Senate
17 November 1921

8th Parliament · 1st Session



The President (Senator the Hon. T. Givens) took the chair at 3 p.m., and read prayers.

page 12861

PAPERS

The following papers were presented : -

Lands Acquisition Act. - Land acquired for postal purposes at Trayning, Western Australia.

War Service Homes Act. - Land acquired in New South Wales at Ashfield, Auburn, and Kempsey.

page 12861

QUESTION

FEDERAL CAPITAL TERRITORY

Taxation Paid by Residents.

Senator THOMAS:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– I ask the Minister representing the Treasurer whether he is yet in a position to reply to the question I asked some time ago as to the amount of taxation paid by certain people in the Federal Capital Territory.

Senator E D MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

– The honorable senator asked -

How much has been received in taxation by the Federal Government from those who were and are residents of the federal Capital Territory, which, but for the action of the New South Wales Government, would have been collected by New South Wales!

The answer supplied is as follows: -

As there are no records keptof the amounts received in taxes from residents of the Federal Capital Territory, it is not possible to supply the desired particulars.

page 12861

QUESTION

IMPORTS OF METALLIC TIN

Senator JOHN D MILLEN:
TASMANIA · NAT; UAP from 1931

– I ask the Vice-President of the Executive Council if he is now in a position to reply to a question I asked recently on the subject of the imports of metallic tin.

Senator RUSSELL:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · VICTORIA · NAT

– On the 10th November the honorable senator asked the f ollowing question : -

What are the tonnage and valueof metallic tin imported into the Commonwealth for the year ended 30th September, 1921, from (a) Europe, (b) America?

I am now in a position to furnish the following information in reply : -

The imports of tin ingots for the year ended 30th September. 1921, were as follow : -

From Europe - 1,040 cwt., valuedat £9,349. (b)From America - Nil.

page 12862

QUESTION

TRANS- AUSTRALIAN RAILWAY

Carriage of Overseas Mails

Senator DE LARGIE:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

-I wish, on behalf of Senator Rowell, to repeat his question regarding the conveyance’ of oversea mails by the Trans-Australian Railway.

Senator RUSSELL:
NAT

– I have received the following, reply to the question : -

With reference to your memorandum of 12th November, 1921, covering an extract from Han- sard of 10th November, 1921, in regard to the conveyance of English, mails over the TransAustralian Railway, I beg to inform you- that a re-arrangement of the time-table of trains from West to East has been made to afford a connexion with inward overseas mail, steamers. The train which previously left Fremantle on Wednesday night has been altered to depart on Thursday night.

The alteration mentioned will not involve the Post Office in any additional expenditure.

page 12862

WASHINGTON DISARMAMENT CONFERENCE

Motion (by Senator Lynch) agreed to-

That this Senate tenders its deepest congratulations to the President of the American Republic, Mr. Harding, and the nations associated with him, for the mighty work sought to be accomplished in bringing to an end the reign of. destructivestrife amongst men and leading them to believe that peace and goodwill have still a meaning for them ; and- trusts most earnestly that the good work so auspiciously begun will be steadfastly pursued until the Temple of Janus is permanently closed for troubled mankind.

page 12862

CUSTOMS TARIFF BILL

In Committee (Consideration of House of Representatives’ message resumed from 16th November, vide page 12806) :

Item 126-

Saddlers’ webs; upholsterers’ webs; collar check and collar cloth 36 inches and over in width; saddlers’ kersey; saddlers’ serge and felt; felt for lining horse and cattle rugs, ad val., British, free; intermediate, free; general, 10 per cent.

Senate’s Request. - Amend item by adding - And on and after 1st November, 1921 -

Saddlers’ webs, upholsterers’ webs, saddlers’ felt for lining horse and cattle rugs, ad val., British, free; intermediate, free; general, 10 per cent.

Collar check, collar cloth, saddlers’ kersey, and saddlers’ serge, ad val., British,30 per cent.; intermediate, 40 per cent.; general, 45 per cent.

House of Representatives’ Message. - Made, with the following modifications: -

Date made - And on and after 1st January, 1922-

In sub-item (a)- After the word “felt” a comma and the words “and felt” inserted.

In sub-item (b) - Duties made - ad val., 25 per cent.,British preferential Tariff; 30’ per cent., intermediate Tariff; 40 per cent., general Tariff.

Senator E D MILLEN:
Minister for Repatriation · NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

.- I move-

That the modifications be agreed to.

The other House has accepted the requested’ amendments made by the Senate, but it has -inserted certain modifications for the purpose of giving effect to the intention of the Senate- more effectively. It proposes to- alter the- date upon which the duty shall be operative from 1st November, 1921, to 1st January, 1922, because the local manufacturers are not yet in a position to supply the local demands. They expect to get the machinery going early in the new year. The amend ment, represents only a short delay. The amendment in sub-item a to insert ‘a’ comma and’ the words “and felt” remedies an omission. The modification in sub-item b is, in substance, the acceptance by the other House of the Senate’s request.

Motion agreed to.

Item 136-

Iron and’ steel: -

And on and after 9th July, 19.21- (e)’ (1) Wire, of No. 16. or finer gauge, ad’ val., British, 25 per cent. ; intermediate,. 30 per cent.; general, 35. per cent.

Wire, other, per ton, British, 52s..; intermediate, 72s. 6d.; general, 90s.

Senate’s Request -

Ad val., British, 20 per cent.

Per ton, British, 44s.

House of Representatives’ Message - Made, with the following modification: -

Sub-item (b) (thrice occurring) omitted, and the following inserted: -

And on and after 3rd November, 1921-

  1. (1) Wire of No. 16 or finer gauge, ad val., British, 20 per cent.; intermediate, 30 per cent.; general, 35 per cent.

    1. Wire, other, per ton, British, 52s.; intermediate, 72s. 6d.; general, 90s.
Senator E D MILLEN:
Minister for Repatriation · NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

– I move -

That the modification be agreed to.

As to sub-item 1, wire of No. 16 or finer gauge, the House of Representatives adopted the following ad valorem rates: 25 per cent., 30 per cent., and 35 per cent. ; and the Senate requested that the British preferential rate he made 20 per cent. The House of Representatives has agreed to this request. As to sub-item 2, wire, other, the rate agreed upon in the House of Representatives was, 52s., 72s 6d., and 90s. per ton, and the Senate requested a reduction in the British preferential rate to 44s. per ton. This request did not meet with approval in the House of Representatives. The Minister in charge of the item in another place said that he could not agree to the proposal because a duty of 44s. per ton had already been agreed to in regard to rods, that is to say, the raw material from which this wire is drawn.

Senator Wilson:

– But the duties on rods were fixed through an oversight.

Senator E D MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

– Honorable senators must recognise that the whole of these iron duties are so interlaced that it is almost impossible to disturb one without “affecting the ratio of protection afforded to other sections of the iron industry. If it were thought desirable torevise any particular item, the correct and scientific way would be to revise all the duties up or down in due proportion. The Senate has accepted 44s. per ton British preferential duty as the measure of protection to be placed upon rods, and it is not equitable to place only the same measure of protection upon the wire, as the tendency will be to import the wire instead of rods. In the circumstances, the Committee, I submit, should accept the modifications made by another place.

Senator LYNCH:
Western Australia

– The request made by the Senate was for a reduction of 8s. per ton on common wire. The duties imposed are too high altogether, and it is about time the Senate came to its senses and made a severe cut. I do not hold myself responsible for the burdens which this Tariff has placed upon the primary producer. I agree that it is difficult now to make any reduction in the duties without disturbing the gradations of protection which it is thought desirable to preserve in the industry for the making of wire; but I remind honorable senators that the companies engaged in this business are also manufacturers of other descriptions of barbed wire and wire netting, which we shall touch upon later. Therefore, if a reduction be made in the duties on this item it could very well be spread over the other operations that are carried on under the same roof. It is about time that we took stock of our position, and showed some consideration for the men who have to buy this wire, especially in view of the tumbling prices for primary products all over the world, and particularly in this country. It is almost impossible for some men to expect to make ends meet for many years to come, without being called upon to suffer any injustice which this Tariff will inflict upon them. The Government and those responsible for the Tariff should be brought to their senses. I am not overstating the case when I say that a great number of our people who are engaged in primary production are in a most unfortunate position. The outlook for them is anything but hopeful. They will feel the burden of these duties very severely, and at the present time they are not in a position to stand any extra strain. Although the arithmetical structure of the Tariff may render it difficult to secure reductions in the duties, I think there is an obligation upon us to see that some measure of justice is extended to those who are engaged in the business of producing. The rates of duty upon pig iron, blooms slabs, angle iron, rod iron, and so on, are altogether too heavy; in view of the present outlook for the primary producer in this country. There are only two firms, and only one persistent firm -G. and C. Hoskins, of New South Wales - who have been constant appellants on the door-mat of the InterState Commission for higher duties. No other ironmaster in Australia has been so persistent as Mr. Hoskins. First he was out for a duty on the raw material, next on blooms and slabs, then on wrought iron, and, lastly, on wire-netting.

Senator Duncan:

– “When Mr. Hoskins was doing that he was the only manufacturer in Australia.

Senator LYNCH:

– He played his cards extremely well. He was the only man who turned up before the Royal Commission in response to a general invitation. The question was often asked in the Senate, “Where are the other applicants?” They did not come forward, because they did not want any duties. Mr. Hoskins, I understand, is well on the way to being a millionaire. Good luck to him so long as he gets his millions by fair means; but if he gets them by putting other people in the mud, and by making their lot harder, I object.

Senator E D MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

– I think you are belittling the Broken Hill ‘Company.

Senator Duncan:

– The Broken Hill Company had a representative at Parliament House during the whole time that the Tariff was going through.

Senator LYNCH:

– But the Broken Hill Company did not have a representative before the Inter-State Commission. I have placed on record my estimate of tho Broken Hill Company. The action of the company spoke volumes for them up to a certain point, but when they saw there was a complacent Government ready to shovel out excessive duties to all and sundry, I do not blame them for sending along a representative.’ Mr. Delprat played an honorable role in that connexion. This Committee is not going to be influenced by Mr. Hoskins and the other gentlemen who come forward with the insane cry for more and still more protection. It seems to be very much like “ flogging a dead horse “ to say anything on the present occasion.

Senator Wilson:

– The Committee is going to stick to the duty of 44s.

Senator LYNCH:

– I hope so, too. Even at this eleventh hour I hope the Government will take cognisance of the false step that was made in bringing down a Tariff of this lop-sided character. Except for those who are producing the finer qualities of wool, there is a hard outlook for men engaged in rural industries: There is a pleasant outlook for the manufacturers in the city, and an easier outlook still for the men engaged in the secondary industries. The Government have been in a most enviable position. I have never heard of a Government piloting a Tariff through Parliament in more favorable circumstances, than those experienced by the present Government. When the Labour party would not follow them, the Country party did ; and when the Country party would not, the Labour party did. If it were not for the Labour party in the other Chamber, the Government would not have a ghost of a chance of carrying this excessively high Protectionist Tariff. The Labour party was there to pile on more and more duties.

Senator Gardiner:

– I do not think the honorable senator can apply that statement to this Chamber.

Senator LYNCH:

Senator Gardiner is the one honorable exception that stands out conspicuously. Good luck to him! If ever there was a time when the “Government could paraphrase the. expression, “Thank God for the House of Lords!” that time is now. The Government can say, “ Thank God for the Opposition!” Senator Gardiner stands out like Hercules of old in opposition to the bad example of his colleagues in the other House.

Senator Elliott:

– The policy of the National party is Protection.

Senator LYNCH:

– The mouthpiece of the National party, Mr. Hughes, is not my leader in Tariff matters, and never will be. It is very hard to know where he stands.

Senator Gardiner:

– The honorable senator is a Protectionist when Mr. Hughes is a Free Trader, and a Free Trader when “Mr. Hughes is a Protectionist.

Senator LYNCH:

– I stand now where I stood in 1907-8, with the exception that I am prepared to give a little extra Protection to those industries that want it, but I am not prepared to give the ultra, excessive, unasked-for degree of Protection provided in this Tariff.

The CHAIRMAN (Senator Bakhap:
TASMANIA

– I must ask the honorable senator not to discuss the subject in a too general manner. This request deals with wire.

Senator LYNCH:

– The request has to do with that vast body of inarticulate people in this country who do not waylay members and Ministers. They cannot leave their work, and their flocks and herds, to come to Parliament, as can the manufacturers and their agents and touts. They are too busy trying to make an honest living by working long hours. The other day in Senator Newland’s electorate 1 saw a man working with a binder at a quarter to 7 o’clock in the evening. He was trying by this extra work, in common with the other 230,000 odd men who grow wheat in this country, to make ends meet, and he had no regard for clocks, watches, or anything else. Were the directors and managers of the city industries, or their workmen, working at a quarter to 7 o’clock on that evening? I want to hit all and sundry in the cities; they are engaged in a conspiracy, aided and abetted by this Government, to secure a degree of protection to which they are not .entitled, and to the possibility of obtaining which they awoke only recently. Even at this late hour I ask the Senate to stand firm and not to indorse the attitude of a complacant Government which comes forward with the -one’ stereotyped advice that we “should not press the request.” I have never met such an unresistant Government in my life. Of the ninety odd items which constitute the difference between this Chamber and the other House, we ought to be entitled to at least half. Of the 800 odd items in the Tariff schedule passed by the House of Representatives, 800 of them were indorsed by this Chamber, and the two Houses have differed in regard to only ninety items. By all the rules of the game, by arithmetic, by the simple elements of justice, and by virtue of every principle that should operate in disputes among men, the Senate ought to get forty-five of those items. Instead of that, the House of Representatives has agreed to over forty items of a most insignificant character - items which do not matter the weight of a snuff as far as the vital interests of this country are concerned. The suggested duties on the principal items, which include wire, agricultural implements, and superphosphates, have not been agreed to; but they are the ones to which we shall have to hold fast. Another place has agreed to the requests we have made in connexion with perfumes, artificial flowers, and engine waste and so forth, that do not matter a row of pins.

