning to learn something about its justification, but before he concluded that belief was dispelled. The honorable senator has pointed out that the date of operation, of the deferred duty depends upon the readiness of the local manufacturers to reasonably supply Australian requirements for these goods. {: .speaker-K3E} ##### Senator Russell: -- That is so. {: .speaker-KPE} ##### Senator KEATING: -- But to make such an announcement in such a form in this schedule is to invite importers to stock up in the meantime, and then, when the local, manufacturer- is ready to take advantage of the duty - and supply Australian requirements,- he will find that the Australian requirements- for his goods are nil. They will have been already provided for in anticipation of the operation of the duty. Here we are giving notice to importers that after the 1st of January next if they wish to import goods classified under this sub-item they will have to pay duty upon them at the rates specified in the .schedule. {: .speaker-K3E} ##### Senator Russell: -- We admit that. {: .speaker-KPE} ##### Senator KEATING: -- That- is a plain intimation to them to stock up in- the meantime, perhaps for years to .come, and then', when the local manufacturers, who have, been induced to lay out all the money, which has been- referred to. in the establishment of this industry, are in the position to supply. Australian requirements, they will find no market for their goods. For this reason I cannot support the request made by **Senator DrakeBrockman** that the House of Representatives should be requested to defer the operation of the- duty for another' two years. If I understood the Minister aright, he informed us that the firm to which he has referred' was. able to supply Australian requirements in. May last. {: .speaker-K3E} ##### Senator Russell: -- .That was for galvanized iron. {: .speaker-KPE} ##### Senator KEATING: -- Is the firm, protected in the meantime in their production of galvanized iron? {: .speaker-K3E} ##### Senator Russell: -- No; it is under a deferred duty. {: .speaker-KPE} ##### Senator KEATING: -- Although the firm, was prepared to supply the article in reasonable quantities as far back as May last? That is an absurd anomaly in this schedule. If this were a scientific Protectionist Tariff, this firm should be enjoying the advantage of its protection now in the manufacture of galvanized iron. {: .speaker-K3E} ##### Senator Russell: -- I was going to deal with that matter, but my time had expired. {: .speaker-KPE} ##### Senator KEATING: -- I shall not speak at anything like the length at which the Minister did, and I think that he should have drawn attention to these matters, and should have given some reason, for deferring the duty on galvanized, iron for the last several months, to say nothing of a possible further two years and six. months. If a proposal were made to immediately impose duties on galvanized iron, I should support it, because the Minister has informed us that local manufacturers of the article have been in a position to supply .reasonable requirements of it since May last. For the reasons I have given, I do not on principle support deferred duties. {: .speaker-KRZ} ##### Senator Lynch: -- -Does the . honorable senator not think that the splendid uncertainty of action by the Government in imposing these duties affords a morsel of comfort to the consumers? {: .speaker-KPE} ##### Senator KEATING: -- The splendid uncertainty referred to by **Senator Lynch** is added to by another, and that is the uncertainty of the1 coming into existence of- the authority upon whose recommendation the Minister is. to take his uncertain action. {: .speaker-K09} ##### Senator Payne: -- How is the date when the deferred duty is to come into operation arrived at! {: .speaker-KPE} ##### Senator KEATING: -- The Minister says that it is arrived at by a consideration of the period within which the local manufacturers will be in a. position to reasonably supply the requirements of the local market. They were in the position to do that in respect of galvanized iron as far back as May last, and that would have justified the imposition of these duties on galvanized iron since that date. The danger in connexion with deferred duties is the invitation they offer to the world outside to send in goods during the period before which they come into operation. For this reason I cannot see my way to support a proposal to defer the operation of these duties beyond the date indicated in the schedule, and so I am unable to support **Senator DrakeBrockman's** request to defer their operation to the later date. In my view, it is quite foreign to the principle of Protection to defer the operation of a duty for one day longer than can reasonably be avoided. {: #debate-4-s34 .speaker-K3E} ##### Senator RUSSELL:
VicePresident of the Executive Council · Victoria · NAT -- The firm to which I have referred has been making a genuine effort to carry out their contract, but their operations have been delayed because of industrial conditions in Great Britain over which they have had no control. It would not be equity to penalize this firm on that account. This is a suggestion which Lysaghts have made - >There is another suggestion of considerable importance I would like to make, and that is that the duties on black sheets and galvanized iron should come into operation immediately upon being passed by the House of Representatives, instead of as now proposed at 1st January, 1922. In the latter case, the Australian market will, before the end of the year, be swamped with imported black and galvanized sheets from England, the Continent, and America, as every importer in Australia will do his' utmost to have all the stock on hand possible before the duties come into operation. We anticipate by the end of the year tobe turning out black and galvanized sheets at Newcastle at the rate of 2,000 tons a month; but I am afraid that, unless the alteration suggested by me is made, we shall have the greatest difficulty in disposing of our output. Even to-day, when we are only turning out half of what we shall be doing in two or three months' time, we are finding considerable difficulty in making sales. This matter may be dealt with in another way under the Anti-Dumping Bill, which authorizes the prohibition of undue importation with the object of defeating the intention of Parliament. The Inter-State Commission recommended that the local manufacturers should be given protection when they could guarantee the supply of rolled plain steel sheets. Last year our importations in these lines totalled in value £1,743,590. This is material which the Australian manufacturers are in a position to produce. The galvanizing process itself is quite simple, but hitherto there has been difficulty in the production of the thinner sheets required for tin plate manufacture. Experiments are now being carried out at Newcastle in this direction. If successful, the industry will mean a great deal to this country. {: .speaker-K2C} ##### Senator Bolton: -- Do I understand the Minister to say that it is proposed to amend item 145 by striking out the provision relating to 1st January, 1922, for galvanized iron? {: .speaker-K3E} ##### Senator RUSSELL: -- No. We propose not' to make it operative until that date. We have been asked why it is necessary to fix a date at all for the operation of this deferred duty. Obviously it is necessary to do this in order to encourage those who had the experience and the capital to engage in the industry in Australia.. {: .speaker-K09} ##### Senator Payne: -- Was that the date agreed upon? {: .speaker-K3E} ##### Senator RUSSELL: -- No. It is twelve months later than the original date, but there has been no attempt at evasion of responsibility on the part of the manufacturers. Delay is due entirely to coal strikes, shipping strikes, and other industrial troubles in Great Britain, over which the Australian manufacturers had no control. They are now prepared to defer the date upon which the duty shall become operative until they are in a position to supply Australian requirements, and it is estimated that they will be ready by 1st January of next year. It will be necessary to. take action Under the AntiDumping Bill in order to protect the home market for Australian manufacturers, otherwise there will probably be heavy stocking up on the part of importers of black sheets and similar material, and our manufacturers will be unable to market their produce until all this surplus ma- terial shall have been 'disposed of. I think the power under the Anti-Dumping Bill will be adequate. The industry was established in 1915 at the invitation of the Prime Minister **(Mr. Hughes),** and after full consideration had been given to the proposal by the Board of Trade, which approved of a system of bonuses. I trust that the Committee will now support the action of the Government by agreeing to the sub-item. {: #debate-4-s35 .speaker-K1J} ##### Senator PRATTEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT -- With **Senator Keating,** I am very much concerned at the possible incidence of some of this deferred duty. This, I think, is the first time we have had the opportunity to discuss the principle, and, therefore, everything connected with it should be very fully considered.- There are two proposals before the Committee, one the request foreshadowed by **Senator Lynch** to reduce the duty by 10s. per ton, and the other a definite request submitted by **Senator Drake-Brockman** to make the date of operation of the deferred duty 1924 instead of 1922. I understand the Minister has power, if satisfied that the deferred duty should operate on the date fixed, to issue a proclamation declaring the duty ; if not satisfied on the point, he may defer the operation of the duty till some future date. The spirit of the provision implies that tho deferred duty shall not become operative until the industry concerned is fully developed, and prepared to supply a good portion of Australian requirements under the protection which Parliament says should be afforded to it. As the Minister has told us that a full supply of black sheet made from Australian material will be available before 1st January next, I feel that this deferred duty should be fixed as and from 1st November next, because, if the manufacturers will be in a position to supply our requirements by that date, and the deferred duty is not operative, then, as **Senator Keating** put it very lucidly and logically, we- shall be inviting importers of black sheets and such material to stock up before the duty becomes operative. If they cared to speculate with regard t« the world's parity for the next year or two, they might import sufficient stocks, under the lower duty now operative, and thus practically prevent the Australian manufacturers from disposing of any of their products for a year or two, notwithstanding their ability to supply. I should like the Minister to consider the advisability of asking the Committee to agree to the principle that the duty should apply at some future date, say when supplies are available, and whether it is not better to fix the date as from 1st November, next. {: .speaker-K3E} ##### Senator Russell: -- I have no objection to that proposal, but I do not think there is much to be gained by it, for the reason that when those engaged in the industry are ready to supply the requirements of the local market, the Minister for Trade and Customs will probably proclaim the duties. {: .speaker-K1J} ##### Senator PRATTEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT -- There is no essential difference between bringing thedeferred duties into operation on the 1st' November next and bringing them into operation on the 1st January, 1922. {: .speaker-K3E} ##### Senator Russell: -- If the Committee approves of the honorable senator's suggestion, I shall offer no objection to it, if it is clearly understood that the Minister will not proclaim the coming into operation of the deferred duties' in November unless those engaged in the industry are fully equipped and ready to supply the whole of the requirements of the Australian market. {: .speaker-K1J} ##### Senator PRATTEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT -- Then I propose to move - >That the House of Representatives be requested to leave out of sub-item (d) (1) the words "January, 1922,!' and insert in lieu thereof " November, 1921." I submit this request for the reason that, if we decide that the deferred duties shall come into operation on 1st November next instead of 1st January, 1922, they will not necessarily be proclaimed on 1st November unless any firm or firms is or are in a position to supply the bulk of Australia's requirements in the matter of black sheets. **Senator** DE LARGIE (Western Australia) "("5.5] . - We are making in connexion with this industry a very interesting experiment, which, so far, has met. with the general approval of both schools of fiscal thought. We have repeatedly heard Free Traders say that where it can be clearly shown that a new industry may be established by the payment of a bounty upon its production, the assistance so given prevents anything in the nature of extortionate prices for the product, since it leaves the industry still exposed to the tempering influence of the importers. The system of setting the wheels of new industries going by means of the payment of bounties is an admirable one. As. has been pointed out again and again, a bounty is paid by the whole of the people,, and that section of the community which uses the article in respect of which if is paid is not called upon to bear any greater burden than is placed upon all other, sections.. These black sheets are undoubtedly used to a very large extent by only one section of the people, and I am afraid that if these duties were imposed that section alone would have to pay - and perhaps" " pay through the nose " - for the establishment of the industry. Capitalists have been induced, as the result of a promise given by the Government, to engage in the industry. The. proposition was no doubt acceptable to the. company concerned because of the greatly enhanced cost of bringing iron to Australia. Shipping freights have gone up skyhigh during the last few years, and are likely to be very high for some time to come. In such circumstances, why should we not continue the application of the bounty system, to this industry, and so lead to its complete establishment without imposing any burden on the users of its products? Under the bounty system, the burden is distributed over the whole community. {: .speaker-K09} ##### Senator Payne: -- But we would have to apply it to all industries. {: #debate-4-s36 .speaker-JU7} ##### Senator DE LARGIE: -- I do not think the Government could1 find the funds necessary to permit of the general application of the. principle, but as we have gone a certain distance along this road I fail to see why we should not" go still further. I would postpone indefinitely the coming into operation of these deferred duties, an*d would bring them into operation only when it was demonstrated that the bounty system had failed. Let us make this experiment in connexion with the sub-item immediately before us. Both schools of fiscal thought have often suggested: that it is the best way of establishing new industries. If the local market were swamped by imports of the cheaper products- of other countries, we should be able to protect, the industry from such dumping by means of the Customs Tariff (Industries. Preservation)' Bill. If the Parliament is- sincere in the. desire to establish this industry on a firm basis, it can demonstrate its. sincerity by applying the bounty system to it, and that, together with anti-dumping legislation, should prove effective. I see but. little prospect of any dumping taking place. The world-wide changes brought, about by the. war make dumping practically impossible. That being sO, I think we have an excellent opportunity to experiment in the way I have suggested. We can do' so feeling sure that no. harm! will result to those who have put their capital into the industry, inasmuch as we shall be able to step in at any moment and protect them if undue advantage is taken of the free market. I shall therefore support **Senator Drake-Brockman's** request. It is time that we . resorted to some new . means of establishing industries. We are all anxious, I am sure, to increase the opportunities of employment for Austraiian workmen. The bounty system has received the support of the Free Trade section, and I am satisfied that the Protectionist element in the community will indorse its application" in this case. My experience in this Chamber leads me to the- conclusion that the longer protective duties are imposed, the greater is the demand for increases. Rightly or wrongly, that conclusion has been forced upon me as the result of my experience as a senator. Here we have an opportunity to institute a new means of establishing industries. I hope that the Committee will avail themselves of it by agreeing to **Senator- Drake-Brockman's** proposition. We can then continue the application of the bounty system to this industry until we are satisfied that it is a failure." My view is that a good deal of success will attend its application, and I hope that this experiment will be made. {: #debate-4-s37 .speaker-KKZ} ##### Senator GARDINER:
New South Wales -- I find myself for once largely in agreement with **Senator de** Largie. I do not favour the payment of bounties, but if I have to choose between a- bounty and the imposition of a protective duty, I prefer it as the lesser of two evils. It is better to encourage a new industry by giving a bounty on its output than by imposing a protective duty. My own view is that we should remove any: obstacles in the- way of tha creation of new industries, and . that, having done so much, we should allow those Concerned to manage their own businesses. **Senator Drake-Brockman** proposesto postpone for two years the coming into operation of these deferred duties; and that, ifcarried, will give the Governmentanopportunity to apply the bounty system to the industry. I prefer a direct contribution from thepeoplein the shape of a bounty to an indirect contribution through a protective 'duty, which makes goods costly, whether they are produced locallyor not. The bounty system is the lesser of two evils, ; and certainly does not make goodsmore costly. . I can quiteunderstandSenator Pratten foreseeing adanger of themanufacturers of the would rushing their shipshere laden withgalvanized iron,so that -when the local manufacturer *(does* commence operations he mayfindhimselfhandicapped by stocks already in. hand and awaiting distribution tothe rpulic. I do not believe that the manufacturers of itheworld, working rapidly as they 'have ibeen doing since thewar -ended,have ibeen : able ito build up huge stocks, or that if they have done so, theycan get ships to carry them. {: .speaker-K1J} ##### Senator PRATTEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT -- The price of this article is low in Great Britain. {: .speaker-KKZ} ##### Senator GARDINER: -- The price of sgalvanized iron in . Sydney is three times what it was twenty years ago. {: .speaker-K1J} ##### Senator PRATTEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT -- It can be bought for £20 a ton f . o.b. London. {: .speaker-KKZ} ##### Senator GARDINER: -- I bought galvanized iron retail200 miles in the interior twenty-five years ago at '£17 a ton. {: .speaker-K1J} ##### Senator PRATTEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT -- When wages were 30s. a week. {: .speaker-KKZ} ##### Senator GARDINER: -Relatively wages were practically as good then as theyare now. But what would happen . even if there were a reasonable amountof this iron instore when the protected local industry began to put its product . on the market? It would simply have.to wait until the stocks in hand were soldout, rand then it wouldreap the full benefit oftheprotection afforded to it. And what isthedifferencebetween **Senator Pratten's** proposal andthat of the Government? Merelya matter of two months.". Is it nottoo late to lock the door now? This proposalfor a. deferred duty has been before the people since March of last year. **Senator Pratten** proposes to prevent goods coming in at a reasonable rate as from the 1st November next instead of from the 1st January next. Why cannot he be consistent ? I am afraid that he 'cannot be consistent ; nor can any person saturated with Protectionist ideas,because as soon as he comes to deal "with a practical business proposition he finds that Protection fails, as it 'has failed in this case. Eighteen months ago the Minister for Trade and Customs **(Mr. Greene),** with "a . 'knowledge of all "the facts relating to the people proposing to engage in this business, said that the duty which was . to affordthem protection was to commence to operate on a certain date. And now **Senator Pratten** gets. up in a hurry to" do something for the manufacturers, whose interests he is always willing to serve. I wish he would turn that' . great intellect of his to doing something of advantage to the hundreds of thousands of workers who have sent him here. He will not do for them what he is willing to do for one or two manufacturers who watch him when he is at work here. He jumps quite readily to the crack of the whip of the manufacturers, but is blind to the interests of the people who sent him to this House, and never sees the conditions under which they toil and suffer. {: .speaker-K1J} ##### Senator PRATTEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT -- I . rise to a point of order. I object to the words thatI " jump readily to the scrack of "thewhip of the manufacturers." {: #debate-4-s38 .speaker-K18} ##### The CHAIRMAN(Senator Bakhap:
TASMANIA -- **Senator Pratten** 'regards "the words used bySenator Gardiner as offensive, and I ask for theirwithdrawal. {: .speaker-KKZ} ##### Senator GARDINER: -- I willingly apologize. Nothing hurts memore than tohurt **Senator Pratten.** . I do not want any . succeeding . remarks to be taken . as having any connexion with my apology, which . is ample. If . I have said anything to offend **Senator Pratten,** I am sorry, and . that is. a hard word for me to utter. But . I was absolutely wrong in saying that **Senator .** Pratten jumps to the crack of the whip . of the manufacturers. They do not need -to crack -a , whip. They . have simply to click the tongue, and he will gofull paceahead, without . the application of anywhip for the . simple . reason that. their interests and those of **Senator Pratten** and **Senator Duncan** are almost identical. They are the interests of the classes as against those of the masses; of the few against those of the many. I really was offensive when 1 said that the manufacturers crack the whip over **Senator Pratten.** There is no need for them to do so. They have merely to guide him. When he sees that their interests are affected, he is always in his place, anxious to do the very best he can for them, quite forgetful of the fact that he ought to be looking after the interests of the hundreds of thousands of working-class people who have sent him here. I recognise the honorable senator's great ability. All I complain of is that he exercises it in the interests of the few. {: .speaker-K1J} ##### Senator PRATTEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT -- I have some very good friends of yours in another place. {: .speaker-KKZ} ##### Senator GARDINER: -- I realize that. That is why I thought, in the early stages of the consideration of this Tariff, that I might lead a Free Trade party in the Senate ; but **Senator Drake-Brockman** and **Senator Lynch** have quite put me in the background, and I am now merely a follower of others, who, although they brand themselves as Protectionists, vote Free Trade. {: .speaker-JU7} ##### Senator de Largie: -- The honorable senator ought to be pleased at meeting so many converts. {: .speaker-KKZ} ##### Senator GARDINER: -- I was more than pleased to notice, from **Senator de** Largie's last speech, that he is appearing among the Free Traders. {: .speaker-KPE} ##### Senator Keating: -- You have the advantage of the support of **Senator Cox,** an avowed Free Trader. {: .speaker-KKZ} ##### Senator GARDINER: -- I am a little embarrassed by the Free Trade proclivities of **Senator Cox,** who, representing a Free Trade constituency, always gives his votes for higher duties and to make trade of any kind more difficult; but **Senator de** Largie's last speech was an advance in the direction of Free Trade for which I was quite unprepared. I know that the honorable senator is a great thinker and reader, and, of course, eventually any one who reads and thinks must become a Free Trader. So far, I have waited for eleven years in this Senate to see any signs of the 'honorable senator's conversion to Free Trade. {: .speaker-JU7} ##### Senator de Largie: -- In my lifetime I have left two countries, Scotland and New South Wales. They were both Free Trade, and I was glad to get out of them. {: .speaker-KKZ} ##### Senator GARDINER: -- I have no doubt that the two countries referred to have suffered a very great loss. Scotland, no doubt, has suffered much by losing the services of a gentleman of such great ability. As for New South Wales, it is being rapidly populated by thousands of his countrymen, and by thousands of the sturdiest of the citizens of Free Trade Victoria, so that his loss has-been made good. Furthermore, the speeches made by honorable senators representing Western Australia would indicate that there is a great Free Trade development in that State, and I cannot see how **Senator de:** Largie has gained by his change from one State to the other. I rose to speak to this subitem because **Senator Pratten** has put forward a proposal which, on his part, is a mere pretence. What use can there be in discussing whether this duty shall come into operation in November or January, seeing that eighteen months ago the Minister made known to the manufacturers of the world that a duty would be imposed upon this iron at a certain fixed date? {: .speaker-K1J} ##### Senator PRATTEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT -- The Tariff has not yet been passed, but will be in a few weeks, and. then there will be something definite about the date, which there was not previously. {: .speaker-KKZ} ##### Senator GARDINER: -- As I read the Tariff, it is very definite as to the date upon which this deferred duty shall come into operation. {: .speaker-K1J} ##### Senator PRATTEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT -- But the honorable senator forgets that the Tariff, so far, is merely a proposal, and not the law. {: .speaker-KKZ} ##### Senator GARDINER: -- I quite realize it is a proposal, but what would happen if I were to use my position to get up and move requests on every line in the Tariff that may not accord with my views ? I recognise that all legislation is the result of compromise, and I would be glad to see this Tariff finally dealt with by the end of this week. If we were to set to work as business men we could do it. {: .speaker-K0F} ##### Senator Pearce: -- Hear, hear! {: .speaker-KKZ} ##### Senator GARDINER: -- I agree with the Minister for Defence. If we were to pick out the matters of importance, and give them the discussion to which they are entitled, and let matters of no importance: pass without discussion, we would make more rapid progress. However, I would not have risen but for **Senator Pratten's** makebelieve proposal. The honorable senator would have us believe that there is something behind his proposition, when, after all, it is merely an advertisement for himself. On this question I have no desire to take up even the full quarter of an hour allowed to me, and so I resume my seat. {: #debate-4-s39 .speaker-K09} ##### Senator PAYNE:
Tasmania .- I think honorable senators are quite entitled to consider a request for an amendment of the date upon which this duty shall come into operation. Some development may have occurred in connexion with an industry affected by a deferred duty necessitating an alteration to the date. **Senator Drake-Brockman** proposes that the date upon which this deferred duty shall come into operation shall be extended for two years. **Senator Pratten,** on the other hand, proposes that the duty shall come into operation two months earlier. If we even considered **Senator Drake-Brockman's** proposal we would be breaking faith with the people who have invested their money in the industry sought to be protected, and I do not think that the majority of senators are prepared to break faith with capitalists who, at the request of the Government, backed up by the people of the Commonwealth, have invested an enormous amount of money in order to provide Australia with an industry which must eventually be of great benefit to it. Yet, that is the direction of the honorable senator's proposal, although he stated that the continuance of the bounty would compensate the manufacturers for the loss of the protection proposed to be given after 1st January, 1922. I am not able to see eye to eye with honorable senators who suggest that the whole of the people of Australia should be compelled, except under very special circumstances, to contribute to the maintenance of any industry in which they are not personally interested. A bounty practically means that the whole "of the people have to provide the wherewithal to enable an industry to be carried on satisfactorily, although only a section of the community uses the product of the industry. For that reason I certainly prefer a Protective Tariff to the. bounty system. It is contended that if the date of the deferred duty is not made earlier there must necessarily be a swamping of the market by importation; but I do not think there is much in that idea. We must recognise that the people have been dependent up to now for supplies on importers, who must of necessity cater for the public requirements. I do not blame importers for securing what is necessary a few months ahead, because if they did not do so they would not be worthy of their very, responsible. position. We owe a great deal to importers, who, by the exercise of brain and the use of capital, have been able to supply the public of Australia during the whole of our history, and I " cannot agree with the contention that the date ought to be made earlier because importers axe likely to import what is * necessary in the meantime. In any case, in view of the shortage of supplies, which is likely to continue for some time, I do not think there is -any fear of the market being swamped. At the same time, if the firm can satisfy the Government that they are able to supply the requirements at an earlier date than that proposed, no harm will be done by accepting **Senator Pratten's** proposal, because the Minister has power to extend the time until the 1st January, or even later. We have, therefore, nothing to fear from **Senator Pratten's** request, and for that reason I feel disposed to support it. I should now like to' say one word on the remarks by **Senator Gardiner** in regard to **Senator Pratten. Senator Pratten** is well able to take care of himself, but I think that **Senator Gardiner** made an attack upon him when he said that **Senator Pratten** is here in the interests of the manufacturers, and has no consideration for the workers. **Senator Gardiner** knows that to a great extent the welfare of the workers of Australia depends on the success of the industry with which we are dealing. Manufacturers cannot possibly make a success of their businesses without at the same time conferring a lasting benefit on the workers ! {: .speaker-KKZ} ##### Senator Gardiner: -- Nonsense! {: .speaker-K09} ##### Senator PAYNE: **- Senator Gardiner** knows that if these industries, which we are trying to make permanent, were to fail, there would be a bad time for the workers. Every individual worker is anxious to see necessary consideration paid to these industries by Parliament in order to insure their continuance and prosperity. {: .speaker-KN7} ##### Senator GUTHRIE:
VICTORIA · NAT; UAP from 1931 -- The workers only get 17 per cent, of the protection. {: .speaker-K09} ##### Senator PAYNE: -- As a general principle, the success of an industry must of necessity be eventually of benefit to. those engaged in it, no matter in what capacity; anything likely to injure an industry must re-act on the workers. I hope that the Committee, if it is satisfied that this firm is able to turn out the commodities required at an earlier date than that provided in the Tariff, will approve of the request submitted by **Senator Pratten.** {: #debate-4-s40 .speaker-KKZ} ##### Senator GARDINER:
New South Wales -- Direct references to myself by **Senator Payne** render a brief reply necessary. That honorable senator takes exception to my describing **Senator Pratten** as the direct representative of those in possession of wealth and power. Whether **Senator Pratten** and **Senator Payne** are aware of the fact or not, that is the position in which they place themselves by always advocating that the only benefit the workers can obtain from the Tariff must be distilled through the manufacturer and the employer; indeed, that is the whole essence of Protection. {: .speaker-K09} ##### Senator Payne: -- I do not adopt that attitude. {: .speaker-KKZ} ##### Senator GARDINER: -- I do not make the remarks personally or offensively, but the principle- of Protection is to put the money of the whole people' into the establishment of industries which can benefit the people only by means of the employment given by their own cash. If private people establish businesses with their own money, I have no complaint to make, because I believe in privately-conducted businesses, while holding the opinion that publicly-controlled and managed businesses can beat private. businesses in the results. Holding that belief, I want none of these duties, whether they are to come into effect on the 1st . November or at once. I desire to see no attempts made at the public cost to render wealthy manufacturers more wealthy. Not only **Senator Pratten,** but **Senator Payne** and other honorable senators, desire to benefit the workers by first creating a master class, and to that end they assert that Customs duties must be imposed. The difference of two months between the Government proposals and the proposal of **Senator Pratten** is neither here nor there; we have to consider the whole principle of this Bill, which is designed to raise millions by taxation, and from whom? It will not be claimed that the wealthy contribute more to revenue by means of taxation than do the- poorer classes The wealthy bachelor . does not pay a tenth of the taxation that is paid by the married working man with six or eight children. I venture to- say that under- this Tariff I practically escape taxation. I do not pay any duties on tobacco-, spirits, or beer, and I do not think there is any duty on tea..I am in receipt, as a senator, of an increased emolument, given, not against my will, but without my assistance, and yet I escape scot-free from taxation to which some of the poor toilers who send me here are subjected. **Senator Pratten** is afraid that unless his request is adopted iron for roofing purposes may be imported at a cheaper rate between November and January, and in this attitude the honorable senator has the support of **Senator Payne.** Yet they complain that I describe them as the friends of the wealthy manufacturing: and master class: I do not mind those honorable senators seeking to establish a master class, but the money of the people generally ought not to be used for that purpose. Surely it is not suggested that the workers' ought' to pay for the establishment of a master class? We never see the master class' going out of its way to assist the workers. I do hear that the Government are rendering some assistance at Port Pirie, which is represented in this Parliament by a member of the. Government, who may find the fact of some help to him at the next election. {: .speaker-K3E} ##### Senator Russell: -- I did not hear the honorable senator complain when the Government rendered assistance at Broken Hill'. {: .speaker-KKZ} ##### Senator GARDINER: -- Broken Hill is getting no assistance now, and I should like to know why. Port Pirie is being- afforded help, with a Minister as its representative, whereas Broken Hill is left neglected. However, I do not wish to argue that matter now. I shall vote with **Senator Drake-Brockman** to make the item free in the case of Great Britain for two years longer. This is a commodity which Great Britain can freely manufacture, and which wo need in large quantities, and too much of it cannot be sent into Australia. {: .speaker-K18} ##### The CHAIRMAN (Senator Bakhap: -- I wish to make the position quite clear: **Senator Drake-Brockman** 'has submitted a request that in the sub-item under consideration " 1924 "be substituted for " 1922 , " and **Senator Pratten** has moved that the date be November, 1921. Obvilously, if " January, , 1922," be deleted, **Senator Drake-Brockman** will not have an opportunity to movethe request hedesires; the Committee cannot re-insert a word that has been . struck out. I . propose to take the test vote in regard to **Senator Pratten's** proposal on the deletion of the word " January." . Those in favour of **Senator Drake-Brockman's** request will vote against the deletion of that word, because it is essential to retain it for the purposes of that proposal. **Senator** Gardiner. - I object to the procedure which you, sir, are adopting, as not in acordance with our. usual practice. **Senator Drake-Brockman** has submitted a request, and no other can be taken while that is before the Committee. That honorable senator does not propose to . strike out " January," but proposes to make the date January, 1924, instead of January, 1922. I submit that to put a request not formally moved before a previous request has . been dealt with would be an alteration of our recognised procedure. {: #debate-4-s41 .speaker-10000} ##### The CHAIRMAN: -- I find by reference to the Clerk's notes that **Senator DrakeBrockman's** motion is before the Chair, andas he is not present to withdraw it, I shall have to put it. Question - That the figures proposed to ibe left out be left out - put. The Committee divided. AYES: 8 NOES: 18 Majority . . . . 10 AYES NOES Question so resolved in the negative. Request negatived. {: #debate-4-s42 .speaker-KRZ} ##### Senator LYNCH:
Western Australia -- I move - >That the House of Representatives he requested to make theduty, sub-item '(d), paragraph 1, British, . per ton, 55s. Black sheet iron is a commodity largely used throughout the Commonwealth, and, according to the Inter-State Commission, only one firm asked for a dutyon it. 'The Commission's report says - >Messrs. G. and C. Hoskins Limited, of Lithgow, are the only applicants for a protective duty. Dealing with galvanized iron, the same report says - >Up to the present, Messrs. G. and C. Hoskins Limited, of Lithgow, have been the only firm that has manufactured galvanized iron, and asks for a duty. With regard to the manufacture of blooms, the report says - >Messrs. G. and C Hoskins Limited, of Lithgow, were the only applicants for a protective duty. And so in regard to angle irons. That one firm is the only applicant for a duty on iron goods at four successive stages of manufacture, and must be remarkably influential, because if has succeeded in getting the Government to propose rates far in excess of what it wanted. I desire to give the small manufacturers who use this iron as their raw material the chance to get it cheaply. The duty that I propose is above the rate recommended by the Inter-State Commission in . 1916, when the war was at its height. Question put. The Committeedivided. Ayes . . ... 9 Noes . . . . . . 17 Majority ' . . . . 8
Tasmania .- The *ad valorem* rates, as they appear in paragraph 1 of sub-item e, are, respectively, 25. per cent., 30 percent., and 35 per cent. These are applicable to imports of wire of No. 16 or finer gauge. In the original schedule there was provision that the rates of duty upon all wire should be 52s., 72s. 6d., and 90s. per ton. In the course of consideration in another place, however, the sub-item covering wire was rearranged, and, upon wire of No. 14 or finer gauge, respective rates of 25 per cent., 30 per cent., and 35 per cent, were imposed, while a distinct section was made of " Wire, other," upon which rates of 52s., 72s. 6d., and 90s. per ton were made to apply. Eventually the sub-item was further amended, and the Senate Committee has now to consider wire of No. 16 or finer gauge, upon which - as I have just indicated - the *ad valorem* rates are 25, 30, and 35 per cent. ; while " Wire, other," is still subject to duties respectively of 52s., 72s. 6d., and 90s. per ton. Wire of finer gauges is extensively used in Australia for manufacturing purposes. Honorable senators should realize what the imposition of the rates proposed must mean to those engaged in weaving wire for various important industrial purposes. Taking the British preferential Tariff of 25 per cent, as a basis, there will be involved collections upon various wires as follow : - 16 gauge, £9 2s.9d. per ton; 21 gauge, £10 6s. 3d.; 22 gauge, £11 2s. 9d.; 24 gauge, £13 6s. 9d.; 26 gauge, £15 19s.; and 28 gauge, £19 5s. per ton. Those figures convey precisely what the imposition of the present Tariff will mean per ton upon a commodity of British origin, according to the most recent invoices available in connexion with' wire just landed in Australia. If the Tariff is to be enforced in respect of wire which must of necessity be used by those engaged in manufacturing various classes of wire gauze in this country, the outcome will spell ruin to the industry. I have a number of interesting samples in my hand; they represent manufactures from wires of gauges running from 16 to 28. The sample from No. 16 gauge, for example, is a gauze of galvanized standard mesh used for ventilators, and for heavy screens for sand pits and the like. Prior to the war there were, I believe, no power looms in Australia. When the war broke out, however, those engaged in wire-weaving in this country had to introduce power looms in order to cope with Australia's needs. I draw special attention to one or two gauzes among these samples which are essential to certain phases of mining operations, and which must be made of the best possible wire. One gauze, of 24-gauge wire, is used for battery screens, also for bathheater burners, and for lamps used in lighthouses. I have specimens before me of wire gauzes manufactured from coarser gauges. From the 20-gauge a gauze is manufactured for use in battery screens. Item 159, sub-item b, deals with wire of iron and steel for use in the manufacture of barbed' wire and wire netting " as prescribed by departmental by-laws." These wires are dutiable at 52s., 72s. 6d., and 90s. per ton respectively. I ask the Minister **(Senator Russell)** to consider whether it would not be wise, at the proper time, to request an amendment of item 159 by the insertion of the words "woven wire." Thus, the wire admitted at rates of 52s., 72s. 6d., and 90s. would embrace not only wire for the manufacture of barbed wire and wire netting, but also that, used in the weaving, processes. Honorable senators may reasonably ask what objection there is to using Australian wire for weaving gauzes. Local manufacturers are using the Australian product for certain classes of wire weaving, wherever it may be suitable; but it has not been found to be suitable for the manufacture of the better grades of wire gauzes, especially in respect of gauzes for batteries. The annealing of the Australian wire is not nearly so perfect as that of the British wire. The wire-drawing industry in Great Britain is very old, and most soundly conducted. {: .speaker-K3E} ##### Senator Russell: -- The firm of Rylands', which is a well-known English company, has established works in Australia. Why can it not operate here just as it does in England? {: .speaker-K09} ##### Senator PAYNE: -- I can only say that I know that it is not doing so. I visited a wire-weaving factory some days ago, and found that the reed apparatus used is very quickly destroyed when Australian drawn wire is employed. The reeds, I was assured, will last three or four times as long when used solely in the weaving of British wire, because of the absence in the Australian product of that even temper which is so noticeable in the British material. In addition, the Australian manufacture is inferior, on account of the presence of a certain amount of scale, which is not to be found on the British wire. I have been informed by a person engaged in the industry that Rylands and Sons can supply wire only up to 20 gauge, and cannot undertake to say when they will be able to supply the finer gauges. If the time arrives when this firm can draw wire which will enable them to produce as good a finished article as the British, I believe the Australian wire will be largely used for the purpose. {: .speaker-K3E} ##### Senator Russell: -- If the honorable senator says that Rylands and Sons cannot manufacture wire beyond 20 gauge, he has been misinformed. {: .speaker-K09} ##### Senator PAYNE: -- I shall endeavour to prove my statement by documentary evidence. My information has been received from a representative of the firm of Morris and Bone, whose office is in Little Collins-street, and who have a factory at Richmond. {: .speaker-K3E} ##### Senator Russell: -- The Customs officials inform me that the honorable senator's statement is incorrect, as Rylands and Sons accepted a contract only to-day for the supply of 30-gauge wire. {: .speaker-K09} ##### Senator PAYNE: -- *I* do not desire to pay anything against the Australian product; but I have been assured by practical men engaged in the manufacture of articles in which wire is used that the position is as I have stated. I have with me two samples, and, although I am not an. expert in the matter of wire drawing or weaving, a layman could not help noticing the difference in the qualities of the two wires of the same gauge. The samples before me show an uneven temper and the presence of a large proportion of scale on the wire, which proves that the statement made by the firm mentioned is correct. Before the war we we're importing large quantities of this materia], particularly for battery screens used in mining operations ; but during the war firms engaged in Australian wireweaving were able to fulfil the bulk of the orders by using Australian wire, otherwise they could not have been executed. The Fremantle Trading Company - I do not know upon what lines they are working - obtained large quantities of woven wire from Melbourne firms, and are successfully carrying on operations. Prior to 1914, hand looms dominated; but now it is the custom. I understand, to use power looms. I understood, from previous statements made by the Minister **(Senator Russell),** that the Tariff .had been framed with the idea of "giving every possible assistance to those who are manufacturing commodities needed in Australia; but on perusing the schedule we find that in this instance the British Tariff is 25 per cent, on the .raw material , and only 35 per cent, on the manufactured article. Is that giving manufacturers a fair deal? {: .speaker-K3E} ##### Senator Russell: -- We are making all qualities of wire in Australia, and the work is being clone by the British firm of Rylands and Sons. {: .speaker-K09} ##### Senator PAYNE: -- Yes, and it will eventually be able to meet, the requirements of Australia; but in the meantime we. are interfering with mining operations owing to the difficulty of securing suitable wire for manufacturing screens, or compelling purchasers to use screens that may 'be unsatisfactory. I am informed that regularity of mesh is the real objective,and that a perfect doublecrimp and even selvedgeis necessary. {: #debate-4-s45 .speaker-K18} ##### The CHAIRMAN(Senator Bakhap: -- Order! 'The honorable senator's time has expired. {: #debate-4-s46 .speaker-K3E} ##### Senator RUSSELL:
VicePresident of the Executive Council · Victoria · NAT .- I trust that **Senator Payne** will not press this matter, because it is quite evident that he has been misinformed as to the true position. SenatorKeating. - He may think that the Minister's information is incorrect. {: .speaker-K3E} ##### Senator RUSSELL: -- Perhaps so; but the firm . to which reference has been made has to-day accepted . a contract for . the supply of 30-gauge wire, although the honorable senator said that they could not manufacture finer wire than . 20- gauge. Rylands and Sons have recently amalgamated with the Austral Nail Company at Newcastle, and are in a position to meet the requirements of Australian consumers. It has been suggested that i'f the wire were made by the same firm in England no objection would be offered to the product; but it must be remembered that the Australian wire is drawn from our own iron, which is equal, if not superior, to any in the world. {: .speaker-K09} ##### Senator Payne: -- The Minister can compare the two samples. {: .speaker-K3E} ##### Senator RUSSELL: -- The sample of the Australian wire may not be a fair one. Rylands and Sons have the reputation of being the largest manufacturers of this commodity in Great Britain, and there is no reason why their Australian product, manufactured from first class Australian material, should not be equal to the best in the world. {: .speaker-K5R} ##### Senator Senior: -- They assert that the Australian iron is the best obtainable for this class 'of work. {: .speaker-K3E} ##### Senator RUSSELL: -- It is equal, if not superior, and quite a number of Australian manufacturers are now recognising its superiority. I have already read a report concerning the drawing qualities of our Australian iron, and as the company is well established and in a position to supply a wire of the best quality, I trust that the honorable senator will not press for a reduction in the proposed duties. {: #debate-4-s47 .speaker-K09} ##### Senator PAYNE:
Tasmania .- The essential features . to those engaged in the industry are regularity of mesh, a perfect double crimpandan even selvedge, which can only be obtained by using wire of the finest quality. I have been informed that wire termed 16 or18 gauge, as the case may be, has, upon examination, been found to be uneven in gauge throughoutthe coil, which is disastrous to an even texture inweaving. SenatorBolton. - Does the honorable senator know of any other firm using this wire? {: .speaker-K09} ##### Senator PAYNE: -- I understand that there are four firms in Melbourne, and some in Sydney. {: .speaker-K3E} ##### Senator Russell: -- What wire are they using? {: .speaker-K09} ##### Senator PAYNE: -- The Australian product; but not for the best class of work, in which evenness of web is essential. The wire must be evenly annealed, and be even in temper. 'The users here claim that the British wire is more even in temper than that produced in Australia. {: .speaker-KPE} ##### Senator Keating: -- It will improve. {: .speaker-K09} ##### Senator PAYNE: -- But what will happen while that improvement is taking place ? {: .speaker-JXZ} ##### Senator Duncan: -- Is that a typical sample of Australian wire? {: .speaker-K09} ##### Senator PAYNE: -- I understand it is. It was taken from a quantity that has come to hand. I understand it is necessary that the wire shall be free from surface roughness and scale, and these qualities are necessary in order to get anevenness of web in the wire gauze. The Australian wine at present placed . on the market is defective because of the unevenness in gauge, 'the annealing is unsatisfactory, and it has a decided tendency to harden, which 'is fatal to the production of a satisfactory finished article. *Sitting suspended from6.30 to 8 p.m.* {: .speaker-K09} ##### Senator PAYNE: -- I was referring to some of the difficulties of those engaged in the industry of wire weaving in using Australian wire. I have made it quite clear that I am not entering upon 'a campaign against any primary industry of Australia. I should like to seethem all as successful as possible. At the same time, one must have due regard to the importance ofa numberof small industries that have materiallyassisted in the development of this country. This particular industry has been productive of very, good results indeed, inasmuch as the article turned out here can, so far as quality is concerned, hold its own with the imported article. It has been pointed out to me that the. greatest difficulty has been experienced in the use of Australian wire in connexion with the manufacture of. the better, classes of. wire gauze. Australian, wire is used very largely in the. manufacture of other classes of wire gauze. My remarks in this connexion refer entirely to the manufacture of wire gauzes similar to the . samples I' have here, for which fineness and good finish are essential, so that those who use them, for the recovery of metals from ores for instance, may be' assured! that, they are employing the best possible material for their purpose. {: .speaker-K3E} ##### Senator Russell: -- A good deal of that work is done in Melbourne, mostly by hand, and to fill special orders. {: .speaker-K09} ##### Senator PAYNE: -- Before the war almost the whole of this work was done by hand looms. The war imposed heavier responsibilities upon Australian manufacturers to meet Australian requirements, and' necessitated the extension of' their operations and the installation of power looms. I understand that to-day. it is contemplated increasing the number of power looms operated in Melbourne. {: .speaker-K3E} ##### Senator Russell: -- Is not: the material to which the honorable, senator is referring covered by item No. 159, '"Wire n.e.i., also, woven wire measuring over 40 holes to the lineal inch," which is free from Great Britain and otherwise dutiable at 5 and 15 per cent. ? {: .speaker-K09} ##### Senator PAYNE: -- No. I am dealing with the finished article. I want to. protect the manufacture of the finished article. I wish to describe as clearly as I can the difficulties of the industry as pointed out to me when I visited one of the. factories at" work, and because of which it has been found necessary in the manufacture of the better classes of wire gauze to use imported wire. In the first place, the Australian wire is found in many instances to be uneven in gauge. Then the annealing, which is responsible for the temper of the wire, is not satisfactory. It is necessary that a machine working the wire shall work uniformly, and if the annealing is not satisfactory it cannot work evenly, because there is a bigger strain when one thread is being worked titan when another is, being worked. Then there is a distinct, ten dency to hardness in thes Australian wire, and thesurf ace roughness, due to scale, is exceedingly destructive of plant. Because of these defects in Australian' wire, it is impossible to obtain' a. regular mesh, which' is- fatal to successful manufacture. There is always the risk of a breakdown because of the unevenness of the gauge, since a special strain; at a particular time is very likely to cause a breakdown. Then the scale, to which I have referred, destroys the reeds and heddles, and gets into the bearings. Reeds, worn and cut, were- shown, to- me in the framework of a loom, and I was assured - by the operatives working the loom that this wearing and cutting of the reeds, was caused' by the scale which came from the wire- that was used. This scale also injures the heddlers; which carry the wire under and over as the shuttle passes to and fro. These results from the use of Australian wire have been under notice for a considerable time,, when English wire was not available. My informant tells me that it is , chiefly the finer ranges of wire gauze that are affected by the use of Australian wire, such as the samples I have here, which are of 22-inch, 24-inch, and 18-inch gauge, and so on. In the Tariff as first introduced there were no such duties as those imposed by the schedule' as we- have- it before us to-night. I take it that very careful calculations were made as to the duty which would make the impost on wire proportionate to the duty placed on- the raw material of the basie industry of iron! smelting-. As first introduced', the duties proposed were 52s. per ton on British importations, and 90s. per ton. on foreign importations. These duties- haive been replaced as the result of amendments introduced by the Minister for Trade and Customs **(Mr. Greene)** in another- place by *ad valorem* duties of 25 per cent. British, and 35 per cent, foreign. I have figures here to show- the difference between the rates first proposed on wire and those which we haye to consider tonight. I find that as against the duty of 52s. per ton first proposed on wire imported from Britain, the duty of 25 per cent, now proposed on 16-gauge wire amounts to £9 2s. 9d. per ton. Such a duty isi altogether too high in. view of the fact that this wire is imported only for manufacturing purposes. When our wiremanufacturing industry produces a wire suitable for the manufacture of the finer classes of wire gauze, our manufacturers will use it, and a duty upon it might then be considered. In connexion with previous items, the Minister has been contented to propose a duty to become operative within a certain time. {: .speaker-K18} ##### The CHAIRMAN (Senator Bakhap: -- The honorable senator's time has expired. {: #debate-4-s48 .speaker-KN7} ##### Senator GUTHRIE:
VICTORIA · NAT; UAP from 1931 -- Shall I be in order now in referring to ordinary wire? {: #debate-4-s49 .speaker-10000} ##### The CHAIRMAN: -- If no other honorable senator desires to submit a request which should come before that which **Senator Guthrie** proposes to move, the honorable senator will be in order. {: .speaker-K09} ##### Senator Payne: -- Then I shall have no opportunity of submitting a request. {: .speaker-10000} ##### The CHAIRMAN: -- Not if **Senator Guthrie** moves the request of which he has given notice. {: .speaker-K09} ##### Senator Payne: -- I shall have to move in another direction. {: .speaker-KN7} ##### Senator GUTHRIE:
VICTORIA · NAT; UAP from 1931 -- The sub-item with which I wish to deal is sub-item e 2, which is dutiable at, per ton, British, 52s.; intermediate, 72s. 6d. ; general, 90s. I did intend to move a request for a very much more drastic reduction than I shall now ask for. On reflection and consultation, I have cut the reduction down to a minimum, and I think that honorable senators will be prepared to agree to them. My proposal will be to make the duties on sub-item e 2, per ton, British, 44s.; intermediate, 72s. 6d. ; general, 90s. In previous Tariffs this item was free. The Minister for Trade and Customs **(Mr. Greene),** in introducing the Tariff, said, "We have a huge continent which is undeveloped." I quite agree with him. The honorable gentleman may be regarded as the leader of the centralization party, and the hinterland of the big cities will, as a result of his action, be brought to rack and ruin, because the primary producer, and particularly the wheat farmer, are being called upon to pay terribly high prices for all they use and for all their machinery ,and tools, whilst a considerable and enormous fall in the value of their products is taking place. The consequence will be that their lot will become such a miserable one that they will be driven into the cities. where they may expect to receive much more favoured treatment. I do not wish honorable senators to think that I do not approve of secondary industries. We all know that they are essential and most desirable. It is quite right that they should be encouraged, but it should not <be forgotten that they are secondary industries, and in building them up'' we must be careful not to wreck the primary industries of Australia. Ordinary fencing wire is an absolute necessity for every man on the land. I am speaking in this matter for the small man, and I wish honorable senators to know that 60 per cent, of the total flocks of sheep in Australia are owned by men who each have less than 500 sheep. Every farmer in the country must use wire, and when he fences his area he adds to the value of the national assets, because fencing greatly improves the stock-carrying capacity of land. I can say from practical experience that this result is most marked. It is extraordinary how country after it has been fenced and subdivided for a certain number of years improves in its stock-carrying capacity. I may illustrate this by experience gained in the Northern Territory. Thirty or forty years ago it was said that the Barkly Tableland was useless.. My father pioneered that country for sheep, and occupied a large tract of country on which, when he took it up, the tufts *of* grass were in places about 5 yards apart. After that old pioneer had spent a huge sum of money on improvements, fencing the country into many paddocks, and stocking it with sheep, it was found, after thirty years of occupation, that country which formerly grew only a tuft of grass here and there had a thick sole of grass and was carrying, in the smaller paddocks, nearly a sheep to the acre. This, it should be remembered, was land which was said to be absolutely valueless, and this old pioneer was regarded by his friends as being extremely rash in attempting to develop it for either sheep or cattle. His success was only one of many illustrations how country hitherto regarded as worthless may, by subdivisional fencing and occupation, be profitably occupied. In this way, also, obnoxious animals are checked. Fencing wire and wire netting are essential in order to combat the dog trouble, which is very bad indeed in the Darling country and the western district of New South Wales and Queensland. We all know also what a terrible fight the farmers have to put up against the rabbit plague. Wire netting is an absolute necessity. The. country cannot be developed without it. I think we are extremely moderate in asking only for a reduction in the British preferential Tariff. We have heard much about the necessity of giving adequate protection to our secondary industries, and what a splendid concern the Broken Hill Proprietary Company's works at Newcastle is for the Commonwealth. I would be very loath indeed to do anything that would damage those great industries, but I am sure honorable senators do not fully realize how important it is that we should safeguard our great primary industries, notably wool, meat, wheat, and butter production. On behalf of the whole of the primary producers, of the Commonwealth, I protest against the continual persecution to which they are being subjected by being singled out for . class taxation. This Tariff penalizes two sections of the community, the primary producers and the consumers, while every consideration is given to- the manufacturers, both of the hot-house variety and those who have done so well that some of them give every promise of becoming multi-millionaires. Most of them have been amply protected hitherto, and are already getting comparatively enormous interest returns on their outlay. Increased protection is not needed. Honorable senators seem to forget that the farmer has to pay more than the city man for everything he uses because of the extra freight and the higher cost of distribution, and this Tariff will still further add to his burden. The man on the land is probably paying 25 per cent, more for all his commodities and necessaries of life than the people in the cities who are already growling about the high cost of living. Number 10 black wire, hundreds of thousands of tons of which is used all over Australia, was selling at £10 per ton in 1914. It is now quoted at £32 per ton. {: .speaker-K3E} ##### Senator Russell: -- Is that the Australian price? {: .speaker-KN7} ##### Senator GUTHRIE:
VICTORIA · NAT; UAP from 1931 -- That is to-day's price in Melbourne or Sydney. {: .speaker-K3E} ##### Senator Russell: -- It was £43 per ton in America in 1920. {: .speaker-KN7} ##### Senator GUTHRIE:
VICTORIA · NAT; UAP from 1931 -- That is a splendid argument for a reduction in the duty, especially in view of the fact that our primary producers get no protection, no bounties, and no encouragement whatever. I know that honorable senators are inclined to think that, because I was connected with land industries, and once held a few farms, I am biased in favour of the primary producers. I can assure them that I got out of the wheat-growing industry because ; I could see only too well what, was coming. For fifteen years the average return from wheat-growing was £2 17s. 6d. per acre as against the cost of production of over £3. What is it going to cost to produce wheat in the future with the price of ploughs, reapers and binders, threshers, mowers, fencing wire, and all other requirements at enhanced values as the result of this Tariff ? I say, in all sincerity, that, after having been connected with the business of wheat-growing for thirty years, and having followed the position very closely from a statistical point of view, if we do not take care we shall kill primary production in Australia. The natural protection which these great secondary industries such as that of Broken Hill enjoy is extraordinary. They have cheap coal, cheap iron, and labour certainly as cheap, considering its excellence, as in England. Therefore, I see no reason for a further increase in the duty. For the whoie of the manufacturing industries of the Commonwealth the average outlay in wages is only £129 per head per worker, and for every £100 worth of finished product the proportion paid for labour is 17 per cent. It is of no use blaming labour costs for all the increased cost of production. Labour costs certainly do enter into the problem, but, as I have shown, to the extent of only 17 per cent. We should do all we can to encourage those plucky pioneers who are prepared to go out and develop the empty spaces of this continent. If we do not endeavour to make the lot of the man on the land more profitable and certainly more comfortable by the construction of railways, roads, water channels, telephones, telegraphs, and similar conveniences, and at least provide for only reasonable protection on manufactured articles which he uses as his tools of trade, we shall be failing in our duty. We have heard. a good deal about the great number- of men - 10,000 - employed in these1 great secondary industries in. NewSouth Wales. I should like to remind honorable- senators that the' much-abused: pastoral industry' employs much more1 labour; and- pays higher wages than any Other industry in the - Common-wealth. {: #debate-4-s50 .speaker-JXZ} ##### Senator DUNCAN:
New South Wales -- Two- or three weeks ago: I had' the;' honour of presenting to> the Senate' a. petition from the primary, producers *of* New South Wales asking for- a reduction*, not for the abolition, of the duties' uponcertain items in the' Tariff-.' The subitem' now under- discussion was one of those-.mentioned, and I take this,- the first . opportunity I have -had? of showing' that in presenting the petition T really had 'the interests--' of the petitioners* at heart. I have much pleasure in supporting the request for , a- reduction- in the duty. {: .speaker-K18} ##### The CHAIRMAN (Senator Bakhap: -- No- request for -a reduction* has ye"t been proposed. It has Only -been mentioned by **Senator Guthrie.** {: .speaker-JXZ} ##### Senator DUNCAN: -- I understand that **Senator Guthrie** intends to request a* reduction . in the British preferential Tariff, leaving the intermediate and general1 Tariff as proposed by the Govern^ ment, and I shall have much pleasure in. supporting his request. The 1908 Tariff' schedule contained no duty* against Britain in regard to this * sub-item, . and again in the 1914 Tariff this item was free, although there was a small- duty of 5' per cent, in the general Tariff.' The proposal now is to jump from 5 per cent, to 90s*, per ton in the general Tariff, and, so far as the British preferential Tariff is concerned, from the free list to 44s*. per ton, if **Senator Guthrie's-** request be agreed to. I realize that conditions have changed since the industry was estab^ lishedj and that it may be necessary to impose a duty, but* I think 52s., as pro^ posed* by the Government, is considerably more than is necessary in the circumstances. The imposition of this duty will inflict a very severe hardship upon a section of the community that can ill1 afford to bear it. Fencing' wire is* an essential commodity for - every man who goes out to open up the back country: His* available* capital may not be very great for* outlay upon stock, materials; and'implements,' and it is regrettable that the Government in this * sub-item proposeto impose a further hardship on him* at the very outset of his career. If we are* in earnest m our desire to assist our primary producers to- the fullest possible extent, here is an* opportunity to prove it.' I have very much pleasure- in indorsing the* views that have been put forward by my* honorable' friend, Senator1 Guthrie.We ought not to impose an additional burden- upon- a- section* of' the community which can least * afford, to pay increased' taxation, and I hope- that the- request* which Senator* Guthrie' in tends*) to- movethat the duty under the* British preferential Tariff be reduced'from 52s. to 44si*per ton^-I understand that- is* now. his* intention - will be agreed', to; {: #debate-4-s51 .speaker-KN7} ##### Senator GUTHRIE:
VICTORIA · NAT; UAP from 1931 -- I am very pleased to have this opportunity, to continue . my arguments in support of the request that I intend to submit for a moderate reduction in the duty on wire under the- British preferential Tariff. The- carrying' of* such- a requestwill show at least that we are endeavouring to avoid, the over-penalization of our primary producers. I should have moved* a request to reduce the* duty from 52s. to 30s. per ton but . for the fact that under sub-item- o we have already provided for a duty of -44s. per ton on the bar iron- from which I understand the fencing wire is produced; I want to tell' the Nationalist Ministry what I 'think, of their treatment of the primary producers. I regret- to say that I anr very disappointed' with them. The primary producers have been* singled out by them for- not merely classtaxation but persecution. So far as the Government are concerned, it is a case of * tax, tax, tax the man on the land, who, in addition to having to pay high ocean' and. railway freights, has* bad roads, no electricity, no . doctors, no chemists; no ice, and, in short, none of those luxuries which the city dweller has at band. . He has none of the luxuries or* comforts of those who work* in city factories, or the wealthy manufacturing class* who, by means of this Tariff; are being spoon-fed. The result is that people are flocking from the lands bf the country to our citj.es: Even in Victoria, which is rightly regarded as the Garden* State of the Commonwealth, we have the awful anomaly of 52 per cent, of the total population living in* the city of Melbourne: In. view df' all this- taxation, how can-returned soldiers' and others whom we are settling* ifr the Mallee, be expected to grow wheat when innormal times the cost of productionexceeds the price obtainable for their produce? If we return to normal times and prices, the majority of them will go to the wall. These returned soldiers and others who are .developing their blocks have to buy fencing wire, the. price of which to-day is £32 per ton as compared with . the normal price of £10 per ton. {: .speaker-K1J} ##### Senator PRATTEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT -- Because we . do not make it -here. {: .speaker-KN7} ##### Senator GUTHRIE:
VICTORIA · NAT; UAP from 1931 -- We do, . and. the prices . of other. things required . by -them have increased in . the same, ratio. {: .speaker-JYG} ##### Senator Elliott: -- What was the price of this wire before the war? SenatorGUTHRIE.- £10 per ton. This Tariff is designed to spoon-feed ' the habitues of picture theatres, race-courses, and others who enjoy all the comforts of city life. The city dweller turns on a tap and the water runs; he can get a cool drink round the corner; he is supplied with electric light and electric fans. Compare his lot with that of the man in the back country. Go into the back blocks as I have done, and you will find men -and women living 40 miles away from a doctor, and having to cart water, and dirty water at that, a distance of 10 miles. They have 'no picture shows, no electric light, no electric fans, no doctors, no chemists at hand. This is the way in which the Government are encouraging the settlement of returned soldiers and others on the land. They are taking action by means of this excessive Protectionrunmad Tariff to attract people to our cities, so that we shall have our cities overflowing and the country undeveloped. The shipping combines, the manufacturers, -the shopkeepers, the theatre owners, and picture show proprietors can pass on any taxation which they have to pay. Thoy pass on to the -consumer all such duties as these, and so increase the cost of living. If the Tariff increases the cost of a piece of cloth, or anything else, to the city- manufacturer or warehouseman, he passes on the 'increased cost to the consumer. The primary producer, however, cannotpasson any of the taxation that he has to pay. We are an exporting nation living on the excess of our exports over our imports, and we have to take -the world's market- prices, less heavy rail and ocean freights for our pri maryproduce. The . Broken Hill Proprietary Company,- to which we are giving this enormous measure of protection, has ample supplies of coal and. iron within the country. Its British competitors; however, . have to-get their-iron ore. from Spain,: and have the dearest coal in. the world, to-day. -Wages in. Britain 'are just about- as. high as they . are here, and after the British manufacturers have importied their , iron from Spain, and paid the highest price for coal,- they . have to.:send their manufactured article a distance of 12,000 miles- to Australia. . Another result of* this high protective -wall is that . "we will have practically no imports. Ships -have consequently to come out here practically in ballast, in order to take away our wool, wheat, meat, 'butter, and other primary products to "the other side of the world, where, by means of such exports, we have to establish our credits. The . consequence is that we have to pay practically double freights. I want honorable senators to realize that the legislation of ' this country is going in . a direction that is calculated to make the lot of the man" on . the land not only unprofitable, but unbearable. No one who has travelled in the back country of any of the States 'will refute that statement. **Mr. .** Knibbs shows all too clearly in his official statistics 'the terrible drift of population to our cities. For that I blame the Governments, past and present. The primary producer cannot pass on these increased charges. He has to compete with the wool, wheat, meat, and butter producers of other parts of lie world in the world's markets, and has- to pay every farthing of these charges. On the other hand, if, by reason of the Tariff or increased wages the manufacturer of, say, iron has his costs of production increased by £2 per ton, those who buy 'his commodity have to pay the increased costs. Whether it is a ton of iron, : a hairpin, or a pin, that is purchased, the increased cost involved in its production by reason of the Tariff . or increased wages has to be borne by the purchaser. And so with the amusement tax. We all know that it is added to the charges for admission to the theatres and picture shows. A high "Tariff means higher prices for everything the people have to buy. It accentuates the difficulties of the very people who, after. all, are producing the greater part of the wealth of the country. As I pointed out this morning, out of the total wealth produced in Australia in 1919-20, £223,500,000 came from the land. I am afraid we shall not have that return, or anything like it, again, because the prices of all our primary products have slumped, on the average, to the extent of nearly 60 per cent. On the other hand, the much-lauded manufacturers of Australia produced only £75,000,000 of the wealth of the country in the year I have, named. I wish them nothing but good luck if they can carry on under a reasonable Tariff, and do not take down the consumers. The collapse in the values of wool, skins, and meat, concurrently with the primary producers' increased cost of living, the additional cost of the machinery they have to use, and the increased rates and taxes they have to bear, make the outlook a very bad one for them. A collapse will not come about this year; we may have a very big harvest of wheat, and be able to sell at reasonably high prices this year, but within the next two or three years honorable senators will certainly regret this increased taxation and no doubt quite unintentional persecution of the man on the land. {: .speaker-K3E} ##### Senator Russell: -- I think the honorable senator ought to drop the use of the word " persecution." He has repeated it several times. {: .speaker-KN7} ##### Senator GUTHRIE:
VICTORIA · NAT; UAP from 1931 -- If I repeat it often enough, I may get it into the honor- able senator's head that this Tariff means the persecution of the man on the land, and he may realize, before it is too late, the extent to which the primary producers are being penalized. What hours does the farmer work as compared with the people in our cities, who flock to our racecourses, picture shows, and theatres? What hours does his wife work, without any domestic help? I invite honorable senators to visit back-country districts. If they do, and have any sympathy in their hearts, they will be sorry for many of the people there. {: .speaker-K3E} ##### Senator Russell: -- When did the honorable senator see me at a picture show? {: .speaker-KN7} ##### Senator GUTHRIE:
VICTORIA · NAT; UAP from 1931 -- I do not want to be personal, but I believe that the honorable senator is guilty of attending a race meeting now and again. {: .speaker-K3E} ##### Senator Russell: -- Is there any harm in that? {: .speaker-KN7} ##### Senator GUTHRIE:
VICTORIA · NAT; UAP from 1931 -- No; I also- go to race meetings. {: .speaker-K3E} ##### Senator Russell: -- I have not been to a picture show for two years. {: .speaker-KN7} ##### Senator GUTHRIE:
VICTORIA · NAT; UAP from 1931 -- I was merely pointing out that the man on the land has to work far longer hours than the coddled people in our cities, who do not know what labour is involved in the production of wheat or butter. A dairy farmer does not even have a Sunday off. A lot of the industries which the Government are , building up by means of this Tariff are tin-pot hot-house industries. We are told that this industry wants high protection, whereas those engaged in it have cheap coal, cheap iron, and comparatively cheap labour. There is no better -labourer in any industry than is the Australian. In 1918-19, according to the *Commonwealth* *Year-Book,* the average wage per head of the employees of the manufacturing industries of Australia was £129 18s., or 17 per cent, of the cost of the manufactured article. The wages paid by the primary producers are much higher than that. {: .speaker-K9P} ##### Senator Vardon: -- The average of £129 18s. per head includes the wages of females ? {: .speaker-KN7} ##### Senator GUTHRIE:
VICTORIA · NAT; UAP from 1931 -- Yes ; but that is the average wage paid to those employed in the manufacturing industries of Australia, whereas the wages of those employed by the man on the farm or the station are probably double, if we take into consideration the fact that farm and station employees are both housed and fed. I cannot help rubbing in these facts, because I am dead against this excessive protection, which must increase the cost of living, penalize the' primary producer, and, at the same time, over-fatten those who are already too fat: - some of the pampered manufacturing class. I know that the Minister is not pleased with what I have said, but I believe he is fair, and I hope he will agree to the request that I intend to move at the proper time, that the duty under the British preferential Tariff be reduced from 52s. to 44s. per ton. . {: #debate-4-s52 .speaker-KBJ} ##### Senator WILSON:
South Australia -- I stated on the general Tariff debate that an important factor the Senate would have to take into consideration would be the different hours and conditions of workers in various industries. I understand that a forty-four hours' week is worked in the wire-drawing industry in Australia. We have to face a possible economic waste brought about by a reduction of the working period from a reasonable forty-eight hours to forty-four hours per week. An illustration of this economic waste was given to us recently in connexion with a small Commonwealth undertaking which suffered a loss of over £70,000 through the reduction of the. hours of labour from forty-eight to forty-four per week. How long will a man on the land continue to be contented to work sixty hours a week in order to enable forty-four hours per week to be worked in another industry? We had more development of the out-back country during the last three or four years than we have had for many years past, and it has been brought about by our efforts to place returned soldiers on farms, but in nine cases out of ten these men have not been able to fence their properties because of the price of wire. If we adopt **Senator Guthrie's** suggestion to reduce the . duty on British-made wire, we shall only be living up to the pledges we gave to Great Britain during the war. Our importations of wire in 1913 were as follow : - United Kingdom, 124,000 cwt..; Germany, 707,000 cwt. ; United States of America, 475,000 cwt.; and other countries, 7,000 cwt. In 1920 the figures were: - United Kingdom, 48,000 cwt.; Canada, 17,000 cwt.; United States of America, 313,000 cwt.; and Belgium, 15,000 cwt. **Senator Guthrie** is merely asking for a reduction of the duty on the goods we import from Great Britain, to which country Australia owes something, and we can repay our debt to some extent by giving British goods a preference over those of other countries. It is a great mistake for honorable senators to be everlastingly painting a terrible picture of what the man on the land has to do. One would think that he has no time to sleep, no pleasure, and an unpayable occupation; whereas, as a matter of fact, a young man in 'Australia could have no better occupation than the working of a decent farm. Of course, there are certain things to be done in the initial stages of development, but the people in these outback districts make their own fun, and get just as much pleasure out of life as city dwellers do. I heard one senator to-day make the most astounding statement that children in country districts were not as healthy as children who live in towns. {: .speaker-JXP} ##### Senator Drake-Brockman: -- The statement was a bit of a staggerer. {: .speaker-KBJ} ##### Senator WILSON: -- It was a blowout. {: .speaker-KN7} ##### Senator GUTHRIE:
VICTORIA · NAT; UAP from 1931 -- I do not think it is true. {: .speaker-KBJ} ##### Senator WILSON: -- It is not. One can live 25 miles from a doctor and not require his services more than once a year. In the next five or six years there will be a greater demand for wire in Australia than we have known in the past, because on account of the high price of this article, and also owing- to the cost of labour, fencing improvements have been hung up. But while those who are engaged in making the wire work forty-four hours in the week, the man who puts it in his fence is obliged to work sixty hours a week. I have heard honorable senators talking about the influx of population to the city. Why should a man continue to work sixty hours % week in the country if he can get all the luxuries we hear spoken of by working forty-four hours a week' in the cities? Still the ' man who works under reasonable conditions in the country is really better off than the one who works forty-four hours a week in a city. During the election campaign of 1919 all the Government supporters, and even **Senator Gardiner,** cried out, "Produoe! Produce! Produce!" The Government said that every inducement possible would be given to the people to continue and extend production, but the duty on wire will not assist in achieving that result. Every farmer realizes that he must be prepared to pay for the development of secondary industries. No country can be built up unless every section is prepared to make a sacrifice, and every man who believes in Australia is prepared to give reasonable protection to assist in the development of its industries, provided he is at the same time able to get the machinery and other things he requires at a fair and reasonable price. I shall support the suggestion of **Senator Guthrie** to reduce the British rate upon wire. {: #debate-4-s53 .speaker-K09} ##### Senator PAYNE:
Tasmania -- I move - >That the House of Representatives be requested to make the duty, sub-item (e) (1), British, ad val., 15 per cent. The . duty . proposed . in . the . schedule is 25 per cent. The rate I propose will also impose on the . users of the manufactured article a very heavy burden, but at . the same time it will afford ample protection to the manufacturer. The subitem refers only to wire of No. 16 gauge or finer gauge, and under a 15 per cent. British Tariff -a duty of £5 8s. per ton would, be paid on No. 16 gauge, £6 13s. on No.. . 22 . gauge,. . £910s. on No. 26 gauge, and £1111s. on No. 28 gauge. The original proposal in the Tariff as 'suomitted in ' another place was for a protective duty of £2 12s. per ton against Great Britain ; 'so that l am not asking for very much, particularly when the industry will' be afforded, on the average, at least two and a half times more protection than the Government originally -intended it to have. The industry of wire weaving is bound up to a very great extent with our primary industries, inasmuch as the article produced is used extensively for battery screens in mines and stripper cloth in connexion with harvesting operations. The primary pro ducer is specially interested in the duty on this commodity. Supposing. we insist on this very heavy duty on wire, and we -find what is predicted occurs, namely, that the manufacturers of woven wire go out of business, what will it mean? The mining, agricultural, and many other sections of industry will have to depend for woven wire on importations of the British finished product. What then becomes <of the industry at Newcastle, which is established to produce the wire for Aus- tralian consumption? Where will be the demand for the Australian article if the finished article is imported? I am told definitely that with a Tariff like that before us, the industry here cannot be carried on effectively. In the first place,, it puts the article up to a very high price. -I am now dealing with wire of No. 16 or finer gauge; and I think that the figures 1 have submitted show that what I propose will give the drawn wire industry heavy protection : as against Great Britain, and twice as much protection against other countries. If I were to propose to give small protection- to the drawn-wire industry, I could not expect support, but when I propose protection to the extent of £6 4s. per ton, as. against the "52s. originally proposed, . honorable senators will agree that I am not doing anything to prevent the success of . this industry. in Australia. {: .speaker-KPE} ##### Senator Keating: -- What is the,. market value of . the No. . 16-gauge ? {: .speaker-K09} ##### Senator PAYNE: -- The . last British invoice I-saw on the 16th June . was>£33 per ton f . o.b., plus the 10 percent, ad *valorem,* : inafcing : £36 lis. for dutiable . purposes, "and the - duty itself , £2 19s. l0d. . on the present 'proposal. In the case of No.28 - gauge the price ' was £78 'per ton, 'which, -with -thead *-valorem* 10 per- cent., realized the- duly of £19 5s. per ton. That is Protection run mad. If Australia were pro"du'cing, all the requirements of this woven wire industry, T have no doubt that under the duty that I propose the Australian trade could be captured. {: .speaker-KPE} ##### Senator Keating: -As protection, 25 -per cent, is not out of the way, but from 52a. to £19 5s. is a big jump, which requires explanation. {: .speaker-K09} ##### Senator PAYNE: -- The only solution is for the Senate to request that adequate protection be . given. If it was thought that 52s. per ton was adequate protection after fixing the protection on the raw or first product of smelted ore, so far- as Britain was concerned, surely the request T suggest, which means a minimum of £5 8s., and a maximum of £1111s., cannot be regarded by the Minister as extreme. {: #debate-4-s54 .speaker-K5R} ##### Senator SENIOR:
South Australia -- I have listened to the arguments advanced, and I ask honorable senators to have regard to what they are doing. We are proposing to reduce the price of the product of the man who makes wire to one below what he pays for his raw material; in other words, we are asking him to work for nothing. I desire an increase in the general Tariff, for it is certain that we are . going to have trouble in this connexion. We must not forget what has occurred in the case of those who are nearer to us, and have not a long water carriage to face. Those who stood by Australia when wire was very dear, and did their utmost to meet the needs of Australian workers at a price very much below the world's parity- {: .speaker-JXP} ##### Senator Drake-Brockman: -- Only £78 per ton! Very modest of them! {: .speaker-K5R} ##### Senator SENIOR: -- If the honorable senator makes inquiries he will find that he hasto correct that figure. {: .speaker-JXP} ##### Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · NAT -Brockm an . - I tried to buy wire in 1920, and' could not do sounder £65: {: .speaker-K5R} ##### Senator SENIOR: -- That wire was imported; the. wire made in- Australia', was not sold; at any -such price. Themaker of-' the wire published the priceat which' he woul'd sell the- wire; and others- who- sold- it had-. to observe the.price he fixed. But for the interjection, I' should" have pleaded for- gratitude, which has been defined: as"" a lively sense of 'favours to come." But I do- ask. honorable senators to. pause. I am as keen to help the man on the land, as any honorable senator. We ask men to come from England and invest anything from £100,000 to £30,0,0.00' in establishing an industry, and at the. very first chance we impose a Tariff which shows that we expect them to make wire for nothing. I am in a position to state that during the last week £4,000 was lost, in the. making of wire. {: .speaker-KRZ} ##### Senator Lynch: -- Where ? {: .speaker-K5R} ##### Senator SENIOR: -- In Melbourne andSydney.. The allegation that the Australian wire. is. not of good quality is not borne out by the facts. Any one who has used it knows that it is made of the best material, and is equal, if not- superior, to. wire- made anywhere in the world. Is it . fair, to those men who have established an industry for the benefit of Australia,, in its. hour of need, that they should be treated as proposed. I know that Belgian iron is coming into Australia, and is being used here- to-day. I desire to move that the duties on subitem e 2 be raised in both the- preference and genera] columns by 10s. . {: .speaker-K18} ##### The CHAIRMAN (Senator Bakhap: -- A prior request has been moved, and the honorable senator had better defer his until later. {: #debate-4-s55 .speaker-KPE} ##### Senator KEATING:
Tasmania -- **Senator Payne** has made some statements, which-, it seems to me, call for explanation on the part of the Minister **(Senator Russell).** As **Senator Payne** has pointed, out, this sub-item as originally submitted, was included under " Wire,?' with, duties of 52s.,. 72s. 6d., and 90s. per ton. On the 9th June, this subitem was divided into. e1 and e2, and on 9th July, it was further altered to the form in. which it now. appears.. **Senator Payne** has moved that the British preferential duty of 25 per cent; be reduced to 15 per cent., and-, according to the figures submitted" by him, that 15' per cent. . will' work out . at a rate varying, -according- tothe fineness' of the gauge; from £5 8s. to £11 lis. per ton. If that is the resulfc of' **Senator Payne's** proposal being accepted,it will mean that' the actual duty charged' on this class of wire will' be very eon:siderably higher than what was originally proposed , by the Government. I' hope that the Minister, when replying, will direct his attention to the apparent discrepancy between the original proposal of 52s. per ton, as British preference for all wire, and **Senator Payne's** proposal now, which will' range, as. I. have just stated. {: .speaker-KUL} ##### Senator E D MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917 -- When the Tariff was introduced, the manufacture of the smaller wires had not been started. {: .speaker-KPE} ##### Senator KEATING: -- I am merely suggesting, that there must be an explanation of the' discrepancy, and that honorable senators are entitled to have it. {: #debate-4-s56 .speaker-K3E} ##### Senator RUSSELL:
VicePresident of the Executive Council · Victoria. · NAT -- Replying to what **Senator- Payne** has said, I admit that there are a number of small manufacturers who may feel the proposed duties, and I am. willing, therefore, to: meet the honorable senator and. the Committee half way, if they will accept the rate of 20 in place of 25 . per - cent, in the British preferential column. The object of the Tariff is to supply raw material cheaply, so that those, who are making it up into finish articles may have a. fair margin of profit. As to. the other complaint that has been voiced, we are not in a position to do anything to remedy it ' I should like the farmer to get cheap- fencing, but I have myself paid . *£2.* a coil for wire, a price which worked out at over £40 per. ton. Still, as a Protectionist, I ambound to carry out my pledges to my constituents, although the policy which, they indorsed may pinch here and there. . During the elections I heard none of the objections to the Tariff that SenatorsLynch and . Guthrie have voiced in this chamber. There may be differences of opinion as. to rates, but all. the. Victorian candidates were on. the Protectionist-, ticket. Yet thesesenators ask for reductions, on every third. or fourth item. {: .speaker-KN7} ##### Senator GUTHRIE:
VICTORIA · NAT; UAP from 1931 -- In this instance there was formerly no duty. {: .speaker-KPE} ##### Senator Keating: -- The rate of 52s. a ton must have been proposed in order to get revenue. It was not proposed in fulfilment of the Minister's Protectionist pledges. {: .speaker-K3E} ##### Senator RUSSELL: -- Circumstances have changed since the matter was first dealt with. We now have in Australia concerns capable of manufacturing all the wire we require, whereas formerly there were only a few manufacturers of barbed wire and the like, who were in a small way. This country needs millions of miles of wire fencing, the making of which will become a national industry. The duty on rods, which is the raw material of the wire manufacturer, is 44s. per ton, and the margin of duty in favour of those engaged in drawing,, the wire is, therefore, 8s. Will any one say that that is too much ? . {: .speaker-K1J} ##### Senator PRATTEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT -- It is ridiculous; only 2 per cent. {: .speaker-K3E} ##### Senator RUSSELL: -- The wiremakers say that it is too little. {: .speaker-K1J} ##### Senator PRATTEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT -- Of course, they do. {: .speaker-K3E} ##### Senator RUSSELL: -- It seems to. me very little. The British preferential rate of 52s. is equivalent to an *ad valorem* duty of 11 per cent, on the price of American plain wire in March, 1920, and the rate of 44s,. is equivalent to an *ad* *valorem* duty of 11 per cent. It is proposed to reduce the British duty from 52s. to 44s. per ton. {: .speaker-JXP} ##### Senator Drake-Brockman: -- Do you suggest that the profit made by the wiredrawers is only 8s. per ton ? {: .speaker-K3E} ##### Senator RUSSELL: -- The profit has to come out of the margin I have named. {: .speaker-KN7} ##### Senator GUTHRIE:
VICTORIA · NAT; UAP from 1931 -- But one has to pay as much as £32 per ton for fencing wire. {: .speaker-K3E} ##### Senator RUSSELL: -- At current prices there is a protection of 8s. per ton to the wire industry. Those engaged in that industry are entitled to some consideration for the capital put into the business, and the costs they incur in their operations. {: .speaker-JXP} ##### Senator Drake-Brockman: -- They buy their raw material for £8 per ton, and sell their finished product for from £32 to £70 per ton. Wire of 28-gauge runs up to between £70 and £80 per ton. {: .speaker-K3E} ##### Senator RUSSELL: -- American experience over a number of years, taking into account labour and other costs, shows a difference of about. 60 per cent. I do not think pig iron is obtainable in Australia to-day. for less than £8 or £8 10s. per ton. That pig iron has to be made into blooms or billets, and then drawn into rods, which are the raw material of the wiremaker. I am not an expert, but I should say that the drawing of a ton of iron must involve considerable labour; and to recompense the manufacturers they are afforded protection to the extent of 8s. Before concluding my remarks I wish to refer briefly to an unfortunate incident in which **Senator Guthrie** and myself were involved. The honorable senator made me very angry, although I am sure that he bore me no malice in speaking as he did. In the course of sixteen years' experience in the Senate I can recall only one occasion on which I have been called to order; but when I am accused of leading a sporting life and of persecuting the primary producers of the country, I am bound to protest. I have not been to a picture show for two years, and I have been to the theatre only ,once in many months. Four Saturday afternoons out of five , are spent in my garden. I have met **Senator Guthrie** upon a race-course, but I have been to only one race meeting since New Year's Day. {: .speaker-K18} ##### The CHAIRMAN (Senator Bakhap: -Order ! {: .speaker-K3E} ##### Senator RUSSELL: -- I protest that an unwarranted attack has been made upon my personal conduct. {: .speaker-10000} ##### The CHAIRMAN: -- Recriminations of this kind are not at all to the point. The matter is very irritating, no doubt; but honorable senators must preserve good temper in these exchanges. {: .speaker-K3E} ##### Senator RUSSELL: -- I hope, at any rate, that there will be no further references of the kind. {: .speaker-KN7} ##### Senator GUTHRIE:
VICTORIA · NAT; UAP from 1931 -- The Minister's name was not even mentioned. {: .speaker-K3E} ##### Senator RUSSELL: -- I resent the insinuation that I have been loafing. I spent months upon the Tariff before it reached the Senate, and I have been working upon it since, day and night. {: .speaker-JYF} ##### Senator Earle: -- Does the Minister still say that the imposition of duty amounting to 25 per cent, on wire is equivalent to a protection of only 8s.? {: .speaker-K3E} ##### Senator RUSSELL: -- The proposal in the schedule is a' rate of 52s. {: .speaker-K09} ##### Senator Payne: -- Why should it be necessary to increase the duty upon the fine wire? {: .speaker-K3E} ##### Senator RUSSELL: -- When the rate was fixed, nearly eighteen mouths ago, there was no talk of the establishment in Australia of the great English firm of Rylands. The wire industry in this country was of a very slight character. However, Rylands are bringing out plenty of capital, and are prepared to meet demands for nearly all- classes of wire work. Australia should extend a welcome to the English manufacturers. {: .speaker-10000} ##### The CHAIRMAN: -- Order ! The Minister's time has expired. {: #debate-4-s57 .speaker-K1J} ##### Senator PRATTEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT -- I have listened with mixed feelings to this debate. The position appears scarcely to have been grasped by some honorable senators. The original proposal of the Government, made about March of last year, was for .the imposition of a British preferential duty amounting to 52s. per ton. At that time no one had an idea that the manufacture of wire in its finer processes would be shortly consummated in this country. The rate of duty was imposed in order to encourage the manufacture of fencing wire, and of that commodity solely. After the imposition of that rate, negotiations were opened up between the Minister for Trade and Customs **(Mr. Greene),** and the well-known British firm of Rylands, which purposed the establishment of a fine wire-drawing industry in Australia. That being the state of affairs, an addition was made, in another place, to the original Tariff as proposed by the Government in order to protect the manufacture of finer drawn wires. The rate, of 52s. per ton, stands to afford reasonable protection to the manufacturers of coarse or fencing wires, while the *ad valorem* rate of 25 per cent, was imposed to protect the finer processes of wire-drawing. Because of the establishment of that latter industry, Australia now has the satisfaction for the first time in its history of knowing that even such articles as needles, hatpins, and hairpins are being made out of Australian iron. We have a new industry established, at Newcastle which is a credit to Australia. It employs 900 men. But attempts are now being made - shall I say, vicious attempts ? - upon reputable manufacturers and on an altogether worthy industry, to reduce the duty so that there shall be a reversion to importations. I am sorry that the Minister has even agreed to a compromise. But since **Senator Russell** has expressed his willingness to accept 20 per cent., I presume that there is nothing further to be said. {: .speaker-KUL} ##### Senator E D MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917 -- The honorable senator chided the Government only yesterday for not occasionally submitting . to the views of honorable senators. {: .speaker-K1J} ##### Senator PRATTEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT -- I am not so sure that the Committee is behind the Government with respect to the compromise. I would have preferred to force a division regarding which - in accordance with the principle that Australian development must ; come first - there would have been no doubt concerning the casting of my vote. With respect to the rate of 52s., do honorable senators realize that the raw material for fencing wire is from iron made at the Broken Hill Proprietary Company's works at Newcastle - iron turned into bars, upon which commodity there is a duty of 44s. per ton? The modest proposal of the Government is to add .only 8s. in the case of fencing wire, making the duty 52s., while the " manufacturers of that wire must submit to a duty of 44s. in favour of the Broken Hill Proprietary Company's iron. Any firm actually paying nearly £16 per ton for raw material from the Broken *Hill Proprietary Company's works, and selling fencing wire drawn from that material manufactured in Newcastle at £22 per ton f.o.b. Newcastle, is not profiteering, but performing a great national service in the interests of the Commonwealth. Purchasers are paying nearly £16 a ton, which may be a fair and reasonable price to be charged by the Broken Hill Proprietary Company. The difference between that and the wire selling price is only £6 per ton, for which they have to undertake the drawing and incur other miscellaneous and necessary charges. {: .speaker-KUL} ##### Senator E D MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917 -- What wire is being sold at £22 per ton? {: .speaker-K1J} ##### Senator PRATTEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT -- No. 16 gauge. . I am informed that that is the price today. In supporting this Tariff, I am proud to have been able to give some slight assistance to the many great key industries being established in Australia with the assistance of this Parliament. Not only Rylands, Coopers, Cadbury s, and Lysaghts have been assisted, but the development of our own industries have been greatly benefited. Notwithstanding this assistance, there are honorable senators who endeavour to pick them to pieces, and whine because of the handicaps which they allege certain duties are imposing upon the man on the land. A little later they will be the first to express their appreciation of the assistance the Government have given these industries, and the efforts they have made by means of a Protective Tariff to enable these indnstries to successfully prosecute their under takings. I believe in consistency, and I, for one, desire to inform the Government that Ishall tell my constituents the part the Government have played in creating these big undertakings. One would judge, from the remarks of some honorable senators, that Great Britain wanted us to-give her goods a free entry into Australia; We have complete fiscal independence; but we have accepted the principle that, because we are children inour mother's house, we should give Britain preference over other nations; and rightly so, too. We are free to create whatever Tariff we may desire. Britain,. so far, has stood for Free Trade because it suits her best, and because she has . adopted that policy she makes no difference between the imports from any part of the world, Australia included. Britain is not asking us to' give her Free Trade, and she docs not desire us to do more than we wish. In most instances we have shown her preference to the extent of 10 per cent., 15 per cent., and 20 per cent., and it is misleading - although I could apply a stronger term - to bc always speaking of giving the goods from the grand old Mother Country a free entry into Australia. {: .speaker-KKZ} ##### Senator Gardiner: -- It is a good sentiment. {: .speaker-K1J} ##### Senator PRATTEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT -- It is more than that, and the honorable senator knows it. **Senator Gardiner** stands alone among his party and class in advocating the abolition of all duties, and I cannot understand his attitude. {: .speaker-JYF} ##### Senator Earle: -- Do you think that the honorable senator understands it himself? {: .speaker-K1J} ##### Senator PRATTEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT -- I do not think he does. In another place, his party colleagues spent days in endeavouring to increase the duty on the items we are now discussing by 50 per cent., but the Leader of the Opposition in this Chamber (Sena tor Gardiner) is endeavouring to reverse the whole position. On fencing wire, when we deduct the protection given on the raw material, there is protection equivalent to only 1 per cent. I would like to see the industry so well established that needles, pins, and hatpins and other fine wire products can be made from Australian iron. {: #debate-4-s58 .speaker-KKZ} ##### Senator GARDINER:
New South Wales -- I am glad to hear **Senator Pratten's** statement on his attitude towards the Tariff. The honorable senator uttered one remark which astonished me. He said that he could not understand my attitude, and. if such is the case, he is the only member in this Chamber who cannot. When the discussion of the Tariff was first commenced, I made it quite clear that, in my opinion, in endeavouring to protect some industries, we would be placing burdens upon others, and the discussion on this item provesthat my contention is correct. The farmers in this community, the landownersand the users of wire will now find themselves interfered with by the duty which has already been placed upon the raw material. **Senator Pratten** has referred to the question of fencing wire, and I realize that the primary producer is at present responsible for much of our wealth. I know, however, that the countryis developing, and when our population is six or seven times greater than it is to-day, the secondary industries will play a more important part. But if we deliberately lay ourselves out tosay that the material which the primary producers must have is going to be placed beyond their reach, the position will be acute. A few years ago fencing wire was £8 or £10 per ton. {: .speaker-K5R} ##### Senator Senior: -- What was the country of origin? {: .speaker-KKZ} ##### Senator GARDINER: -- That does not matter. {: .speaker-K5R} ##### Senator Senior: -- The bulk of it came from Germany. {: .speaker-KKZ} ##### Senator GARDINER: -- The greater proportioncame from Britain, and some from Germany. I say good luck to the Germans if they could produce fencing wire at a reasonable cost, and be the means of enabling our primary producers to make their operations moreprofitable. {: .speaker-KBJ} ##### Senator Wilson: -- Quite a number of them would refuseto use German wire. {: .speaker-KKZ} ##### Senator GARDINER: -- I know their patriotism is very sincere-; hut I would like to put them to the test. If I was offering German wire at £10 per ton, and British wire at £15 per ton, and **Senator Wilson** was in the market, I know which he would purchase. Before the war wire was selling at £8 and £12 per ton, and £10 per ton could be regarded as an average price for No.8 or No. 10 gauge. The price is now more than double that figure, and yet we are informed that this is only 8s. per ton protection. The protection that the wire manufacturers have at present is more than £8 per ton. Freight is estimated at 25 per cent., and if wire is being sold at £32 per ton, there is considerably over £5 protection in freight alone. {: .speaker-JXP} ##### Senator Drake-Brockman: -- But is it £32 per ton? {: .speaker-KKZ} ##### Senator GARDINER: -- I am taking, the Minister's statement, as I like to be on the low side. If it is £32, why should the primary producer be asked to pay more than three times the pre-war price for his fencing wire? {: .speaker-K1J} ##### Senator PRATTEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT -- I said that No. 16 gauge wire was sold at £22 per ton; but I now find that it was No. 8 gauge. {: .speaker-KKZ} ##### Senator GARDINER: -- Unless the 16 gauge was used, in making barbed wire, I do not know where it could be used. No. 8 and 10 gauge is used for fencing purposes, but No. 12 may be used in some cases. I will accept **Senator Pratten's** statement that No. 8 wire is being sold for £22 per ton. That is more than double the pre-war -price, and it cannot be said that the cost of production has doubled. The argument has been used that the industries producing the raw material will charge higher prices, and this argument merely convinces me of the soundness of my position when I assert that, if it is to be applied all round, protection is impossible. What is the use of speaking of 8s. per ton on wire as protection if the persons who are protected to that extent must' pay the increased charges, on all the articles which they use, and which are the product of other protected industries? The whole business- from beginning to end is so stupidly impossible that none but Protectionists could be found to support it. When industries have developed' under Free Trade, as the iron industry did, it is claimed that their development, has been due to the imposition of Customsduties. The wire industry grew up without a duty, but as soon as it becomes established, some one with a personal interest in the business brings his interest under the notice of the Minister for Trade and Customs, of the Government, or the party, and duties are imposed for his benefit. **Senator Pratten.