Senator Drake-Brockman:

– And accepted all the increases.

Senator LYNCH:

– Of course, like sharks pursuing their prey. I trust the Committee will rise in its majestic might on this occasion, and safeguard the true interests of those who, may I say, are voiceless and speechless on the present occasion. The primary producers have not sent a representative to this chamber to waylay Ministers and honorable senators right and left and on every flank. These men, as I have said, are too busily engaged working long hours in earning an honest livelihood to attend here and pour pitiful tales into the ears of Ministers and honorable senators.

Senator Bolton:

– Many of them are riding in their motor cars.

Senator LYNCH:

– Good luck to them if they are! If by their ability and indefatigable enterprise they have reached that stage when they can ride in their “ Tin Lizzies,” we should not object.

The CHAIRMAN (Senator Bakhap:

– The honorable senator’s time has expired.

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
Western Australia

– I trust the Committee will adhere to its previous decision in connexion with this item. We have given a lot away to date, and we should not give away very much more. This article very materially affects men on the land, who are the backbone of the country; and in the interests of the whole of Australia we must have first consideration for those who are developing our outback territory. But, judging by the Tariff generally, and this item in particular, very little consideration has been shown them. We are told, bv certain interested parties, that if this industry” does not receive adequate protection it will have to go out of existence. I say deliberately that if it cannot carry on without too much artificial bolstering up it should go under. But we cannot allow the men on the land to discontinue their operations, because if they fail wc all fail. Senator Lynch very truly pointed out that through the operation of this Tariff conditions are being made very easy for the men in the cities.

Senator E D MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

– The Committee has already placed a duty of 44s. a ton on those making wire.

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:

– I do not care if we make it impossible for the wire manufacturers to proceed. I do not favour any duties being imposed from the raw material up. If we made a mistake by imposing too high a duty on the raw material, does that justify us in imposing an excessive duty on the manufactured article? Surely not. According to the Minister’s logic, which I contend is wrong, if we make one false step we must follow it on with another. Unfortunately we have accepted these absurdly high duties on the raw material used in the manufacture of wire; and who is going to pay? The unfortunate user. Who is he? The man on the land, of course. We hear the cry from one end of Australia, and almost from one end of the Empire, to the other, that if we do not people our empty spaces we cannot hope to hold this country. But in this and in other directions we are making it impossible for our empty spaces to be peopled. The position is utterly ridiculous and absurd. We are demanding mora and more from the primary producer; and what is happening? The price of meat has fallen to almost nothing. Wheat has dropped to about half the price it was last year, and many primary products axe in a similar position. Notwithstanding these facts, we are making it impossible for those who are at present following rural occupations to struggle on, and extremely difficult for men with limited capital to undertake farming pursuits. It is suicidal and ridiculous, to put it mildly. I have been taunted with the statement that this and other industries will go out of existence without adequate protection. Let the industries fail, but do not let us make it impossible for farmers to profitably work their holdings. Any one with any outlook at all mustrealize that the first essential is to people the continent. We must have men who will work in the country districts, because the cities will automatically look after themselves. In connexion with this and other items, we appear to have had too great a regard for the rights of the men in the cities. I do not know where it is all leading. Some honorable senators and honorable members in another place seem to have entirely disregarded the fundamental principles of economy. We are told that we ought to make the Commonwealth self-contained, and, striking and wonderful pictures are drawn showing ships proceeding in all directions with Australian products, manufactured and otherwise, to all the countries on the face of the earth. But those who draw this imaginary picture fail to observe that the ships coming here for our produce will be empty. They also overlook the fact that trade is really a matter of barter, and that if we send products out of this country we have to import other goods in* order to pay for them.

Senator GUTHRIE:
VICTORIA · NAT; UAP from 1931

– That is the only way a country can trade.

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:

– Of course it is. Some say that they will obtain money for their products. What are they to do with it? Are they going to eat it? This wretched Tariff is based on the absurd principle that we are going to send our products abroad and that nothing will be brought back. I sincerely trust that the Committee will adhere to its previous decision in connexion with this item. We have not asked for much - not nearly so much as I favoured - and I trust we will insist upon our request.

Senator E D MILLEN:
Minister for Repatriation · NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

– I have been privileged to participate in many debates on Customs Tariffs in this Chamber, and during that time I have met men of all shades of fiscal opinions. Many of them were pronounced Free Traders, while others were equally pronounced Protectionists. There were others representing various shades of fiscal opinion between those two extremes; but I have never before met any one, whatever his fiscal faith may have been, who advocated a higher duty on the raw material than on the finished article. That is what Senator Drake-Brockman is advocating.

Senator Drake-Brockman:

– Not at all.

Senator E D MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

– It may satisfy the quivering consciences of some honorable senators to say that.

Senator Drake-Brockman:

– That is unfair.

Senator E D MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

– Then I withdraw the “ consciences.” This Chamber has agreed - and somebody has said it was an oversight - to duties of 44s., 65s., and80s., on the bars from which the wire is made.

Senator Wilson:

– That was a mistake.

Senator E D MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

– I am not disposed to believe that a Committee, of which Senator Wilson is a member, would go to sleep and make a mistake. Now the Senate proposes to admit the wire at a lower duty than the article from which it is made.

Senator THOMAS:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– The Tariff is a mistake from beginning to end.

Senator E D MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

– Some people believe that.

Senator Wilson:

– Then let us alter that particular duty.

Senator E D MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

– The difficulty cannot be overcome in that way.

Senator Drake-Brockman:

– If a man commits a theft, it does not justify a murder.

Senator E D MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

– In the first place, that is an entirely wrong simile: The Government contend that, having started to build a structure, the scheme cannot be changed in the middle of the operations. We started with foundations to carry a certain superstructure, and the Senate is now trying to alter the whole of that superstructure. Even if it is thought that the whole of these duties should have been abolished - and Senator DrakeBrockman says he thinks so - I submit that, having placed a duty on the raw material, the articles made from that raw material must carry a similar duty.

Senator Gardiner:

– What if the raw mater ialis found in Australia, and no duty is paid on it?

Senator Drake-Brockman:

– As it will be.

Senator E D MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

– I find answers in the replies honorable senators have given by the way they have voted on other items, when they have taken a different point of view.

Senator GUTHRIE:
VICTORIA · NAT; UAP from 1931

– Most of the rods are made in Australia.

Senator E D MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

– Suppose they are. It is admitted in this Chamber - though possibly not outside it - that, if we place a duty on an article, it is for the purpose of levelling up the price to enable the local manufacturer to compete with the imported article. Broadly,we can say that the price of the local article will be the price of the imported one, plus the duty.

Senator GUTHRIE:
VICTORIA · NAT; UAP from 1931

– That is exactly what it is.

Senator E D MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

– I have never disputed it. We are charging that impost to encourage local production, in the hope that, with the industry growing, local production will ultimately overtake the” local demand. I ask the Committee to say to those who make the wire that they shall pay 44s., 65s., and 80s., but that there shall be only the same 44s. duty on the article manufactured out of the product on which they have paid that duty.

Senator Wilson:

– Can we not recommit the duty on rods?

Senator E D MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

– If Parliament thinks that the wholebasis of these duties is wrong, there is a proper legislative way of undoing that wrong.

Senator Drake-Brockman:

– Will yon take the hint, if we stick to our guns, and will you bring down the necessary legislative alteration?

Senator E D MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

– I am surprised at the honorable senator saying that. Are we not to have regard to the wishes of the other Chamber? The whole of the iron duties may be on too high a scale; but, having started at 44s. in this case, the duty on the goods manufactured from the rods must have some relation to the duty on the raw material. There is a direct incentive to import the manufactured article rather than import the raw material and manufacture here.

Senator GUTHRIE:
VICTORIA · NAT; UAP from 1931

– I admit that there is a great deal in what the Leader of the Senate (Senator E.D. Millen) says, when he contends that we began on too high a basis; but two wrongs never make a right. The only way to develop Australia is to settle people on the land; and this Tariff, from end to end, penalizes every man on the land, whether he be a squatter or the smallest orchardist. The primary producers are generally acknowledged to be the backbone of the country, particularly at election time; but when it comes to fixing the duties on the articles the farmers need, the spoon-fed city dwellers, who have a majority of the votes, get all the consideration, while the man on ‘the land is knocked on the head with a bar of iron, or with, anything else with which . he can ‘be killed. The primary industries of Australia are indeed in a sad condition, and I fail to see how the ledger is to ‘be balanced. I am not a pessimist, but the outlook for Australia is particularly bad. The decline in the value of the whole of the primary products of Australia, from September, 1920, to September, 1921, was 62.5 per cent. The decline in the value of our meat was something like 75 per cent., and in some -cases 80 per cent. With the exception of a lucky few, who happen to have merino wool, the men on the land are raising wool, beef, mutton, lamb, skins, hides, tallow, and all grains except wheat, at much below the cost of production. The men on the land have to accept world’s parity from time to time, and are 12,000 miles from the consuming centres. The primary producer has no voice in what he pays for anything he uses. The price of everything he requires goes up as the result of Arbitration Court awards, and the imposition of insanely high Customs duties.

The CHAIRMAN (Senator Bakhap:

– I ask the honorable senator not to discuss the item in a too general way.

Senator GUTHRIE:
VICTORIA · NAT; UAP from 1931

– I can prove what I say, and later on it is my intention to move the adjournment of the Senate to point out the seriousness of the position. I can prove that primary products are selling to-day at over 60 per cent, less than was received for them twelve months ago.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The course marked out by the honorable senator for himself is no doubt a very proper one, but his remarks on the particular item before the Committee should not be of too general a character.

Senator GUTHRIE:
VICTORIA · NAT; UAP from 1931

– I hope that the primary producer will be given some little consideration in connexion with this item. It would appear to be the policy of the Government in submitting such insanely high duties to penalize him in connexion with everything he uses. I agree with Senators Lynch and Drake-Brockman that we should press our request on this item, and should not give way to another place. Even though the contention of the Leader of the Senate should be correct, and the duty on wire be based upon the duty on the raw material, two rights do not make a wrong, and we have no right to further penalize the man on the land. We should adhere to the duties which we considered sufficient when the item was last under our consideration.

Senator GARDINER:
New South Wales

– I must say that I did enjoy Senator E. D. Milieu’s reply to Senator Drake-Brockman. It induced me to paraphrase an old saying with the remark, “ Set a Free Trader to answer a Free Trader.”

Senator E D MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

– Does Senator Gardiner suggest that a Free Trader is a thief?

Senator GARDINER:

– Such a thought is a long way from my mind. The Leader of the Senate contends that it is not possible to reduce the duty on wire because we have imposed a high duty on the raw material of wire. As a matter of fact, that is not so. I intend to quote figures given ‘by Senator Russell which go to show that the raw material used in the manufacture of wire is produced in Australia. Referring to the importations of iron in its most crude state, Senator Russell gave the following figures when the Tariff schedule was previously under consideration in this chamber. He said: -

In 1913, a record year, we imported 2,633j841 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.

Why the sudden drop in the volume of importations in later years? The reason was that the Broken Hill Proprietary Company were then in full swing. They were ‘ having the ore dug from the earth and manufactured into iron here. It is incorrect to say that there is a duty on the raw material used in the manufacture of wire, if that raw material is not. being imported, but is being produced, in Australia. We therefore start from the basis that the raw material for the manufacture of wire being produced here pays no duty.

Senator E D MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

– Produced at what cost?

Senator GARDINER:

– If it is produced at an exorbitant cost, it will not make wire cheaper to those who require to use it, if we add to the cost of production the difference between a duty of 44s. and a duty of 62s. per ton. Whatever the cost of production of the raw material may be, it does not justify us in saying to the people who make wire from it, “We shall give you a protective duty sufficient not only to enable you to compete’ with outsiders in the manufacture of wire, but also to enable you to draw from the people who require to use your wire £1 or 28s. per ton,” according to the amount of duty imposed. We are up against the position in this case that a primary industry is competing for advantage with a secondary industry. It appears to me that the secondary industry, which is less beneficial on the whole, is given the greater consideration by the imposition of -these heavy duties. The primary industries, which are of primary advantage to Australia, because without them we must go down, have to pay all these duties. I can give an illustration from New South Wales. We have read recently in the press that within the last few weeks disastrous bush fires have spread over miles of country in that State, and have destroyed miles of wire, which must be replaced. Is it fair to mv to the men who have lost so much of their wealth as the result of these fires that we intend to compel them to pay an exorbitant cost for the fencing which they must replace?

Senator Reid:

– The posts may have gone, but not much of the wire will have been injured by the fires.

Senator GARDINER:

– I do not know what Senator Reid’s experience of bush fires may be, .but I have not much use for wire over which a bush fire has passed. In much of the back country of New South Wales the grass hangs to the wire, and when the fire reaches it it very nearly melts the wire.

Senator Crawford:

– What difference would 8s. per ton make in the cost of a mile of fencing?

Senator E D MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

– The weight is about 14 cwt. per mile for a six-wire fence.

Senator GARDINER:

– That figure appears to me to be astonishingly low. The weight, of course, will depend on the kind of fence erected. Some may use No. 12 wire, and others No. 10 wire.

Senator E D MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

– No. 10 wire is that which is in general use.

Senator GARDINER:

– There is No. 8 wire, which is better still.

Senator Plain:

– That is the wire used by all farmers.

Senator GARDINER:

– No; by some farmers. It may be used in the little garden patches in Victoria, but it is nob used on the larger areas in New South Wales, where No. 10 wire is most popular. The question is whether we are prepared to add to the cost which the people who have been burnt out in New South Wales must pay to replace their fences. People on the land are continually renewing their fences. Has the Committee refused fair protection to the wire industry ? I say that it has not. A duty of 44s. per ton against the foreigner, and of 20s. per ton against British imports, is fair protection, and infinitely higher than Protectionists themselves asked for a few years ago. When Protectionists were framing a Protective Tariff twenty years ago, wages in Australia, as compared with those in other countries, were much, higher than they are to-day. I am told that wages in Sweden are to-day better than they are in Australia. I know that wages in Great Britain are infinitely higher than they were ten years ago. I believe there are quite a number of places in Great Britain where men are receiving better wages than are paid in Australia.

Senator de Largie:

– Wages are coming down in the Old Country.

Senator GARDINER:

– I know that, and I know that a big effort is being made to bring them down here, but wages are not going to come down very rapidly anywhere. I was very much interested in Senator Lynch’s statement on this matter. The honorable senator, being a farmer, ought to know that if you sow wheat you must expect a crop of wheat, and if you sow oats you must expect a crop of oats. Senator Lynch has been sowing Protection as long as I have known him, and he expects now to get a Free Trade crop. It has been suggested that members of the party to which I belong in another place are responsible for the Tariff. The people of Australia are responsible for £he Tariff. They have become converted to Protection. They like to make things dearer, and have sent men into Parliament to make them pay higher prices for whatever they want, and as a consequence, in the words of a member of the Country party in another place, “ the backbone of the country always gets it in the neck.” If we press our request on this item no injury will be done to the wire industry, because, with the exception of a few tons, the raw material required for the industry is produced here, as shown by the figures given by Senator Russell. A duty of 44s. per ton against foreign countries is quite high enough, . especially as the farmer, grazier, and orchardist will have to pay it. We shall be dealing later with the wire required for the manufacture of barbed wire, which is No. 16 wire, and if we do not press our request on this item we shall be told that still higher duties should be imposed on barbed wire. Senator Lynch has complained that the primary producer is voiceless in this House. I have kept a record of the speeches made by honorable senators, and in view of those made by Senator Lynch and. Senator Drake-Brockman I am inclined to say that the primary producer is not only not voiceless here, but is heard to a greater extent than are those concerned in all other interests combined.

Senator Duncan:

– The primary producer is better represented in this Chamber than in another place, where there is a strong separate party to represent him..

Senator GARDINER:

– That is so. This is a case in which the interests of two sections of the community, the secondary and primary producers, conflict, and I think, that the secondary producers ought not to ask the primary producers to pay a higher duty than that already suggested by the Committee.

Senator ELLIOTT:
Victoria

– With respect to the argument that the duty on the raw material does not affect the duty on wire, because the raw material is produced here,, it should be borne in mind that the duty imposed on the raw material was considered a fair thing in the interests of the producers in this country in view of the higher wages that have to be paid here, and the expense of establishing the industry as a going, concern. Whether the maker of wire gets his raw material from local manufacturers or imports it, he has to pay about the same price for it. Consequently he is in a most unfortunate position unless he has increased protection for his particular industry, because outside manufacturers will be able to get the raw material at a lower cost, manufacture the wire and export it to Aus tralia, paying only the same rate of duty as the local manufacturer has to pay if he imports his material rather than depend upon the local product. Asthe Minister pointed out, it is essential that increased protection.be given to all those engaged in these more advanced secondary industries because of the extra labour employed. During the war the importation of wire absolutely ceased, with the result that our farmers were in a desperate position. The Government then appealed to Australian manufacturers to establish these industries. Some firms deliberately stipulated that they should have some measure of protection after the war. Relying upon the promises of the Government, they established the industry at enormous cost, because they were forced to purchase the machinery ‘at exorbitant prices at a very difficult time of our history. Now that they have lost the artificial protection which the war gave them, they are looking to the Government to fulfil their promise in order that their industry may not be ruined and their capital lost. In the circumstances, is it fair that we should press the request?

Senator Drake-Brockman:

– But should we not have some consideration for the primary producers who have to buy this wire?

Senator ELLIOTT:

– During the war the farmer was in a very bad way owing to the cessation of importations- of wire.

Senator Drake-Brockman:

– He is now in a bad way.

Senator ELLIOTT:

– In order to do the best possible in the circumstances for the farmer, the Government induced certain manufacturers to establish, the industry. If, now, they are to be treated unfairly, it would be idle to expect others to establish new industries in similar circumstances. Therefore I intend to support the Government.

Senator EARLE:
Tasmania

.- I again rise, in sorrow, to disagree with the remarks made by those new-born Free Trade members of this Chamber. No matter how convincing the arguments in favour of the general principle of Protection may be; they become more rabid in their desire for Free Trade. Of course, it is their business- to advocate principles which they believe will be acceptable to their constituents, but I hazard the opinion that at the last general election the people of Australia knew only two or three Free Traders in this Senate, whereas to-day we have Senators Drake-Brockman, Lynch, Wilson, Thomas, Gardiner, all well known as Free Traders.

Senator Drake-Brockman:

– Do you call yourself a Protectionist?

Senator EARLE:

– I do.

Senator Drake-Brockman:

– I think you are a Prohibitionist and that I am a Protectionist.

Senator EARLE:

– I came into this Parliament under the banner of a Protectionist Government, and I intend to stick to the policy upon which I was returned. Some honorable senators who advocate Free Trade were returned on a Protectionist policy. All th’e experience gained by Australia during the war is to be ignored, by them. They seem to forget our helplessness, owing to the inability of our manufacturers at that time to supply us with some of the essential requirements for the carrying on of the nation. Apparently they are now prepared to place us at the mercy of outside manufacturers under the pretext that they are considering the interests of the primary producers.

Senator Drake-Brockman:

– Do you not consider 44s. per ton protection ?

Senator EARLE:

– Neither the honorable senator nor I can say what measure of protection is absolutely necessary for this particular industry. I have no de- sire to give any manufacturer such’ protection as will enable him to exploit the people of this country. We have already passed ‘a Bill for the appointment of a Tariff Board, whose duty it will be to> investigate all the problems surrounding our manufacturing interests, and report to the Government if, in any particular industry, the protection afforded is too high. Our main purpose should be to establish essential industries in Australia. We may then control the manufacturers, if necessary, by means of the Tariff Board. If, however, we press the request, our industries may be abandoned, and there may then be no occasion for a report from the Tariff Board at all.

Senator Lynch:

– Conversely, will not the Board have authority to suggest that the duties are too low, and are working an injury to the manufacturer?

Senator EARLE:

– Certainly, but does not the honorable senator see that if, owing to inadequate protection, an industry is killed, no recommendation of the Tariff Board could bring it back to life? If, on the other hand, an industry is flourishing, and if the Tariff Board ascertains that the measure of protection is too great, it may recommend the Government to reduce the duty.

Senator Wilson:

– Would you say that the Broken Hill Proprietary Company’s shares were not a payable investment?

Senator EARLE:

– No. 3 hope tie Newcastle steel works of the Broken Hill Proprietary Company will continue to prosper, but if it were not for the protection afforded the industry by this Parliament the products of the Newcastle works would be undersold by outside manufacturers, and ‘this great industry would be lost to Australia. Honorable senators should realize that this Tariff is not merely a matter of a. few shillings or a. few pence to the producers of these commodities. The object is to get industries established in Australia. We may then control them, as I have already explained, if they are exploiting the people of the Commonwealth. .No doubt some honorable senators approach the reconsideration of Tariff items in fear and trembling lest the vote they give be not the same as when last .these items were before the Committee. My vote has been given consistently for substantial protection in order to foster Australian industries. Therefore, I intend to support the Government on this occasion.

Senator E. D. MILLEN (New South Wales - Minister for Repatriation) [4.191. - I want to make just one observation before the Committee goes to a vote on this item. Senator Wilson said, I think, that the fixing of the duties on rods was a mistake, or that it was passed through an oversight. I find that it was the subject of considerable debate, and that a specific amendment was submitted to reduce the item, but the Committee, by seventeen votes to six, rejected the amendment. I submit, therefore, that this Committee cannot now consistently agree to a lower duty upon the manufactured article.

Senator NEWLANDS:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– I have not had an opportunity of taking part in the previous debates on the Tariff, and I did not intend to take any part in the present debate. A member is necessarily sorely handicapped who “has been away from Parliament and the State, as I have been, during the whole period of the discussion. However, I feel ‘im>pelled to say a word ov two in view of the. fact that certain strange and weird statements have been made regarding the position of the Government and those who have supported it. The Government has been blamed for obtaining the support of Parliament, as if that were a wrong thing. It is wrong to blame the Government for what Parliament has done when Parliament, in its wisdom, has indorsed the Tariff as far as it has gone. This item is only one of the many items of urgent every-day necessity in Australia. I wonder whether the Free Trade members of this Committee would have had as much to say against the establishment of the wire industry and other industries in Australia had this Tariff proposal been introduced, say, six years ago, when, every thoughtful Australian was bemoaning the fact that our factories were neglected, and that foreign factories were booming at the expense of the people of Australia. We had no shipping, and no other means of securing our requirements from overseas. The fact was brought home so forcibly to us that, as Senator Elliott has said, the Government came forward with inducements to manufacturers and others to establish, industries. Had this Tariff been introduced in the early stages of the war no man in the Senate, or in the other House, would have dared to raise his voice against high duties. We have heard a good deal about the primary producer and his requirements. It is true that the primary producer is almost the only man who uses wire. It might be thought that we were listening to election speeches. The primary producer has been held up again and again as the backbone of this country. I am as much interested in the primary producer, and am as anxious to see him prosper, as is any honorable member of the Senate, although I am not saying as much about it as some of them. I want to see the primary producer get all the encouragement he should get from a reasonable and sensible Government. I want to see the manufacturers and the workmen in the cities get reasonable and fair conditions. I am an Australian, and I stand for Australian rights - not for the rights of cheap-labour countries over whose workmen we have no control. The farmer is entitled to as much consideration as any other section of the community, but to no more and no less.

Senator Lynch:

– Would you give the manufacturer something he has never asked for?

Senator NEWLANDS:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– I do not know that I am very much influenced by what the manufacturer asks for, whether it is good, bad, or indifferent. The case for the farmer has been stated before this Committee to-day. We have been told that the farmer has no agents, no representatives, and no mouthpiece in this Parliament. With that statement I disagree. The farmer has his representatives, and his case has been well put by those who profess to befriend him. If the farmer has not taken steps to place his. position before members of Parliament, it is his own fault. I welcome the information that has been given to the Committee by manufacturers and others. It has been said that the Minister (Senator E. D. Millen) has put up a very strong case against this proposed reduction. I take a different view. As the manufacturers of Australia are turning out the raw material from which wire is prepared, and as the raw material has been protected more strongly than the wire, it seems to me that that should cover the whole field. The protection of the raw material must necessarily afford ample protection to the wire industry. I had the privilege, a few months ago, of travelling through the northern portions of Australia. I covered tremendous areas of country and saw holdings which ran not into acres, but into miles. There were thousands of miles in one holding. At ‘Wave Hill, near the Western Australia border, the firm of Vestey Brothers were erecting more substantial fences on their 10,000 or 11,000 square-mile holding. I was informed by the manager that the cost of the erection of the fence, apart from the cost of the wire, was £100 per mile. That included the wooden posts, which I think were 4 chains apart. Between the wooden posts were iron posts and droppers. The contractor had to provide the wooden posts and erect the fence, and Vesteys had to land the iron on the job. Two or three teams were employed in carting water to the men engaged in erecting the fence. This fact should give honorable senators an idea of the vastness of the undertaking.

Senator E D MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

– Even then the cost would not be so much per acre as the cost to the small farmer.

Senator NEWLANDS:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– To the sum of £100 per mile has to be added the cost of wire, of iron posts, and droppers. It seems to me that protecting the raw material has amply protected the wire industry. The wire industry is established in Australia, and I have sufficient concern for the people who are using the wire to be anxious to assist them in every possible way. For that reason my sympathy is entirely with the Government. I intend to vote for a reduction in the cost of wire. From every platform from which I spoke in South Australia, at the last election, I told the electors that I was a Protectionist. I told them that I would do my best to establish industries in Australia. In voting for this reduction I am not breaking that pledge. I ask the Committee to insist upon the reduction that they have already made.

Senator WILSON:
South Australia

– I must congratulate the Minister (Senator E. D. Millen) on the very able way in which he has stated his case. Those who desire high duties are exceedingly fortunate in possessing such an advocate. When the Tariff was last before this Committee, honorable: senators debated what would be the effect as time went on of the different Tariffs one on the other. When speaking on ‘that occasion I concluded by saying: -

I would stress the importance of the vote we are about to give, and earnestly ask honorable, senators to retain their right to make such reductions as they may deem necessary in the later items of the division.

The Minister, very cleverly, has made out a case based upon the fact that the Committee carried a duty of 44s. per ton on the raw material. Senator Gardiner stated that all the raw material used in Australia is produced in Australia. In view of that there is very little left of the Minister’s argument.

Senator E D MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

– Are you maintaining that the duty on the raw material does not raise the price?

Senator WILSON:

– It will not raise the price because there will be none imported.