** has reminded me that the members of my own party follow the same course, and I have candidly acknowledged that on this matter I am right out of - step with the members of the party to which I belong. But, because I do not agree with every detail favoured by the majority of the members of the party, is it to be assumed- that I am not at liberty to express the opinion I have formed from the experience of a lifetime that what they are attempting is impossible? I was very pleased to hear **Senator de** Largie's interjection when **Senator Pratten** was speaking, suggesting that the honorable senator's determination to cut out imports of wire from Great Britain savoured of fiscal Sinn Feinism. Judging by **Senator Pratten's** attitude to the centre of the Empire, I must regard him as-- a fiscal Sinn Feiner. He is out to destroy the Empire so. far as interferencewith the'free interchange of commoditieswith Great Britain may tend to do so. The honorable senator will not permit the indulgence of a sentiment in favour of trading with Great Britain. We "have in the schedule now under consideration provision for the imposition of duties in the intermediate column to enable us to trade with New Zealand and Canada when those Dominions are ready to come into line and make similar concessions in respect of Australian goods sent to them. Here we have Great Britain admitting our- goods without charge or demand, and yet we set up a Tariff against imports from Great Britain, though they may be the very things which our primary producers most require. Wire-netting is a continual need of every man on the land. There is no progressive farmer in Australia who is not continually adding to his "fencing. These duties will represent a continual drain upon the progressive farmer, because they will add to the cost of his fencing. When Australian manufacturers can- obtain No.8 wire for £22 per ton, and, according to **Senator Guthrie,** £32 per ton for the finer wire, I fail to understand why it should be necessary to impose any duties on the British product. **Senator Pratten** stated that Great Britain did not ask us for Free Trade. That is so. She looks after her own business, and trusts that we will look after ours. But I do not see that there is any occasion when we are considering a Tariff to' declare fiscal war against Great Britain, especially when by doing so we are punishing our own people. A duty of 52s. per ton on wire may not be regarded as a serious impost, but it means that if a British manufacturer is prepared to supply an Australian farmer with wire, and the farmer wants the British product, he must pay a fine of £2 12s. per ton for the right to use it. I think the whole Empire should be bound together, and what stronger binding material could we have than fencing wire? Fencing wire might be an excellent means for linking the various parts of the Empire together. There is no Empire sentiment displayed by traders in the community. I commend **Senator Russell** for agreeing to the. compromise proposed by **Senator Payne,** and accepting a reduction of 5 per cent, on- the smaller wires. Why should not the hon7orable senator agree to the proposed reduction of Ss. per ton on the British product? In view of the spirit of compromise and the sweet reasonableness which the Minister has exhibited in agreeing to **Senator Payne's** proposal, he might very well agree to a duty of 44s. per ton on the British product, instead of the 52s. per ton proposed. He should bear in mind that the reduction would mean an advantage of 8s. per ton to pastoralists and land-holders generally throughout Australia on an article which they continually need. They have petitioned the Senate in con'nexion with this matter, and I believe that many members of the Committee are sufficiently interested in the owners of land and the workers on land to listen to that petition. The Minister might meet the request of the primary producers, to whom we can give no protection under the Tariff, because their products must be sold in the markets of the world. I appeal to the honorable senator to accept a duty of 44s. per ton on British imports of this article in lieu of the proposed duty of 52s. per ton. He should realize that the primary producer needs protection as well as the secondary producer. {: #debate-4-s59 .speaker-KRZ} ##### Senator LYNCH:
Western Australia -- I really do not know where I stand in this matter, and that is easily explained by the course which our Tariff legislation has taken up to date. On. looking at the price-list of various commodities I find that bar iron, the raw material from, which wire is made, costs £32 per ton. That is according to the *Industrial Australian 'and Mining Standard* of this month. I find in the same list that No. 10 gauge wire is quoted at the same price. There must be something wrong with these figures! **Senator .** Pratten said that No. 8 gauge wire costs £16 per ton, but according to the pricelist before me it costs £26 10s. per ton. {: .speaker-K1J} ##### Senator PRATTEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT -- I said that £22 per ton is the selling price, f.o.b., Newcastle to-day. {: .speaker-KRZ} ##### Senator LYNCH: -- According to the list before me, the price is £26 per ton. If the raw material of the wire industry is at such a high price as that I have quoted, even the' proposal of the Government is hopelessly inadequate for the protection of the industry. I know that wire netting costs the price quoted for it, because I paid that price for it myself months ago. The duty imposed on the raw material of these manufactures will" have to be added to- theburden of those on the countryside who must use the manufactured article, those for whom we have heard so many pleas put forward to-night. At the outset of this Tariff debate I took up the position that I would be prepared to give every industry a fair chance to succeed, provided, of course, that those engaged in it put forward their very best efforts. My policy is to give every one a fair start,, and to encourage them to get a move on,, and if they do not, to withdraw the help given. In this case, it is conceivable thatthe duty will particularly benefit those associated with the big Newcastle Works.. The small man, in whose behalf the Minister **(Senator Russell)** spoke to-night, will have very little chance of startingoperations, because he will be obliged to go to the Broken Hill Proprietary Com- pany for this raw material, and then market it in competition with the company itself. In the management of businesses of this description, the multiplication of a given set of processes under one control must result in a reduction of overhead charges. Therefore, the only effect of this duty will be to give still greater protection to the Broken Hill Proprietary Company, with no corresponding benefit, so far as the creation of new industries is concerned, to the people of the Commonwealth. If, for instance, a man with a capital of £5,000 wished to commence business in the manufacture of wire netting, he would have to buy his blooms, his rod iron, and all the other material from the Newcastle works. How, then, could he sell his product in competition with that great industrial concern, which is specially designed to keep down the cost of production? He would have no hope in the world. If this much is conceded - and I do not see how honorable senators can think otherwise - the prospect of establishing new industries is exceedingly remote unless, of course, the Minister **(Senator Russell)** can tell us that the Broken Hill Proprietary Company are going out of this particular branch of their business, and that is not at all probable. Would any honorable senator put £10,000 into a venture of this description in these circumstances? It is plain, I think, that the only effect of the duty will be to enable ' the Broken Hill Proprietary Company to make still greater profits and crush out the small man. ' {: .speaker-K1J} ##### Senator PRATTEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT -- There is no small man to be crushed. {: .speaker-KRZ} ##### Senator LYNCH: -- The Minister just now put forward the plea that the duty was for the purpose of encouraging the establishment of small industries. {: .speaker-K09} ##### Senator Payne: -- Ite was referring to the wire-weaving industry. {: .speaker-KRZ} ##### Senator LYNCH: -- If any manufacturer can engage in the fine wire-weaving, industry, he can also handle the mediumsized wire. There is no essential difference between No. 16 and No. 10 wire. I have no desire to discount the value of the industry at Newcastle, or to qualify in any way the commendation I have already placed on record concerning that great industrial enterprise. But with regard to this sub-item, we have to think of the probable effect of the duty. We must recognise that if the Broken Hill Proprietary Company remain in the field the small manufacturer will not have the ghost of a chance of succeeding. Everything will depend upon how they are going to behave. Are they going to tread the path of the monopolists? I am afraid they . are, because I have perused a copy of a certain document which sets out that if manufacturers desire to be supplied with raw material at a certain price they must buy exclusively from that" concern. This statement was made in the House of Representatives, and it was denied; but I saw the document, or, at all events, a copy of it, and it now remains for the Broken Hill Proprietary Company to contradict my statement. Is not this the beginning of the nefarious practices of those Trusts which are the curse of the United States of America under a high Protectionist policy? This brings me to another point. If there is one thing in the world that would make me take this stand, it is the facility with which men change their opinions when they find themselves in different circumstances. How did the Broken Hill Proprietary Company make its money? In the first instance, it was a struggling mining proposition. It is quite true that Dame Fortune smiled beneficently on its operations. It progressed and made huge profits. Since then it has changed its occupation, and instead of being engaged in the mining of silver, it is largely concerned in the mining of iron ore from Iron Knob, in South Australia, and in the manufacture of material required for all the great iron and steel industries of the Commonwealth. If we could get the collective opinion of those associated with the Broken Hill Proprietary Company, when it was a struggling concern, I think they would look more favorably and sympathetically on their sister industries in the industrial field than they do to-day. They have changed their nature, and from being operators in metalliferous mining they have, as disclosed by the last balance-sheet, made a clear profit of £500,000 in their; new "venture. The Broken Hill Proprietary Company, as I have -said, have changed their occupation, and evidently their, sympathies have changed accordingly. Hence the necessity for us to. tell them, plainly that they are not going to tread, the well-beaten, and recognised track of huge combinations in- America. We must tell: . them plainly that they will not beallowed to do that in Australia if the Government of the day is worth it3 salt, and is able to prevent them from doing, so. We have a chance in. this case , toprevent such being done. We already have done very well for them. We have piled on duty after, duty; for. which they did not ask. until lately. We have given them a big duty on pig iron, and. here we have a further proposal to give them, a duty on wire, which is made under the same roof as is the- pig iron produced from our iron ore. I invite, honorable- senators to consider for a moment the invidious position that is to be created. The Minister proposes to grant a concession to the manufacturersof. small-gauge wire; that will help the mattress makers and the wire weavers in. many of our cities. But he refuses to grant any such concession in respect of the larger grades of wire, the purchasers of. which are just as- much entitled to consideration as are the small manufacturers of the metropolis. Such wire. is purchased by the man outback, concerning whose lot every word spoken by **Senator Guthrie** is the absolute truth.. The. importance of the wheat industry of Aust tralia cannot be too often emphasized.,Some time.. ago I. asked the Governmentfor information regarding the wheat industry, and they commissioned- the Government (Statistician to supply me with it. **Senator Russell** will remember that I was supplied with' nearly 100 pages of information concerning, various tin-pot industries in this country ; but. with only three pages relating, to the- great wheatsrowing industry. That was all the inrformation they could give me under thevarious headings in respect of which I had asked- for particulars about the wheat industry, as compared with nearly 100- pages of matter relating to other industries. This is but another illustration of the interest shown in the small secondary industries compared with the huge wheatgrowing industry of Australia and the people engaged in it, who observe the most commendable silence in regard to their burdens and afflictions. We arerapidly: approaching a time when people will pause before they decide to go into; the wheat-growing areas. That fact is shown in the *Commonwealth Y ear-Book.* {: .speaker-K18} ##### The CHAIRMAN (Senator Bakhap: -Order! The honorable senator's time has expired. {: #debate-4-s60 .speaker-JXP} ##### Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
Western Australia .- My honorable colleague from Western Australia **(Senator Lynch)** has a few more observations1 to offer, on this question,, and I am sure' we shall.' be glad to give him an opportunity to make them. {: .speaker-10000} ##### The CHAIRMAN: -- I ask the honorable senator not to make any allusion to a. desire on his part to hear further observations by any honorable senator who has just resumed his seat; but to address* himself to the question immediately before the Chair. {: .speaker-JXP} ##### Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN: -- I have every intention of addressing myself solely to the question, immediately beforethe -Chair. {: .speaker-KUL} ##### Senator E D MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917 -. - And fully? {: .speaker-JXP} ##### Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN: -- No, it is rather late ; and if. I were to set out once more to' speak for the man on the land, I should certainly be able, with- the assistance of **Senator Lynch** and **Senator. Guthrie,** who are equally well posted; on: the subject,, to keep the Committee going until the early hours of the morning. I am not going, to accept the challenge : of the Leader , of. the- Senate to-' tell- all I: know regarding, the lot of the- unfortunate man on. the land, and. the- effectwhich this wretched Tariff will have on him.. I confess* that I am rather interested in this question of fencing wire. I am, to a certain extent, a property owner, and my personal experience withregard to the purchase of wire since the war has not been a very happy one. Let me tell of one incident which occurred during my absence on active service, and. which serves to illustrate the gratitude of some people, at all events, to those who . do their duty to their country. I have a . small property in Western Australia, and. shortly before the war had. spent something like £2,000 on fencing, wire for it. I decided when I went on active service that, if I left the fences, where they stood, they would still be there when I came back. I made a mis- take. While I was . away, fencing wire became scarce and expensive, and when I returned I found hardly a yard of the £2,000 worth of fencing wire that I had put on my property. I still owned the property, and, as I wanted to do something with it, I began to inquire the price of wire to replace . that which I had lost. And whereas before the war it had cost me about £16 per ton . to purchasethe wire and have it 'delivered on . my property, which was some way . out, . I found that . it would cost me . £65 per ton in Perth beforeIstarted to shift it. . That was my experience . on my 'return from active service. With respect toportion of this land, I have done what **Senator Guthrie** has done with some of his property - I have got rid of it, and have left it to some other " mug " to pay the enorrnous prices involved in fencing the property in order to bring it into use. 'The wire which I bought in Perth before the "war cost me about £12 per ton there, whereas in 1920the price was £65 per ton, I believe that in Perth to-day it is about £40 per ton. Western Australia, from an agricultural point of view, is less developed than any other State, and it is in the interests of Australia that it should bo developed. It is impossible, however, to develop it, having regard to the absurd prices that we have to pay for all commodities - tools of trade, fencing wire, machinery, and everything else required by the man on the land to-day. The State which I have the honour to assist in representing is a very considerable producer of wheat, and it is a conservative estimate that it will produce at least 100,000,000 bushels of wheat per annum. {: .speaker-KRZ} ##### Senator Lynch: -- Ninety million bushels is the official estimate. {: .speaker-JXP} ##### Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN: -- Yes ; and that, I am assured, is a very conservative estimate. Western Australia is not yet producing, anythinglike that quantity, and unless the encouragement given to the man on theland is greater than that which has been given up to date - unless we alter this Tariff very considerably - that estimate will neverbe realized. I am sure that the prophecies ofSenator Guthrie with regard to what is going to happen to those on the land within the next two or three yearsare well founded. Insteadof encou raging the use of our vacant land, we are making it more difficult. We pay attention to our secondary industries, . and sacrifice our primary industries. -There is a great deal . of tails . about key industries, which are said . to be . absolutely essential if we are to make this country great. Is it not much more-necessary -to get people into the Common-wealth if we are to retain it? . {: .speaker-K0S} ##### Senator Plain: -- What will you do with the immigrants" when "you get them here? SenatorDRAKE-BROCKMAN.- We will put them to the work of making proper use of the country. {: .speaker-K0S} ##### Senator Plain: -- In what directions? {: .speaker-JXP} ##### Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN: -- In the production of wheat, wool, and meat, and in the working of our mines. We have in this country some of the greatest mineral areas in the world; but the protective duties we keep on. adding to all the items required in mining operations, and all the commodities consumed by those who are- engaged in working in mines, have made the cost of mining so' increasingly great that,, as an industry, it . is ceasing to exist in Australia. The gold mines of Western Australia are on the verge of ceasing to exist for this reason. {: .speaker-K2C} ##### Senator Bolton: -- Principally on account of the industrial -question ? {: .speaker-JXP} ##### Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN: -- Not principally, only partly. It was the last straw that broke the camel's back. Why should we apply the last straw by loading our primary industries with that little extra burden which makes it impossible for them to carry on? It is said that we cannot possibly reduce the duty on this item, because we have already fixed the duty on the raw material at 44s. It is to be regretted that we were so foolish as to agree to that rate of duty, but because we have made a mistake already, are "we to make another mistake now? **Senator Guthrie's** request is exceedingly moderate. I would 'have supported a reduction to30s., or even a proposal to wipe out the duty altogether. {: #debate-4-s61 .speaker-KRZ} ##### Senator LYNCH:
Western Australia -- I wish to draw attention to the State of the wheat-growing industry, which for a time ousted the wool industry from the pride of position in the Commonwealth in point -of value of 'products, and is responsible for keeping 200,000 adults on the land, as compared with the mere 5,000, 6,000, or 10,000we are told are employed in connexion with, (ihe iron works of New South Wales. {: .speaker-JXZ} ##### Senator Duncan: -- Almost every wheatgrowing district of New South Wales is represented by a high Protectionist. {: .speaker-KRZ} ##### Senator LYNCH: -- If the Government's policy were sustained by the people who ought to be behind it to-day, there would have been no Country party in existence in Australia. That party has come into this Parliament to oppose the Protective policy of the Government as being against the interests of the country people. Although the area under wheat in the Commonwealth was 12,484,512 acres in 1915-16, it dwindled to half that acreage last year. In 1910-11 the acreage was 7,372,456 acres. The outstanding feature of these figures is the fact that our wheat production is behind what it was eleven years ago. I am told that wheat-growers are turning their attention to other pursuits, because they find wheat-growing unpayable. This is certainly the case with those who paid high prices for land in the drier areas of New South Wales and Western Australia. In the latter State, some men have had such a discouraging time at wheat-growing that there are hundreds of farms now in the hands of the State Agricultural Bank, because their owners have walked' off them, not having sufficient resources to work them under the conditions obtaining during the last few years. That is the condition of the industry that is one of the principal buyers of wire. {: .speaker-K0S} ##### Senator Plain: -- Climatic conditions may have had something to do with the failure of those men. {: .speaker-KRZ} ##### Senator LYNCH: -- There are different opinions as to that. Under the same weather conditions, wheat is grown in the Mallee land of Victoria, and in Western Australia. There is a 12-inch rainfall in both places. But the farmers in the Mallee country do not work forty-four hours a week. The result of this Tariff must be that the wheat-growers will be crushed by the excessive cost of their equipment and other requirements, and at the same time wheat, on which we mainly rely, will fall in value. It may be said that the wheat-growers could go in for dairying, but as a fact, there are fewer dairy cows in Australia now than there* were in 1914, the figures for that year being 1,900,000, as against 1,902,000 for 1920. Then there is sheep raising, which requires so' much wire netting and wire; but in that industry the highest number of sheep was reached in 1890, when there were 97,000,000. Droughts followed, with alternating seasons, and in 1910 the number was 92,000,000, whereas last year it was only 87,000,000." It will be seen that dairying and sheep raising have been keeping pace in their decline with -wheat growing. These great indus- tries are .certainly not in a good way, and now action is being taken by means of this Tariff which will make their conditions still worse. It is 'becoming more difficult than ever for men on the land to make ends meet, and this at a time when we are so desirous for men to go out into the country, and make prosperous homes for themselves. I support the proposed reduction on the ground that, otherwise, we are simply giving an extra duty to the Broken Hill Proprietary Company for turning out wire, and that there will not be the least chance of founding the small subsidiary industries spoken of by the Minister. {: .speaker-K09} ##### Senator Payne: -- After the explanation made by the Minister, I ask leave to amend my request by making the proposed duty 20 per cent, instead of 15 per cent. Request, by leave, amended accordingly, and agreed to. {: #debate-4-s62 .speaker-K5R} ##### Senator SENIOR:
South Australia .- I move- >That the House of Representatives be requested to make the duty, sub-item (e) (2), general, per ton, 100s. I wish honorable senators to realize the position of the Committee in regard to this sub-item. The issue has been clouded in an effort to make it appear that the company which makes bar iron also makes the wire. That, is not a correct statement of the position. {: .speaker-KRZ} ##### Senator Lynch: -- I have bought wire from the company ! {: .speaker-K5R} ##### Senator SENIOR: -- The statement te which I ret er is not correct; the wire is made by an entirely different company, the rods being turned out by the Broken Hill Proprietary Company. The only protection given to the wiremaker is 8s. per ton. If the maker of bar iron is deserving of protection, to the extent of 44s*. , we ought, in justice, to increase rather than diminish the protection given to the wiremaker. It is all very well to say that a mistake' was made in the beginning ; that only shows that honorable senators are not seizedwith the position as it is to-day. When speaking previously, I said that £4,000 had practically been lost to Australia in connexion with the wire industry,. I then referred to wire that is coming from England, and I wish to correct my statement; I ought to have spoken of 4,000 tons.. It will be seen that, even with our present Tariff, this trade is going away from Australia. This is an infant industry, and before the infant is out of the cradle it is proposed to knock it on the head. At the instigation of Australia, this company undertook the work of producing this commodity; but while we protect others we protect the wiremaker only to the extent of 8s. per ton, as against 44s. in the case of the producer of bar iron. This means, of course, that we shall have to depend on other countries for our supplies. {: .speaker-K1J} ##### Senator PRATTEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT -- This section of the Tariff is our first line of defence. {: .speaker-K5R} ##### Senator SENIOR: -- Quite so. In other countries it has been found that Protection tends to decrease prices, and in Australia the man on the land will, under Protection, get cheaper wire than he could possibly buy from outside. {: .speaker-KRZ} ##### Senator Lynch: -- Clear up that matter about the manufacture of wire by the Broken Hill Proprietary Company. {: .speaker-K5R} ##### Senator SENIOR: -- The wire is not manufactured by the Broken Hill Proprietary Company, but by Rylands Bros. {: .speaker-KRZ} ##### Senator Lynch: -- Has the Broken Hill Proprietary Company no interest in the business ? {: .speaker-K5R} ##### Senator SENIOR: -- I do not know, but I do know that Rylands Brothers is a distinct company from the Broken Hill Proprietary, and I have no reason to believe there is any collusion. {: .speaker-JXZ} ##### Senator Duncan: -- Rylands Brothers are a big English firm. {: .speaker-KRZ} ##### Senator Lynch: -- I should like to see the share register. {: .speaker-K5R} ##### Senator SENIOR: -- There is another attempt to cloud the issue! Request negatived. Request (by **Senator Guthrie)** proposed - >That the House of Representatives be requested to make the duty, sub-item (e) (2), British, per ton, 44s. Question put. The Committee divided. Ayes . . . . . . 14 AYES: 0 NOES: 11 Majority . . 3 AYES NOES Question so resolved in the affirmative. Request agreed to. {: #debate-4-s63 .speaker-KRZ} ##### Senator LYNCH:
Western Australia . - The duties provided for in subitema will greatly affect the rnining industry. I complain of the way in which information regarding the Tariff has been set before us. It has cost me. a great deal of trouble to ascertain the operation of the 1908 Tariff in regard to these highclass steels. The rates of duty provided for in sub-item g will apply to the highclass steel used in mining plants, which is subjected to great wear and tear. This steel is now made dutiable at 20, 25, and 30 per cent. I propose therefore to move - >That the following new sub-item be inserted: - "Manganese and chrome steel parts, namely, parts made of steel containing not less -than½ per cent, of chromium and 7 per cent, of . manganese, which are used " in grinding, crushing, and pulverizing machinery, free." I wish to put the metalliferous mining industry in a position to at least hold its own. My State produces about . half of the gold mined in the Commonwealth, and the dry crushing plants, which are in the majority, have to buy high-class steel parts at very high prices, and these parts are subject to great wear and tear. {: .speaker-K3E} ##### Senator Russell: -- The steel covered by the sub-item will be admitted free until it is made in Australia. None is now made here. {: #debate-4-s64 .speaker-K3E} ##### Senator RUSSELL:
VicePresident of the Executive Council · Victoria · NAT -- Two factories have been established, or are in the course of establishment, for the production of steel of the calibre indicated in **Senator Lynch's** request. One of these works is situated at Guildford, Western Australia; the other is in New South Wales. When they begin to produce, articles of the calibre mentioned by the honorable senator, duty will be imposed by the prescription of departmental by-laws. Meanwhile, thesespecial lines will continue to be duty free. That is fair, and in .the best interests of Australia. If the manufacturers can turn out these high-grade products with commercial satisfaction and success, protection will be afforded. {: #debate-4-s65 .speaker-KRZ} ##### Senator LYNCH:
Western Australia -- I desire a specific assurance that no duty will be collected in respect ofsteel.of the requisite . quality for mining purposes unless and until a guarantee shall have been furnished that it is being commercially and adequately produced in Australia. {: #debate-4-s66 .speaker-KUL} ##### Senator E D MILLEN:
Minister for Repatriation · NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917 -- There appears to be a misunderstanding. The . position, as I see it, is just as **Senator Lynch** desires that it should be. {: .speaker-KRZ} ##### Senator Lynch: -- Except that the Minister **(Senator Russell)** has furnished no specific promise or guarantee, set out in black and white, that what I desire shall be put into effect. {: .speaker-KUL} ##### Senator E D MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917 -- The assurance which tho honorable senator desires is that not only shall' these special grade steels be admitted free until manufactured in this country in commercial quantities, but that there shall be . a guarantee covering their quality also. That sums up the intention of the Minister for Trade and Customs **(Mr. Greene),** who proposes -that, by departmental bylaws, the products in question - provided that they can be turned out in requisite quantity as well as in necessary quality to meet the needs of . Australia - shall become dutiable; but that the duty shall . not apply otherwise. {: .speaker-JXP} ##### Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · NAT -brockman. - That is' all the assurance that I desire, atany rate. {: #debate-4-s67 .speaker-KKZ} ##### Senator GARDINER:
New South Wales -- If asSenator Lynch appears to think, many of the commodi ties necessary to mining in Australia should be . subject to a duty of 20 per cent., would it, not be better to say in direct fashion that the Government and Parliament propose to tax . the Australian mining industry to the extent of 20 per cent. ? Such a straight-out course would be preferable to determining that, . after a certain date, the same effects shall be secured by prescription in departmental by-laws. {: #debate-4-s68 .speaker-KRZ} ##### Senator LYNCH:
Western Australia .- Although it would seem ' that assurances have emanated from Ministers, I am not prepared to rely upon 'vague statements.I desire to see the guarantee made good in black and white, and comprised within the schedule itself. Steels of a certain kind andquality might "be produced in this country, but not possessing the qualitiesnecessary to their use in the mining industry. My desire is that the calibre of the steel shall undoubtedly be of the requisite quality for the special purposes involved, and that the quantity of the local output shall be ample before duty is imposed. {: #debate-4-s69 .speaker-KUL} ##### Senator E D MILLEN:
Minister for Repatriation · NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917 -- **Senator Lynch** said just now that he was not prepared to accept a Ministerial assurance, and I take it that he means he would like an assurance approved by-Parliament. I may point out that there is a difficulty in setting out his intention in the form he desires. I have already assured him that these articles will be admitted free until they are produced in Australia. It is not possible for Parliament legislating to-day to say when that day will be, and it is therefore left to departmental by-laws to determine when the duties shall become operative. I can only give the definite assurance in the clearestlanguage of whichIam the master that it' is the intention of the Minister and the Department to see that the articles made here are of the requisite quality, and in the necessary quantity to meet our requirements, and that not until then will the duties be imposed. I give that assurance to. the Committee without the slightest reservation, and it is for the Committee to decide whether it shall heaccepted or not. I think the Committee, and even **Senator Lynch,** will see that I have gone as faras is humanly possible,and I trust that **Senator Lynch** will not press the matter further. {: .speaker-KRZ} ##### Senator Lynch: -- In the- circumstances, I . suppose I am compelled to accept theMinister's assurance, but I do- so grudgingly. {: #debate-4-s70 .speaker-JU7} ##### Senator DE LARGIE:
Western Australia -- It is utterly impossible for **Senator Lynch** or any other honorable senator to expect this Committee to determine the quantities of the different materials which shall be included in the. articles to which he has ref erred. It is a ' scientific matter, and one which oan only be determined by . men of considerable experience, and who arc experts in the business. {: #debate-4-s71 .speaker-KRZ} ##### Senator LYNCH:
Western Australia -- While I grudgingly accept the Minister's assurance, I desire- to point: out that those who purchase this . material, in turning to this- document will-not! find, any security in the. information given* in-, the schedule: They will ask me what I have done, and when I inform them that I have received Ministerial assurance, they will ask for the authority of Parliament. I must then confess that I haveto depend upon the word of the Minister which, although estimable in itself,' is not parliamentary authority. This Government have gone, out of their way to specially safeguard other small industries ; but are only grudgingly coming to the point of giving an '"assurance " in a direction where it is sadly needed. On perusing the Tariff," users of this material will find that there is a duty of 20 per cent., facing, them. I ' shall accept the Minister's assurance, under protest, and shall' at the some timethatthe Government . are not giving the mining industry a fair "go." Item agreed -to, subject to requests. Progress reported. {: .page-start } page 11065 {:#debate-5} ### ADJOURNMENT {:#subdebate-5-0} #### Manufactureof Wire Motion (by- **Senator E,** D. Millen) proposed - >That the Senate donow adjourn. {: #subdebate-5-0-s0 .speaker-KRZ} ##### Senator LYNCH:
Western Australia -- During the discussion this afternoon I made a statement, to the. effect, that I. had purchased certain wire fromthe. Newcastle Company, meaning the BrokenHill Proprietary Company. From what **Senator Senior** has said; it would appear that there is a company operating in Newcastle manufacturing wire which is. not identical, nominally, with the Broken Hill Proprietary Company. The only reason' I had fox asserting that I purchased from the Broken Hill Proprietary Company was that my agent in Sydney said that he had purchased the material from the Newcastle Company, In the circumstances I regret having made the statement, but at the same time I would like to see the share register of the Rylands Wire Company in Newcastle to ascertain the names of the shareholders. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senate adjourned at 11.3 p.m.
Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 17 August 1921, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1921/19210817_senate_8_96/>.