Senator E D MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

– Then the placing of an extra duty upon wire will not raise its price.

Senator WILSON:

– Wire is in a different position. In the one case the article is a natural product, which has to be dug out of the earth, and in the other case it has to be commercially handled.

Senator E D MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

– The rod has to be manufactured, and if a duty on it will not raise the price, a duty on wire will not raise the price of wire.

Senator WILSON:

– That may be the Minister’s logic. Bods are only handled by two or three manufacturers, who - and I give them credit for it - work together. Very few of the large manufacturers in Australia to-day engage in cut-throat competition. Competition in wire” is virtually cut off. Senator Newland has stated that he advocated Protection on every platform throughout his electorate. That is true. I also was & Protectionist at the last election, but a very, very qualified one. I also said distinctly, on several occasions, that we should have a Tariff to protect those who are using and consuming articles within Australia. The price of a commodity on which we imposed a duty a few weeks ago immediately rose to the full extent of the duty, and the manufacturers immediately repeated orders by cable for further requirements. During recent years there has been extensive development in sparsely settled areas, and, in consequence, a larger quantity of fencing wire has been required. The extra impost has to be paid by those who use wire. Unfortunately, after the impetus given to land settlement during recent years, practically all the products of the land have fallen in price, and the primary producer should, therefore, be given consideration when the opportunity offers. Even if the duty we propose were adopted, it would not mean that operations in these industries would discontinue. In the early stages of wire manufacture in Australia, it was stated in evidence that there would be no necessity to impose high duties; but now the industry is on a firm basis, and wire is being made from rods produced from our own iron ore, we are asked to impose higher rates. I trust the Committee will adhere to the requests it has made in connexion with the important items in the schedule, particularly those which affect the men on the land. The Minister is asking the Committee to accept all the amendments made in another place, and up to the present he has not asked us to insist on even one request. Surely there are some instances in which ho thinks that we are right!

Senator E D MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

– If I think we should press our request, I shall say so.

Senator WILSON:

– We do not have to wait for the Minister to say what is right.

SenatorReid. - It is not a question of what is right, but what is best.

Senator WILSON:

– If it is right, it is best. The imposition of the duties we suggest will not interfere with the operations of the wire-making industry in Australia, because it is adequately protected, and I trust the Committee will adhere to its request.

Question - That the modification he agreed to - put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 12

NOES: 13

Majority . . . . 1

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Motion negatived.

Request pressed.

Item 157-

Barbed wire, per ton, British, 68s.; intermediate, 80s.; general, 105s.

Senate’s Request. - Per ton, 50s., 70s., 90s.

House of Representatives’ Message. - Not made.

Senator E D MILLEN:
Minister for Repatriation · NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

– I move -

That the request be not pressed.

I do not intend to debate this item, because, to some extent, it is closely related to the previous one. The same arguments apply, and the Committee in this case has asked for a duty on barbed wire lower than the duty on the wire from which barbed wire is made, and in view of that anomaly I ask the Committee not to press its request. As it stands now the duty on wire for the manufacture of barbed wire is 52s. per ton, while the Committee has requesteda duty of only 50s. per ton on barbed wire. It is really slightly worse from my point of view than in the previous case, inasmuch as there is a distinct penalty of 2s. per ton on the man who attempts to make barbed wire in Australia. He would have to start with an extra impost of 2s. per ton, which is unreasonable.

Senator LYNCH:
Western Australia

– It. might be inferred from the reply of the Minister (Senator E. D. Millen) that all the manufacture of wire is carried out by firms who do not make anything else; but I draw the attention of the Committee to the fact that the company principally employed in this business carries on other operations under the same roof. Rylands Limited - if I may mention the name of that firm without unfavorable discrimination - is carrying on different operations, I am glad to say, in New South Wales, and if the company loses on one product- it may gain on another. It is generally understood that in the grocery trade sugar is not handled at a profit.

Senator Crawford:

– Grocers- now make a profit of1d. per lb. on all they handle.

Senator LYNCH:

– That may be so now, but at one time they were prepared to sell it without making a profit, because they made it up on other goods. That may be done by wire manufacturers who are turning out other articles. It is probable that any company commencing operations here will in. some way be associated withthe Broken Hill Proprietary Company. . The records show that Mr. G. D. Delprat, who was at one time the general manager of the Broken Hill Proprietary Company, and who is now, I understand, the consulting engineer for the company, is on the directorate of Rylands Limited. I do not know what amount of capital has been subscribed by the Broken Hill Proprietary Company toRylands Limited, but I previously stated on good authority that a meeting had been held, and the wire manufacturing concern of which Mr. Delprat was the chairman of directors was associated with the Broken Hill Proprietary Company. What are we to conclude? That the capital invested in the Broken Hill Proprietary Company is behind the products ofRylands Limited, which we are now considering. In view of these facts it is improbable that the firm mentioned will suffer; if it does not make a substantial profit on one line it will make it on others which we have already adequately protected.

Senator EARLE:
Tasmania

– I would like the Committee to compromise on this question. Evidently the Senate has made up its mind, judging by the last vote. There is a considerable difference between the duties fixed by the House of Representatives and those decided on by this Chamber. I move -

That the motion be amended by leaving out the words “ not pressed “ with a view to insert in lieu thereof the words “modified by making the duties per ton, British, 55s.; intermediate, 75s.; and general, 95s.”

That would, probably, meet with the approval of a majority of honorable senators, and might also be acceptable to the other Chamber.

Senator Lynch:

– Cannot the Board recommend increasing the duty?

Senator EARLE:

-It would be too late if the industry had been destroyed. If rather a high duty is fixed, the Board can report on it, and a lower protection may be decided upon.

Senator E D MILLEN:
Minister for Repatriation · NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

– I appreciate the motive of Senator Earle, and I prefer his amendment to the hostility of those honorable senators who are so strongly objecting to my own motion. For the present I can only vote for that motion, but, if it is not accepted, I shall ask the Committee to support the modification suggested by Senator Earle.

Senator LYNCH:
Western Australia

– I understand that, if Senator Earle’s amendment is carried, the question of the duty will still be subject to a conference with the Board’.

The CHAIRMAN (Senator Bakhap:

– That matter must be left to those responsible for the conduct of business in this Chamber. There may be a number of stages passed before that position is reached. The honorable senator must be content with discussing the terms of the amendment.

Senator LYNCH:

– It is only those matters that constitute a difference between the two Houses that will form the subject of a conference, if the Board is appointed. Already we have had the temerity to press some requests. That constitutes a difference between the two Chambers.

Senator E D MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

– The ordinary procedure will be followed.

Senator LYNCH:

– I am asking what steps will follow that. Take the specific item of bananas. We have already agreed to press our request. There is a difference between the two Chambers on that matter. If we still adhere to our decision, what becomes of it?

Senator E D MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

– Two procedures are open. We can either send a further message back to the other Chamber, informing it of the latest amendment of the Senate, and await a reply; or, if there still remain items in dispute, I presume the ordinary procedure of a free conference will “be adopted.

Senator LYNCH:

– I accept the statement that a free conference will follow.

Senator THOMAS:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– Will the Minister explain what he means by a free confer- . ence?

Senator E D MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

– It is the invariable practice in the State Parliaments, and the Federal Parliament has followed that practice, that where there are matters in dispute, or in negotiation, they are dealt with in the earliest stages by messages, and, if those messages fail to bring about an adjustment of the differences, there is a conference.

Senator THOMAS:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– On the first Federal Tariff, when the honorable senator was in Opposition, the House of Representatives had to give way.

Senator LYNCH:

– There is no use in. making two bites at a cherry. It is better, on the present occasion, for the Committee to negative the motion rather than adopt Senator Earle’s amendment.

Question - That the words proposed to be left out beleft out - put’. The Committee divided.

AYES: 12

NOES: 13

Majority . . . . 1

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Amendment negatived.

Question - That the request be not pressed - put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 15

NOES: 10

Majority . . . . 5

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to.

Item 158-

Wire netting, per ton, British, 68s.; intermediate, 85s. ; general, 105s.

Senate’s Request. - Per ton, British, 55s.; intermediate, 75s.; general, 95s.

House of Representatives’ Message. - Not made.

SenatorE. D. MILLEN (New South Wales - Minister forRepatriation) [5.9]. - This item is on all-fours with that with which we have just dealt. The request of the Senate would leave the duty on wire netting at a lower rate than the duty on the wire from which it is made.

Senator E D MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

- Senator Payne is quite correct. I move -

That the request be not pressed.

I submit the motion on the one general ground that these duties must be fixed in relation to each other. The Senate in previously considering them disturbed the relation which should exist between them, and I ask that we should now correct’ the error which we previously made.

Senator PAYNE:
Tasmania

.- Honorable senators will see that in dealing with these items previously we were careful to provide that the raw material imported for the manufacture of barbed wire and wire netting should be dutiable at a lower rate than the finished article. In considering the duty on wire netting, honorable senators should give attention to the following item, on which we previously requested a duty of 44s. per ton as against 52s. agreed to by another place. In the circumstances, we are justified in pressing our request for a reduced duty on wire netting. If we had not requested a reduction of the duty on the raw material, we should not be justified in opposing the motion. It is unnecessary to repeat what was said when this item was previously considered. Wire netting is essential to farmers and other occupiers of land, who are at their wits’ end to know what to do to make their operations profitable, with wire netting at present prices. Unfortunately, the rabbit scourge is increasing instead of decreasing in, Australia. In the district in which I reside, along the north-west coast of Tasmania, we were until recent years free from the rabbit scourge; but to-day rabbits are found in the district in large numbers. In that and other districts in Australia the one hope of the farmer is to wire-net his property. We can in this instance give some relief to the farmer by pressing our request, when at the same time we provide the necessary protection for the industry here by proposing to reduce the duty on the raw material it uses.

Senator GARDINER:
New South Wales

– In supporting the posi-tion of the Senate on this item, I quote from a little book which lies on the table, and which was compiled by a former Clerk of the Senate, Mr. Boydell. He quotes the opinion of an eminent constitutional authority to this effect: -

A strong Senate will compel attention to its’ suggestions; a weak one will not insist upon its amendments.

Honorable senators should realize tha scant consideration given to our suggestions by another place. Some 400 decisions of another place will be embodied in the new Tariff, whilst not halfadozen suggestions from the Senate are accepted. I will not debate the item further than to repeat the constitutional opinion that a strong Senate will insist upon its suggestions and a weak one will not.

Senator E D MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

– Is this a mere trial of strength between the two Houses ?

Senator LYNCH:
Western Australia

– I have so far been waiting in vain for the Minister for Repatriation (Senator E. D. Millen) to ask that we should press a request.

Senator E D MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

– When I am going to ask that, I shall move in that direction.

Senator LYNCH:

– A start in that direction has not yet been made. It seems to me that, so far, what we have been asked by the Government to do is to yield, I will not say subserviently, but quite humbly, to another place. The Government will make no effort at all to uphold the opinion expressed by this Chamber. The overwhelming weight of numbers in another place has caused the Government to yield there, and we are asked every time not to press our requests. The action of the Government up to date suggests that, in their opinion, the Senate should not touch the Tariff in any shape or form, nor even stand by its own matured opinion. I do not know what the Government may do later on, but, so far, they have not asked honorable senators to stand to their guns in connexion with our requests. The Minister said, in connexion with the last item we considered, that the request of the Senate was to impose a lesser duty on the finished article than on the raw material, and I point out to honorable senators that if we do not press our request on the item now under consideration, the duty on wire netting will be as proposed by another place - 68s., 85s., and 105s. - and when we come later to deal with the wire from which barbed wire and wire netting is made, the fact that we have not reduced the duty on wire netting will be used as an argument for keeping up the duty on the wire from which it is made. We have requested a reduction of the duty on the wire from which wire netting is made from 52s. to 44s. per ton in the British preferential Tariff, and if we do not press our request on the item now under consideration, that will be used as an argument for maintaining the duty on the wire as proposed by the House of Representatives. We should do something to enable the users of wire netting throughout the Commonwealth to reduce the expense of carrying on their operations. Orchardists, small farmers, and a multitude of poultry-raisers throughout the Commonwealth, will be hit hard by the duties imposed in another place. People who must wire-net their holdings to keep out . rabbits and others pests will have to .pay through the nose. The Committee on a previous occasion said that they should not be called upon to pay so highly and requested a reduction of the British preferential duty on wire netting from 68s. to 55s. per ton. I think it is only fair that we should make the same request again. I hope that in this matter the Committee will not drift into the unsatisfactory position which it occupied in the last division, when three or four honorable senators, under a misapprehension, I think, voted with the. Government and thereby imposed a higher duty on barbed wire than they had previously decided should be imposed. I hope they will make a stand on this occasion and rectify their mistake by enabling users of wire netting to obtain it at a cheaper rate.

Question - That the requestbe not pressed - put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 11

NOES: 12

Majority…. 1

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Motion negatived; request pressed.

Item 159-

Senate’s Request. -Per ton, British, 44s.

House of Representatives’ Message. - Not made.

Senator E D MILLEN:
Minister for Repatriation · NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

– I move -

That the request be not pressed.

As the duties on this sub-item are interwoven with those in the sub-item upon which the Committee has just divided, there is no necessity for me to discuss the matter further.

Question - That the request be not pressed - put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 9

NOES: 14

Majority . . 5

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Motion negatived; request pressed.

Item 161 -

Agricultural, horticultural, and viticultural machinery and implements, n.e.i. … ad val., British, 22½ per cent.; intermediate, 30 per cent.; general, 35 per cent.

Senate’s Request. - Ad val., British, 15 per cent.: intermediate, 25 per cent.; general, 30 per cent.

House of Representatives’ Message. - Not made.

Senator E D MILLEN:
Minister for Repatriation · NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

.- I move-

That the request be not pressed.

This item and the five or six that follow are correlated. I draw attention to this fact because a good deal of what pertains to it affects the consideration of those to be dealt with later. The duties proposed by the House of Representatives were only per cent, in excess of the pre-war Tariff. I want honorable senators to bear “this in mind, in view of the fact that on other items in the Tariff they have assented to much higher increases.

Senator Wilson:

– But on no articles where the price to the public has increased accordingly.

Senator E D MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

– The honorable senator may persuade himself that the imposition of a duty should not increase prices; but just now he argued that it did.

Senator Wilson:

– I did not say that.

Senator E D MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

– The honorable senator said that the ‘imposition of duties increased the price of wire; but, apparently, they did not increasethe price of bars. Senator Lynch seems to think it a sign of weakness, or iniquity, on the part of the Government to ask the Committee not to press its request. I can only remind honorable sena tors that, in taking this course, the Government are only asking the ‘Committee to agree to what the Government proposed before. There is no reversal of policy on the part of the Ministry. These requests represent matters upon which the Government were beaten in this chamber before. Therefore there is no inconsistency in asking honorable senators to reconsider their decision and accept the proposal as originally made by the Government, which, as I have already stated, represented an increase of only per cent, on the pre-war Tariff. The Senate’s request was for a reduction of7½ per cent., which left the duty at 5 per cent, less than under the old Tariff.

Senator GARDINER:
New South Wales

– This is a matter upon which very little debate is necessary. These duties refer to agricultural, horticultural, and viticultural machinery and implements, which are so essential for successful farming operations. In this matter the interests of our primary producers are at stake.

Question - That the request be not pressed - put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 11

NOES: 13

Majority . . 2

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Motion negatived; request pressed.

Item 162-

Chaff cutters and horse gears; corn shellers; corn huskers; cultivators n.e.i.; harrows; ploughs, other; plough shares; plough mouldboards; scarifiers, ad val., British,22½ per cent.; intermediate, 30 per cent.; general, 35 per cent.

Senate’s Request.- British, 15 per cent; intermediate, 25 per cent.; general, 30 per cent.

House of Representatives’ Message. - Not made.

Senator E D MILLEN:
Minister for Repatriation · NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

– I move-

That the request be not pressed.

In the 1914 Tariff the duties on this item were 20 and 25 per cent. In the present Tariff, as it reached this Committee, the duties were22½, 30, and 35 per cent. The Senate’s request was for 15 per cent., 25 per cent., and 30 per cent. The Committee’s decision, therefore, made the British preferential duty 5 per cent, lower than it was in pre-war days. I submit that that is cutting the matter too fine. In every other direction duties are being raised, but in this particular case the Committee cut them down.

Senator Drake-Brockman:

– The articles mentioned in this item ‘are imported from America, not from Great Britain.

Senator E D MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

– In that case the British preferential duty will not apply.

Senator Drake-Brockman:

– The Committee ought to encourage the importation of these goods from Great Britain.

Senator GARDINER:
New South Wales

– It is desirable to point out that the 1914 Tariff was never considered by the Senate or the other place. As a member of the Government which introduced it, I have to share the responsibility for ft. On account of the war and other pressing matters that Tariff

Went through without discussion, and therefore it ought not to be cited as a reason why any duty should be allowed to remain.

Senator E D MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

– My statement applies equally to the 1908 Tariff. The British preferential duty was then 20 per cent., the same as it was in the 1914 Tariff.

Question - That the request be not pressed - put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 11

NOES: 13

Majority . . 2

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Motion negatived’; request pressed.

Item 163 -

Senate’s Request. - British, 20 per cent.; intermediate, 30 per cent.; general, 35 per cent.

House of Representatives’ Message - Made with the following modifications : - “ The duty British preferential Tariff made - 22½ per cent.”

Senator E D MILLEN:
Minister for Repatriation · NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

– This is a matter on which the other House, this Committee, and myself may happily agree. The Senate requested a reduction in the duties from 27½, 35, and 40 per cent., to 20, 30, and 35 per cent, respectively. The other House has accepted the Senate’s request in regard to the intermediate and general Tariff, but proposes to lift the British preferential Tariff 2½ per cent., so as to make it 22½ per cent. I submit that this is a matter on which the Committee may reasonably fall in with the modification, more particularly as it will bring the duties more into line with those already passed. I move -

That the modification be agreed to.

Motion agreed to.

Item 164-

Churns of all kinds; cheese presses; dairy coolers; -refrigerators other than for household use. ad val., British, 27½ per cent. ; intermediate, 35 per cent. ; general, 40 per cent.

Senate’s Request. - British, 20 per cent.-; intermediate, 30 per cent. ; general, 35 per cent.

House of Representatives’ Message - Made with the following modification : - “ The duty British preferential Tariff, mode - 22½ per cent.”

Motion (by Senator E. D. Millen) agreed to -

That the modification be agreed to.

Item 165 -

  1. Reaper, threshers and harvesters, n.e.i., ad val., British, 25 per cent. ; intermediate, 35 per cent. ; general, 40 per cent.

Senate’s Request. - British, 20 per cent. ; intermediate, 30 per cent.; general, 35 per cent.

House of Representatives’ Message - Made with the following modification: - “The duty, British preferential Tariff, made - 22½ per cent.”

Motion (by Senator E. D. Millen) agreed to -

That the modification be agreed to.

Item 165-

  1. Stripper harvesters, each, British, £12; intermediate, £14; general, £15, or ad val., British, 25 per cent. ; intermediate, 35 per cent. ; general, 40 per cent., whichever rate returns the higher duty.

Senate’s Request. - Each, British, £10; intermediate, £12; general, £13; or, ad val., British, 20 per cent.; intermediate, 30 per cent. ; general,. 35 per cent.

House of Representatives’ Message - Made with the following modification : - “ The ad val. duty, British preferential Tariff, made - 22½ per cent.”

Motion (by Senator E. D. Millen) agreed to -

That the modification be agreed to.

Item 170 -

  1. Earth and rock cutting, dredging, and excavating machinery, ad val., British, 27½ per cent. ; intermediate, 35 per cent. ; general, 40 per cent.

Senate’s Request. - General, 35 per cent.

House of Representatives’ Message. - Not made.

Senator E D MILLEN:
Minister for Repatriation · NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

– I ask the Committee by not pressing this request to remedy an error which it has admitted that it committed. The Committee, as a result of an amendment submitted by an honorable senator, reduced the general Tariff from 40 to 35 per cent., but when subsequent amendments were proposed in the intermediate Tariff to provide for corresponding reductions the Committee, having recovered itself, -declined to comply.

Senator THOMAS:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– Cannot we now make the intermediate Tariff 30 per cent. ?

Senator E D MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

– I am not quite certain of that. The Senate agreed with the other House in regard to that column of” the item. I would not like to speak definitely on that point. When the Senate sent that request on I cannot believe that it really wanted a reduction in the general Tariff which would throw it out of proportion to the other items. When the Senate declined to amend the intermediate and preferential Tariff, it really approved of the Tariff to that extent. All that remains to be done now is to undo what the Committee did in regard to the general Tariff, and that can be achieved by not pressing the request previously submitted. I move -

That the request be not pressed.

Senator LYNCH:
Western Australia

.- The Minister (Senator E. D. Millen) is quite right in saying that the Senate made an excellent start so far as one column of the item was concerned, but unfortunately it did not continue the good work in the other two columns. The result to-day is a discriminating, unreasonable, and unjust distinction, between those who employ different types of machinery. There is a distinction between those who use machinery in agricultural pursuits and those who use machinery in mining. TheCommittee has already agreed to a duty of 22½ per cent, on agricultural machinery, but the miner in the interior of Australia is asked to pay a duty of 27½ per cent, on his machinery. While SenatorE. D. Millen is quite right up to a certain point, what he should have said was that the Committee, instead of continuing the good work, abandoned it too soon.

Senator E D MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

– Does the honorable gentleman know that the request was carried by an honorable senator voting inadvertently. Having paired, he voted by mistake. Otherwise the Committee was against the alteration.

Senator LYNCH:

– I suppose psychological influences were at work, and this is the result ; but I do not know how we are to justify it. Perhaps the Minister can say if there is any means of rectifying it, because there is no earthly reason why there should be such a difference.

Senator E D MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

– I am asking the Committee to rectify it by adopting my proposal.

Senator LYNCH:

– The result will be that the men in the interior who require this machinery, and who are engaged in an industry that is in the most precarious position - metalliferous mining in open cuts, &c. - will have to pay 5 per cent, more for their machinery than agriculturists will have to pay for theirs.

Senator E D MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

– But the Committee has approved of that.

Senator LYNCH:

– Not with my support. If there is a means we should place agricultural and mining machinery on the same basis. The difference cannot be explained away. If the Minister attended a mining conference at Kalgoorlie, Charters Towers, or in Tasmania, and he was asked why there had been any discrimination, he would be unable to say.

Senator E D MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

– From my experience of miners during the period of 25 years I can say that they have always asked for Protection.

Senator LYNCH:

– While that may be so, I do not think they would go to the extent of admitting that they should pay 5 per cent, more duty on their tools of trade than the agriculturists pay. Generally speaking, I believe that miners in the main have voted for Protection; but they are not likely to carry their protectionist principles to this extent. The Tariff has many defects, but this is the most glaring of all. The mining industry is in a most unsatisfactory position, worse, in fact, than any other, and yet we are deliberately saddling it with an extra 5 per cent. duty. I am not in favour of the higher rate, and if there is a way of making mining machinery dutiable at the same rates as agricultural machinery we should do so. I should like the Minister’s opinion, or yours, Mr. Chairman, if you will vouchsafe one, as to the procedure to follow. I should also like to know what Senator Earle has to say on this point, and what explanation he could give to the miners in the Mount Lyell district. If there is a way of rectifying this anomaly I shall be glad to hear it.

Senator PAYNE:
Tasmania

.- I remember the occasion when a request was made to amend the duty in one column only; but I believe that there is nothing to prevent the original request being modified. I understand that a modification of an original request is provided for in our Standing Orders, and surely it would be in order for an honorable senator to move for a modification in the duties in the British preference and intermediate columns. I would like your direction, Mr. Chairman, as to whether that can be done.

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
Western Australia

– In order to test the feeling of the Committee I am prepared to move that the 35 per cent, duty in the intermediate column he reduced to 30 per cent.

Senator E D MILLEN:
Minister for Repatriation · NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

– I understand what the honorable senator desires, and subject, of course, to your direction. Mr. Chairman, I submit that the proper way to do it would be to press the request with a modification.

The CHAIRMAN (Senator Bakhap:

– I understand that some honorable senators desire to adhere to the original request of the Committee, and to make the duties in the British and intermediate columns in accordance with the original request. I have given the matter some consideration, and I think it can be done. Discussion on another item cannot, of course, be opened, but these two particular columns can be dealt with in the manner suggested by the Minister (Senator E. D. Millen), and the proper course will be for the request to be pressed with a modification.

Motion (by Senator Drake-Brockman) proposed -

That the word “ not” be left out with a view to insert after the word “ pressed “ the words, “ with the following modification, viz., make the duty under the British preferential Tariff 22) per cent., intermediate Tariff 30 per cent.”

Senator E D MILLEN:
Minister for Repatriation · NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

– I think you have made it perfectly clear, Mr. Chairman, what the effect of this vote will be, but. I am, of course, unable to support the motion submitted by Senator Drake-Brockman. I desire to stress the fact that the Committee is taking advantage of an unusual situation by doing what is now proposed. When the vote was previously taken, an honorable senator who had given a pair voted, and but for that this position would not have arisen. The mistake was admitted by the honorable senator concerned, who apologized, and, immediately, requests relating to duties in the other two columns were submitted and rejected. If it had not been for the mistake, 35 per cent, would not have been substituted for the 40 per cent.

Senator THOMAS:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– That is not an argument against the merits of the proposal.

Senator E D MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

– No. But it is one that should be kept in mind by those who are pressing the point.

Senator Lynch:

– Why not rectify it if it is an anomaly ?

Senator E D MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

– Is it an anomaly to withdraw what has resulted from a mistake?

Senator THOMAS:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– If a mistake has been made, we now have the opportunity of doing what is right.

Senator E D MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

– A mistake was made, and there is one way of rectifying it, and that is by not pressing the request. I suppose, technically, honorable senators are allowed to modify a request.

Question- That the word proposed to be left out be left out - put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 10

NOES: 16

Majority . . . . 6.

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Amendment negatived.

Motion agreed to.

Item 171 postponed.

Item 177 -

And on and after 16th June, 1921 - (a)Locomotives, traction engines n.e.i., and portable engines; road rollers, n.e.i., including scarifier’ attachments, ad val., British, 27½ per cent.; intermediate, 35 per cent.; general, 40 per cent.

Senate’s Request. - ‘British, 22½ per cent.

House of Representatives’ Message. - Not made.

Senator E D MILLEN:
Minister for Repatriation · NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

British preferential duty on this item he 22½ per cent., as against 27½ per cent., which-appeared in the Tariff as it reached this Chamber. I invite the Committee to consider whether it has not made too heavy a reduction on a duty which is only 2½ , per cent, over the pre-war Tariff. I move -

That the request be not pressed.

Question - That the request bo not pressed - put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 17

NOES: 9

Majority . . . . 8

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to.

Item 179 -

Electrical machines and appliances -

And on and after 9th July, 1921-

Senate’s Request. - British, 25 per cent.

House of Representatives’ Message. - Not made.

Senator E D MILLEN:
Minister for Repatriation · NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

– The Senate made no request with regard to the intermediate and general Tariff, but asked that the British preferential Tariff be reduced from 30 per cent, to 25 per cent. It is submitted by those responsible for the Tariff - and they are supported by the other Chamber - that the reduction suggested by the Senate is excessive. In view of the growing importance of the hydro-electrical industry, it is desirable to give it every legitimate encouragement.

Senator Duncan:

– It must require a lot of protection if a 25 per cent, duty is not sufficient.

Senator E D MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

– I think the honorable senator who interjects has supported a higher duty than 25 per cent, in other directions. I move -

That the request be not -pressed.

Senator GARDINER:
New South Wales

– I believe Australia will be able to compete with Great Britain if we leave the duty at 25 per cent. The question we are up against is whether there is any real advantage in maintaining the link between Australia and GreatBritain, or whether we wish to cut off British trade by means of a high Tariff. The more difficult we make it for Australia to trade with the Mother Country, the more we injure the Empire. I have never posed as a “flag-wagger” for the Empire, but on this Tariff I have shown a consistent desire to foster trade between Australia and Great Britain on the most favorable terms. A duty of 25 per cent, is more than the Protectionists of ten or twenty years ago would have dared to ask. . Australia is in a better position to-day to compete with outside nations than it was at that time. I intend to call for a division on this question.

Senator WILSON:
South Australia

– I, personally, tried to obtain a reduction of the duty in the three columns; but the Senate” decided to make an effort to reduce the duty on British lines only. Australia should be able to compete successfully with other countries with a preference of 25 per cent. The Committee would not be justified, after the lengthy and mature consideration given to this, item, in lightly accepting the decision of the other House. A division should certainly be taken. I hope that the duty previously decided on by the Senate will be adhered to.

Senator Gardiner:

– If we are to have a conference with another place, it is well to have the Empire behind us.

Senator LYNCH:
Western Australia

– I indorse all that has been said by Senators Wilson and Gardiner as to the necessity for giving special preference to the Old Country in connexion with manufactures. The local manuf acturers of these goods are given ample protection. No application for increased d uties on them was made to the InterState Commission when inquiring into the Tariff. However, the resourceful and inventive Ministerial mind discovered that duties of 30, 40, and 50 per cent, should be imposed. It does not matter, of course, who pays them. It is about time we asked what protection these people want. Rule-of thumb decisions are to be found on every page of the Tariff. I am not sure that I get correct information from the Department when I ask for it in connexion with important items. When this item was previously under consideration I made inquiries about an electric welding machine which is rarely used in this country. I was told, in the first place, by Senator E. D. Millen, that it was not made in Australia, and so should be put on the free list. I carried my inquiries further, and was informed by the responsible head of the Trade and Customs Department that it was found that this particular machine was being made here. I learned then from an. engineering firm in Western Australia that was concerned in the matter, that the information given me that the machine was being made in Australia was incorrect, and that, as a matter of fact, it was not made here. Later, the Department again informed me that it was being made here. It is difficult, under the circumstances, to know just where we stand. Messrs Leslie and Company, of Perth, the engineering firm I have referred to, asked for a refund of duty paid on one of these machines, and received the reply from the Department that in view of the fact that the machine could be made here, no refund of duty could be allowed, and the duty had to be paid. On the statement that the machine could be made here, Messrs. Leslie and Com pany wrote to the firm of Weymouth Proprietary Limited on the 14th September, 1921, in the following terms: -

Dear Sirs,

We have inquiry for portable electric arewelding plant, 300 amp. capacity, complete with control panel, stabilizer, and operator’s tools.

Our supply current is alternating, 3 phase, 40 cycles, 440 volts. ‘ The plant is intended for welds up to 4” x 4” on locomotive bar frames and other heavy welding.

We shall be glad to have your price for same d/d f.o.b. Melbourne, together with particulars of efficiency guaranteed in current used per lb. of metal melted. State diameter of wire used, also time required for delivery.

Yours faithfully,

Leslie and Co.

The reply to that letter by Weymouth Limited, the firm that I was advised was making these machines, was dated 19th September, and to this effect -

Dears Sirs,

We thank you for inquiry of the 14th instant for portable arc-welding plant.

As we do not handle this sort of work, we are taking the liberty of passing your inquiry on to Messrs.Robt. Bryce and Company, of this city, who specialize in arc-welding plants.

Yours faithfully,

Weymouth Ltd.

Communication with Robt. Bryce and Company in due course elicited the information that they are merely agents for a London firm supplying these electric welding plants. After all this correspondence, I received the following letter from the Minister for Trade and Customs (Mr. Greene), still asserting that these machines are made in Melbourne: - 15th November, 1921.

Dear Senator Lynch,

Adverting to the personal representations and to the letter of the 5th October addressed to you by Messers. Leslie and Company, Perth, with further reference to the admission of electric welding plants under Tariff item 174, free or 10 per cent., I desire to inform you that inquiries made at Weymouths Limited disclose the fact that their letter of the 19th September, addressed to Messrs. Leslie and Company, did not clearly set out the situation as far as they are concerned. It appears that Weymouths Limited manufacture these plants, both direct and alternating currents, and that Messrs. Robert Bryce and Company act as their distributing agents. “ It appears.”

Senator Wilson:

– Is not that a good way out?

Senator LYNCH:

– I want something more definite. This is not business. The Minister for Trade and Customs continues in general terms -

As the policy of this Department is to encourage Australian manufacturing industries, and as there is no doubt that these plants have been, and can be, manufactured locally, and numerous other importers have been refused the concession now asked by Messrs. Leslie and Company, it is regretted that the decision already conveyed cannot be varied.

Yours faithfully,

  1. Massy Greene.

What is most evident in the matter is the mass of contradictions. In the meantime duty is paid on these machines, and they are not manufactured here. It is about time wei got “to business, and asked whether this duty must be paid by struggling engineerins; firms throughout Australia, who want to take advantage of uptodate machinery, when the imposition of the duty provides no compensating advantage in the manufacture of the machinery here and the giving of employment to Australians. I -am willing to admit that there has been a misapprehension in this case, but it is very serious that in the meantime manufacturers in this country are being penalized because of confusion which has arisen, and for which the Department of . Trade and Customs is largely to blame. I could go- into detail in explaining to the Committee what is done in other parts of the world, hut that is not necessary. The Western Australian firm to which I have referred desires to introduce this up-to-date plant, and cannot do so without paying an extravagant duty. It should be unnecessary to remind any practical man that by the use of this particular device repairs can be made at a cost which has fairly revolutionized repair work in this country. A shaft broken in the interior of the country may be sent down to an engineering firm, and at once repaired, or the machine may be sent to the place at which the machinery requiring repair has been in use and the repair effected on the spot.

Sitting suspended from 6.30 to8p.m.

Senator LYNCH:

– I have emphasized the necessity for the Trade and Customs Department securing full and accurate particulars from any person or firm, in the Commonwealth making these electrical outfits which are subject to duty at present. Correspondence, which has come to me first-hand, shows that there must be a miscalculation on the part of the Department, or that it has a high degree of confidence in the stories told by local manfacturing companies. I desire to be assured that the Department will not continue to levy duties upon devices of this character, which are not turned out in the Commonwealth. It is clear that the electrical welding apparatus is not being made in Australia at present; yet a duty of between £60 and £70 has been collected upon each outfit imported. I oppose the motion.

Senator THOMAS:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– I hope the Committee will press its request for a preferential Tariff of 25 per cent. The Senate accepted the House of Representatives’ rates of 35 per cent, intermediate, and 40 per cent, general. Since the intermediate Tariff is not in operation in respect of the manufactures under review, the effect is that all except British manufacturers are compelled to compete in the Australian market under the disability of a 40 per cent. duty. It appears that, if we can produce anything at all in Australia, the question of British preference, in respect of that article, goes by the board; but, if we are not making it we are ready to grant some slight measure of preference to the Mother Country - just enough to allow local purchasers of the British article to secure their requirements for a little less than they would have to pay for foreignmade goods. The advantage given to Britain is only very slight; and, as a matter of fact, it is on the side of Australian interests every time. Prior to the war the greater portion of imported electrical plant and machinery came from America and Germany.

SenatorE. D. Millen. - More than half of our imports came from Great Britain.

Senator THOMAS:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– Not much more than half, at any rate. What is the outstanding difference between the British Tariff imposed by the House of Representatives and that requested by the Senate? Merely a matter of 2½ per cent. But, insignificant though it is, it is sufficient to afford a good opportunity to those who would taunt us about the quality of our loyalty.

Senator E D MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

– The measure of British preference is not 2½ per cent., but a matter of 25 per cent, or 27½ per cent.

Senator THOMAS:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– Many Australians are prepared to talk loyalty and wave the flag when it costs them nothing. But, when loyalty becomes entangled in their business interests, some would split hairs, even to the extent of disagreeing upon a difference of 2½ per cent. If an Australian industry cannot pay a living wage it should be closed down. The Senate offers to give local manufacturers a virtual start of 25 per cent, upon British makers; but that handicap is extended by considerations of freight and other costs which are probably equivalent to 15 per cent. Thus, the Australian manufacturer is protected from his British competitor up to 40 per cent. If a local industry cannot be carried on except with the assistance of a higher duty than 40 per cent, it ought to be closed down. The Senate is asking for a duty of 25 per cent, against a country which pays wages, in the industry immediately concerned, that are Quite as high as those ruling in Australia. Probably, indeed, they are higher. Surely, then, the amount of protection is sufficiently high, in all circumstances. The Senate has not essayed to reduce the intermediate and general Tariffs as fixed by the House of Representatives. Personally, I have never strongly favoured preference. No British Government has ever asked that the Dominions should concede preferential treatment to manufacturers in the Old Country. Hitherto, the Imperial authorities have preferred the principle of world-wide Free Trade.

Senator Keating:

– But the honorable senator must know that British manufacturers havei appreciated the preference accorded by the Dominions.

Senator THOMAS:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– Naturally, the manufacturers would gladly have preference.

Senator Keating:

– And they appreciate ‘the preference Australia has given already.

Senator THOMAS:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– Yes ; but the British Government have not asked for it.

Senator E D MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

– It is obvious that if the British Government had asked us for preference they could not resist our application for a similar privilege.

Senator THOMAS:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– I admit that; but the British Government say that it would not pay them to have preference.

Senator Keating:

– They have nothing to give us in return.

Senator E D MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

– Not in the matter of preference in regard to foodstuffs?

Senator Keating:

– They can offer us nothing so long as they adhere to . their Free Trade policy.

Senator THOMAS:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– If the British Government asked in what particular direction we desired preference we would, of course, say that we wanted special Tariff treatment in relation to wheat, fruit, butter, and other primary products Of course, they would then say that it would not suit them to give preference in foodstuffs, because they could do better by dealing with the world at large. The British Government have never asked for preference. What did Mr. Winston Churchill say? He declared that we had “ closed’, banged, and barred the door..” Anybody who reads the interchange of correspondence between Mr. Asquith and Sir William Lyne will be rather amused. I know the Senate as a whole views this Tariff in a somewhat different light from what I do. We agreed to the intermediate and general Tariffs on this item, and we simply requested that the British preferential Tariff be reduced to the extent of 5 per cent. We say that we want to give the British manufacturer preference, and’, therefore, we should insist upon our views being respected.

Senator DUNCAN:
New South Wales

– My remarks will apply more particularly to -electrical heating and cooking appliances upon which the duty fixed by the House of Representatives was, 30 per cent British; 35 per cent, intermediate, and 40 per cent, general Tariff. The Senate, in its wisdom, after full consideration of the position, decided that the British duty should’ be reduced to 25 per cent. When this matter was previously before the Committee I pleaded with honorable senators to make the lot of the women in Australia as easy as possible by enabling them to obtain all up-to-date cooking and heating appliances for the working of their homes. All honorable senators, no doubt, are familiar with the electric iron. I cannot state the price definitely, but I think an electric iron costs about £2, and, therefore, 25 per cent, duty on a British article represents 10s. If that is not sufficient protection for the Australian manufacturer, then all I can say is, they want something more than a fair thing. This extra 5 per cent, in favour of Great Britain represents only 2s. on a £2 iron. Immense developments took place in the production of electrical appliances in other countries of the world, notably Japan and America, during, the war, at a time when the British manufacturers were fully occupied in the production of munitions and other war appliances. Therefore, Britain is not in the same relative position as in pre-war- days, and it is up to us now to give her all the preference possible. The Senate’s request in the matter of preference was by no means unreasonable, and it should have been accepted by another place. I hope the Senate will now insist upon its request. So far as most of the articles enumerated in this- item are concerned, it will be a very considerable time before their manufacture is undertaken in Australia, at all events, in sufficient quantities to supply the local demand. Therefore, we should see to it that the requirements for our homes, if not of Australian manufacture, are. obtained from Great Britain if possible.

Senator VARDON:
South Australia

– I should like to say a few words with regard to a statement made by Senator Thomas as to the wages paid in Great Britain and Australia in this particular industry. It happened that I had in my hand at the time a copy of a cable which has just been received from the United Kingdom, giving the wages paid there. I find that turners and fitters’, working 47 hours per week, receive at present £3 19s. 8d., and labourers £31s. 7d. From 1st December the wages will be - Turners and fitters, £3 16s. 7d.; and labourers, £2 19s. 4d. ; and from 1st January there will be a further reduction to £3 13s. 6d. per week for turners and fitters, and £2 16s. l0d. for labourers. In Australia the wages for turners and fitters working 44 hours a week is £6 2s. l0d. ; and for labourers, £4 2s. 6d.

Senator Gardiner:

– Where are those wages paid?

Senator VARDON:

– They are the wages paid in the industry throughout Australia to-day. I understand they are the Arbitration Court award figures, and in any case they have been given to me as official. If they are wrong,. I am sorry. This disposes of Senator Thomas’ argument concerning the wages paid in the industry in the Mother Country, as compared with. Australia. I ‘hope the Minister (.Senator E. D. Millen) will have something to say about the remarks made by Senator Lynch concerning the duties on the particular machine referred to. It does wonderful work, and if it cannot be, and is not being, made in Australia, the users of it should not be penalized by means of this Tariff.

Senator E D MILLEN:
Minister for Repatriation · NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

– I have had: an opportunity, since Senator Lynch spoke, of conferring with a responsible officer of the Department, who reiterates the statement. The matter is, perhaps, a little complicated; as disclosed by some of the correspondence which Senator Lynch has read. Therefore, I suggest that the honorable senator take advantage of an opportunity to interview the officer of the Department personally, and inspect the files, which will be made available to him.

Senator Lynch:

– I did so when the Tariff was going through in August last. This correspondence has passed since then.

Senator E D MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

– I think there are some papers, which, if the honorable senator would see them, would perhaps help to clear up any doubt that exists in his mind as to the accuracy of the information that is supplied by the Department.

Senator Lynch:

– I have the letter here from the Department, and also the letter of the firm which, it was stated, ‘was manufacturing the machines.

Senator E D MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

– At all events I suggest that- the honorable senator peruse the file again. Possibly the misunderstanding will then be cleared up.

Senator Lynch:

– Nothing short of a miracle can clear it up.

Senator Keating:

– The firm themselves were not very explicit about the matter.

Senator Lynch:

– They are very exact. They say that they do not manufacture the machines.

Senator E D MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

– I can only offer the suggestion to the honorable senator, and it is for him to accept it or reject it. I can assure him that it is made in perfect good faith. Now, as to the item itself : A considerable amount of time has been consumed in discussing whether the British preferential Tariff shall be 25 per cent, or 30 per cent. In view of the range of duty passed in connexion with other items, there is very good reason why honorable senators should accept the duties proposed by another place. At all events I hope the Committee will now come to a decision on the matter.

Senator GARDINER (New South

Wales) [8.28]. - I am ready to come to a decision without any further delay, and therefore I shall delay the Committee for only a few minutes. When this item came to us from another place, the British preferential duty was fixed at 30 per cent., and we requested a reduction to 25 per cent., but we allowed the intermediate and general Tariffs to stand. Senator Thomas very properly emphasized the anomalous position of those loyalists who speak of their love of Empire, but are not prepared to agree to a Tariff that will permit of trading with the Empire. Let us suppose that instead of a Tariff, the Senate had sent to another place a proposal that every person who bought £1 worth of goods from Great Britain would be fined 5s., and the other House said that the fine should be increased to 6s., I can imagine what these loyalists, who speak quite earnestly about their love of Empire, and all the rest of it, would say. They would declare it to be a most iniquitous proposal. This Committee say, “ There shall be an embargo of 5s. on every man who buys anything from Great Britain, or who uses any article from Great Britain.” The other House says, “ Make the penalty 6s.” I agree with Senator E. D. Millen that the difference is too trivial to quarrel about. To my mind, both figures are wrong. There should be absolute Free Trade between this country and Great Britain. Even if there is a slight difference in the wages paid in the two countries it is made up by the fact that great Britain has greater difficulties to overcome in getting her raw material, and that she has to pay higher shipping freights on the goods transported to this country. It has been said that Australia requires a handicap of 30 per cent. I deny that. It has been proved that Australians can compete with the workmen of other nations in every industry. We have the ability and the expert workmen, and we certainly do not need a handicap of 30 per cent, to put us on an equality. Why should we not say bo Britain, “In order to assist you to get back your trade, we will give you an advantage of 15 per cent, over other countries “ ? The other House says “ No, we will give you a preference of 10 per cent.”

Senator THOMAS:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– I would like to emphasize what Senator Duncan has said. These electrical appliances are a wonderful convenience in the home for heating and cooking. I would be prepared to agree to a 25 per cent, duty on electrical heating and cooking appliances and electrical fittings, and a duty of 30 per cent, on heavy machinery, such as dynamo electric machinery. I would prefer 25 per cent, all round. Everything that goes into the home should be as cheap as possible. It may be a little paradoxical, “but. I think it is correct to say that if more of these articles are imported more of them will be manufactured here,, because more of them will be used. Tasmania is doing splendidly with her hydro-electric supply scheme, and the people of that State desire not only that the electricity should be used in big industrial works, but also that it should add to the comfort of the home. I agree with Senator Russell that the Australian workman is as good as the workman in any part of the world, but we cannot expect to have all the knowledge the world has. Other countries are older than we, and are able to send us some things that are better than we can manufacture at present. The very fact of seeing these things and of having them here would mean that similar articles made here afterwards would be all the better.

Senator Russell:

– When the war broke out there were a lot of electrical machines in Australia. Thompson’s, of Castlemaine, undertook to make all the parts for them, and are still making them.

Senator THOMAS:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– I am delighted to hear it, but I think 25 per cent, is a sufficient duty. I intend to go the whole hog, and ask that the duty should be uniformly 25 per cent. If we cannot get that, let us have 25 per cent, on a and b, and compromise with the other House on c and n by agreeing to 30 per cent.

Senator PAYNE:
Tasmania

.- When these items were before the Senate some time ago I think the motive which actuated honorable senators who supported the request that the British preferential. Tariff should be reduced was the desire to bring the particular items more in conformity with other items that had previously been dealt with, and in which there was a wider differentiation between the British preferential Tariff and the general- Tariff. To-day we have favorably considered the attitude of another branch of the Legislature on the items almost immediately preceding that which we are now discussing. On those items the Senate preferred a request that the (British preferential .Tariff should be 20 per cent., and the House of Representatives have returned that request with a proposed modification to make the duty 22$ per cent., which will give Great Britain a preference of 12^ per cent, over foreign countries. In the item we are discussing there is only a 10 per cent, preference to Great Britain. For the life of me I cannot understand why the Minister opposes a suggestion that we should make the same differentiation in regard to electrical machines and appliances as we made in agricultural machinery when “we accepted as a compromise a preference of 12$ per cent, after asking for a preference of 15 per cent.

Senator Elliott:

– The men who make these articles get higher wages.

Senator PAYNE:

– And the probabilities are that there is a larger profit on the finished product. The only question; I will consider is, Is it fair to cut down the British preference on electrical machines and appliances to 10 per cent, when in a majority of other instances we have given Great Britain a preference of from 12^ per cent, to 15 per cent. ? I suggest that the Committee disagree with the motion moved by the .Minister with a view of getting the compromise offered by the House of Representatives and accepted by the Committee on agricultural machinery applied to electrical machinery and appliances. I hope the good sense of the Committee will show itself in the vote recorded on this item.

Senator LYNCH:
Western Australia

– I wish to ask the Minister whether electrical welding sets come under this item?

Senator E D MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

– Yes; they come under sub-item d.

Senator LYNCH:

– In view of what I have said to-night, and in the absence of a satisfactory reply from the Minister, I feel that I must take action to see that these welding sets come into this country free. I could not have done more than I did to verify the statements I made previously. Those statements were to the effect that the very, people of whom the Department recommended me to inquire admitted, under their own hand, that they did not make the articles. I do not want to stress this point unduly, because the Department have their own means of ascertaining the facts, just as any other citizen has. When. I set out on my own behalf to find out the facts from the firm whose address the Department gave me, I discharged my duty to the extent of proving that the machines on which the duty is collected are not made in this country. The Committee ought not to pass a Tariff of this description and collect £50 or £60 on sets of machines employed by small engineering firms. These machines are of the utmost value for up-to-date and economical repair work. The Department collects the duty for no visible purpose. If the Minister will assure the Committee that these things are made in the Commonwealth, I will sit down.

Senator E D MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

– I am prepared to give that assurance and to name the firm that makes the machines.

Senator LYNCH:

– I am satisfied with that part of the statement. If I can prove, on the contrary, that they are not made here, what then?

Senator E D MILLEN:
Minister for Repatriation · NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

– The honorable gentleman is now stating another condition. He said that he would be content if I assured this Committee that the machines were being made here. I told him that I could give that assurance and the name of the firm that makes them. Now he says, “If I show that it* is untrue, what then?” If the honorable member is not prepared to accept the statement which he invited,* it is no use my making it. I would like to tell the Committee the name of the firm, and possibly the Committee will be more ready to accept my assurance than is Senator Lynch. The name of the firm is Weymouth.

Senator Lynch:

– I have their letter here.

Senator E D MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

– The honorable gentleman has not studied the terminology of that letter. I understand that Weymouth’s declined to quote for the machines, but they did not say that they did not make ‘them. Although they make them, they do not sell them. They do not do their own -distributing. They manufacture the machines, and hand the distribution over to another firm. That is the explanation. I invited the honorable gentleman to go down to the Department and get more particulars. If he will do so the whole position will be placed clearly before him. I have listened to many arguments that have been put forward, and I respect them all. They were arguments which, from the Free Trade standpoint, were entitled to a great deal of respect, but I cannot understand them being urged against this item. They would be very proper arguments to urge against the second reading of the Bill, or by those who, like Senator Gardiner, object to Tariffs altogether. They are as applicable to every other item in the” Tariff as to this item. There is a call for a reasonable appearance of consistency in the way honorable senators speak and ‘ vote. I will remind the Committee of some of the arguments that have been used here. How unfair, ridiculous, and illogical it is to apply arguments to this item unless the same arguments are applied to all other items. The Committee has been told that the reason why the duty should be lowered is because the articles enter into the home, but the Committee has placed duties on dozens of things that enter Into the home. If that can be used as an argument against the imposition of a duty on electrical appliances, it is equally an argument against a duty on other home requisites. Without a word of opposition we have been passing these higher duties, and we are now told that in this instance we are making the article in question dearer. But that argument could be applied to many other items, and would be in accordance with the beliefof Free Traders.

A majority of honorable senators have, by their votes, or the absence of a hostile vote, approved of the Protectionist policy and the general principles embodied in the Tariff. Senator Gardiner said that we were imposing a fine on Great Britain; but that could also be said concerning the duties imposed on other articles, because this would be just as much a fine on Great Britain if we left the duty at 20 per cent, as if it were 25 per cent: If the duty represents “a ‘fine on those who trade with Great Britain, it is a fine whatever the duty may be, and the same can be said concerning every other item in the Tariff where a duty is imposed on the importation of goods from Great Britain. Honorable senators, with a good deal of cordiality, have been supporting these impositions or fines, and how can they regard this as more objectionable than others which have received their assent?

Senator Gardiner:

– But surely a fine of, say, 2s. would not be as objectionable as one of 4s.?

Senator E D MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

– The fine, as it has been termed, applies to many other items. Reference has also been made to the question of wages. I do not know what the difference is, but whatever it is in regard to this particular article, the argument is equally applicable to other items on which the Committee has decided to give a reasonable measure of protection, higher, perhaps, than in this instance. I cannot understand why honorable senators should adduce such arguments on this item, and completely throw them overboard when they are dealing with others.

Senator Gardiner:

– Does not the Minister think a duty of 25 per cent, unreasonable’?

Senator E D MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

– If I should judge the position by the standard set in this Tariff, and accepted by the second reading of the Bill being carried, the duty is not high.

Senator Payne:

– Will the Minister justify such a small difference as 10 per cent, between - the British preferential and general Tariff?

Senator E D MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

– The measure of protection being accorded is in keeping with that adopted in connexion with other items. It is above the average preference extended to Great Britain.

Senator Payne:

– No; I nave perused the schedule, and I find that it is below it.

Senator E D MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

-On many items there is no preference at all.

Senator Payne:

– In the metals and machinery division alone there is a 15 per cent, preference.

Senator E D MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

– I do not say that an item cannot be found in which the preference is not higher; but the average is not as high as in this instance. There are dozens of items where there is no preference at all.

Senator Payne:

– In a great majority of instances it is from 12½ to 15 per cent.

Senator E D MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

– The average preference is not more than 10 per cent. Some honorable senators have said that it is not fair to reduce the preference to Great Britain, and thus interfere with her trade.’ This Tariff was not brought into operation for protecting British trade, but with the idea of assisting Australian industries. It is really only a matter of secondary consideration to give preference to British manufactures. If, as Senator Payne suggests, we should not reduce the preference to Great Britain, I ask him is it fair to withdraw reasonable protection from Australian industries?

Senator Gardiner:

– There is no evidence that it is reasonable.

Senator GUTHRIE:
VICTORIA · NAT; UAP from 1931

– That is what we need.

Senator E D MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

– The trouble is that honorable senators do not appear to have a standard.

Senator GUTHRIE:
VICTORIA · NAT; UAP from 1931

– Yes, the standard of common sense.

Senator E D MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

-There does not appear to be any standard, because in some cases votes have been recorded in support of high duties on some items, and on others the same honorable senators have favoured low duties.

Senator GUTHRIE:
VICTORIA · NAT; UAP from 1931

– That is not so.

Senator E D MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

– I have endeavoured to find some level or standard which could apply, as far’ as possible, as equally to one trade as to another, but honorable senators have voted for high duties in some instances and for low ones in others. The country has adopted a certain standard, and having done that, the onus is on those who desire to place certain industries on a lower level than others. I ask the Committee to support my proposal, because it affords reasonable protection to the industry generally. I do not know why, honorable senators should single out particular industries for consideration, and, in the words of the late Sir George Reid, say concerning others, “Let them flounder and fight for themselves.” I ask the Committee to treat all industries alike, and if it desires to do that, it should ‘accord support to the motion I have submitted.

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
Western Australia

– I cannot allow the assertion of the Minister (Senator E. D. Millen) that we have voted on no particular principle to pass without comment, because I have voted on a definite principle. I can even plead guilty to the assertion of the Minister that some have voted at times for high duties and at others for low ones. That can be said of other honorable senators, but the guiding’ principle of most of us is-

Senator E D MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

– I should be interested to hear it.

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · NAT

-BROCKMA’N. - If the Minister had listened to my secondreading speech he would have learned the basis on which I have been working without waiting until now. I believe in Protection, despite the assertion of the Minister that I am a Free Trader. I am nothing of the sort. The principle upon which I have endeavoured to record my votes has been that a reasonable measure of protection should be granted to Australian industries, and that in no instance should we grant absolute prohibition against importations from foreign countries. I have always contended that we should give our own industries a slight advantage, but not to such an extent that they would be able to create monopolies in our midst. I was very interested in the statement made by Senator Lynch that an article, which it is alleged is manufactured in Australia by a particular firm, is not. I -have received confirmation of that.

Senator E D MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

– They do not quote.

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:

– The Minister can draw what conclusions he likes, but Senator Lynch’s statement is in confirmation of information supplied to me - I regret that I am not able to give the name of my informant - in regard to the procedure adopted in this city, at all. events, in regard to the gathering of the information which the Minister invites Senator Lynch, to inspect at the Customs House. I am told that the Customs officers, in their laudable desire to gather information in regard to manufactures in Australia, send inspectors to various firms ‘and ask if they manufacture certain goods. The officers are given” either an affirmative or negative reply, and if it is the former, the officers record the fact that the goods are manufactured by, say, Smith or Jones. One or two of the manufacturers in this community, I am informed, have given an answer with their tongue in their cheek. I believe the head of a particular branch in the Customs Department is above suspicion, and I believe that the gentlemen under him who make these investigations are also above suspicion. But I cannot say the same concerning those who supply the information. It is a case of being misled. It is curious that the information that has come to me within the last twenty-four hours has been confirmed by Senator Lynch. I am somewhat sceptical as to whether these particular articles are manufactured in Australia, and I am doubtful in accepting an assurance from the Department, no matter how honestly the officers may act in ascertaining if goods are manufactured in Australia. If we peruse the schedule of requests that we submitted to another place, it will be found that in every instance where we have requested an increase in the duties our requests’ have been acceded to; but where we have requested a decrease we have not had their support. I trust the Committee will again be strong, and - assert its rights by insisting that the original request shall be accepted by the other branch of the Legislature, or that a compromise be made, and in that way we shall not be giving away our rights.

Senator PAYNE:
Tasmania

.- I would not have, spoken again but for the statement” of the Minister (Senator E. D. Millen) that some honorable senators have shown inconsistency by agreeing to certain items in the schedule without paying due respect to others. I have taken up my present attitude, not from the stand-point of Protection at all, but with the idea of giving to Great Britain adequate preference against importations from other countries. I have carefully looked through the division of which this item is a part, and I find that on the great bulk of the items in the division as originally submitted to us there is a preference varying from 12$ per cent, to 15 per cent, in favour of Great Britain. Only before the dinner adjournment today we accepted an amendment made by another place for a British preferential duty of 22$ per cent, as against 40 per cent, in the ‘general Tariff. Let us take any item at random in this division, and it will be found that the British preferential duty is 25 per cent., and the general duty, 40 per cent. There is a differentiation of 15 per cent. The Senate is actuated by no other motive than to be consistent by giving Great Britain a preference of 15 per cent, on other items. I have suggested that we should modify our request, and as a compromise we might ask the other Chamber to agree to the duty being, fixed at 27$ per cent., which is 2$ per cent, more than the Senate originally requested. Then there would be a preference in favour of the products of Great Britain as against those of foreign countries. The Senate should not accept the dictum of the other Chamber. Why should there be a differentiation as between electrical and gas appliances and other machinery?

Senator Elliott:

– Because skilled labour is required in the manufacture of these appliances.

Senator PAYNE:

– The fact that these articles are the outcome of the work of skilled tradesmen does not affect the question of preference one whit.

Senator Senior:

– The raw material is not in Australia.

Senator PAYNE:

– That is beside the question. How can it be suggested that the raw material for electrical machinery and appliances is not to be found in Australia ?

Senator Senior:

– Have we brass tubing made in Australia ?

Senator PAYNE:

– How does that affect the question of preference to Great Britain as against foreign countries? On weighing and computing machines the British preferential rate is 27$ per cent, and the general duty 40 per cent., a distinct preference of 12$ per cent, to Great Britain. By its refusal to accede to the request of the Senate the other Chamber gives a preference df only 10 per cent, to Great Britain. I would like to see the former request of the Senate modified by altering 25 per cent, to 27 per cent. I move -

That the words “ not pressed “ be left out with a view to insert in lieu thereqf the words “modified by making the British preferential Tariff on sub-items (a), (b), (c), and (d),27½ per cent.”

Senator E D MILLEN:
Minister for Repatriation · NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

– I am not averse to accepting the suggestion of Senator Payne, and I would have agreed to it with comparative cheerfulness an hour ago. Although I am prepared to accept it, the Senate must understand that its action in this con-, nexion cannot affect the attitude which the Government may take in the other Chamber. I shall confer with my colleagues on this matter, and I hope I shall not be charged with inconsistency if I have to ask the Senate to reconsider its decision.

Senator ELLIOTT:
Victoria

.- I should not have spoken had it not been for the argument advanced by Senator Payne in contrasting the duty on angle iron and various other articles with the duty now under consideration. The total cost of angle iron comprises the cost of the raw material and of the labour expended in its mamufacture. The cost of this labour is very small, whereas in the case of such instruments as -electrical appliances, the cost of the raw material used is very small and the labour involved is very great. In order to protect our own industries we should re-adjust the amount of preference, and that is why honorable senators are prepared to extend such a large amount of preference to Great Britain on this item compared with others. The electrical industry is making great strides, not only in Tasmania, but in Victoria, on account of the development of the Morwell scheme. Huge contracts for electrical appliances are being entered into by the Electricity Commissioners, and there is a condition imposed that as much as possible of the appliances required should be manufactured locally. I have seen a blacksmith in the country make an electrical welding machine, with which he welded a wheel. The trouble is that local manufacturers cannot compete with firms in other countries who, as Senator Vardon has shown, pay their skilled workmen less than£4 a week, as against £6 2s.10d. paid in Australia. That was Mr. Justice Biggins’ award, and it was made retrospective to 1st January last. The cost of that increased wage has to be made up by the people who are endeavouring to establish this industry in Australia. Mr. Justice Higgins ordered the payment of a weekly wage instead of a daily one, and consequently holidays and any other loss of time have to be borne by the struggling manufacturers. There has been a total increase of 35 per cent, in the cost of this labour, and, if the suggested reduction of duty is insisted upon, it will have a very serious effect on the extension of this industry.

Senator Payne:

– My suggestion provides for a duty 17½ per cent, higher than in the last Tariff.

Senator ELLIOTT:

– These industries did not exist prior to the war, and they cannot be carried on with the enormous discrepancy in wages, which I have referred to, unless very substantial preference is granted.

Senator LYNCH:
Western Australia

– I rise to guard my reputation as one who can read plain English when I see it. I think I can extract the ordinary meaning of any statement put before me. In the second place, I desire to see that some’ provision is made for the protection of electric welding appliances. I intend to deal with the statement of the Minister (Senator E. D. Millen) that I did not understand the terminology of the letter which I had quoted. JVhen the Tariff was passing through the Senate in August last,-I had an assurance from the Minister that, if electric welding machines were not made in the Commonwealth, he would see that they were placed on the free list. I therefore let the matter pass at that. In the meantime, I received a letter from Western Australia to the effect that a firm there had imported such a machine and had paid duty upon it. That firm, in the ordinary course, asked that the duty be refunded, on the ground that such machines were not manufactured in the Commonwealth. I presented the letter to the Department, and I received the following reply from the Minister, which I feel justified in placing on record : - 8th September, 1921.

Dear Senator Lynch, - Adverting to the letter addressed to you by Mr. Wm. Leslie, of Leslie and Co., 959-901 Hay-street, Perth, with reference to the admission, under Tariff item 174, free or 10 per cent., of electric welding sets, and with reference also to your personal representations and your remarks on this subject in the Senate during the discussion on the Tariff, I desire to inform you that full inquiries have been made into the question at issue. The inquiry shows that similar sets recently imported have paid duty at the higher rates set out in Messrs. Leslie and Co.’s letter to the Minister, under date 10th August, notwithstanding the fact that applications were made at that time for the remission of the duty, or classification at 10 per cent, in general Tariff. The reason for refusal of exemption in those cases was that similar sets had been manufactured in Australia, and Messrs. G. Weymouth Proprietary Limited, of Richmond, Melbourne, state that at the time of ordering these sets (including the one imported by Leslie and Co.), they were prepared to take orders for prompt delivery.

I emphasize the last sentence in reply to the Minister’s statement that this firm did not take orders.

Senator E D MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

– The honorable senator is either unreasonable or he is unfair in the way in which he is twisting words.

Senator LYNCH:

– I cannot hope to become the adept the Minister for Re-, patriation (Senator E. D. Millen) is at twisting words. The honorable senator has established a reputation in this Parliament as par excellence in that art.

Senator E D MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

– He would need to be in dealing with a man like the honorable senator.

Senator LYNCH:

– I am dealing with language as I understand it. I am giving the Committee, not the Minister, the plain words of a letter sent by the Department which the Minister is representing for the moment. When I am told that I am trying to mislead the Committee, I am put on my defence, and I challenge the Minister to prove his words in the fashion in which I am proving mine. I have read the statement made on behalf of the Department, and signed by Mr. R. W. Oakley, to the effect that these machines are made in the Commonwealth by Weymouth and Co., and that Weymouth and Co., in the words of Mr. Oakley, “ were prepared to take orders for prompt delivery.” Mr. Leslie, on. my forwarding to him this letter from Mr. Oakley, sent me the following letter, dated Perth, 5th October, 1921: -

Dear Senator Lynch, - I thank you for forwarding to me Major Oakley’s letter. Immediately on receipt my firm forwarded an inquiry for an arc welding plant to Messrs. G: Weymouth Proprietary Limited, as per copy hereunder. We also enclose herewith original of their reply, from which it will be noted, notwithstanding the information given in Major Oakley’s letter, Messrs! G. Weymouth Proprietary Limited inform us that they do not handle this sort of work. They also inform us that they have passed our inquiry to Messrs. Robt. Bryce and Co. Proprietary Limited, also of Melbourne. Messrs. Robt. Bryce. and Co. Proprietary Limited have forwarded us particulars and specifications of plants being introduced by the Qua si-Arc Co. Limited, London, as per their Bulletin No. 127, also enclosed.

Mr. Leslie then goes on to deal with other matters. I shall read now Mr. Weymouth’s letter in reply to the order from the Perth firm for this welding set, which we are told is manufactured here.

Senator Duncan:

– There may be some misunderstanding in the matter.

Senator LYNCH:

– I have already said that I am prepared to allow for a misunderstanding. But the Minister has accused me of ‘trying to twist words. When he does so I am on my defence, and must hit back, and I will hit back.

Senator E D MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

– That is not an exclusive privilege.

Senator LYNCH:

– Quite so. The Minister is at liberty to take the same course. I am not prepared to let an item like this go through in the absence of proof to the contrary of the statements in black and white which I am in a position to quote. Mr. Leslie wrote to Messrs. Weymouth Proprietary Limited for an arc welding plant in the following terms on the 14th September, 1921: -

Dear Sirs, - We have inquiry for portable electric are welding plant, 300 amp. capacity, complete with control panel, stabilizer, and operator’s tools. Our supply current is alter-: nating, 3-phase, 40 cycles, 440 volts. The plant is intended for welding up to 4 inches on locomotive bar frames, and other heavy welding. Weshall be glad to have your price for same d/d f.o.b. Melbourne, together with particulars ofeffciency guarantee in current used per lb. of metal melted. State diameter of wire used, also time for delivery.

The reply to that letter from Mr. Weymouth is as follows : -

Richmond, 19th September, 1921.

Dear Sirs, - We thank you for your inquiry of the 14th inst. for portable arc welding plant. As wo do not handle this sort of work, we are taking the liberty of passing your inquiry on to Messrs. Robt. Bryce and Co., of this city, Who specialize in arc welding plants.

Yours faithfully, for Weymouths Limited,

Horace Weymouth.

Then Robt. Bryce and Co. were written, to by Mr. Leslie for the machine, and, as I have already explained, Leslie received a reply from Robt. Bryce and Co.- to the. effect that he had a machine introduced from London. This was the gentleman referred to in Mr. Weymouth’s letter as the person who dealt in this business, and he informed Leslie that he had no machine except one introduced from London.

Senator Elliott:

– Did he say he had only one machine.

Senator LYNCH:

– He referred to one type of machine. Weymouths Limited were unknown in the matter until we were told that they made this machine. When they were applied to for the machine, they said that they did not handle this class of work, and referred Mr. Leslie to Robt. Bryce and Co., and the only machine mentioned by Robt. Bryce and Co. is one introduced from London, as the correspondence shows. This justifies me in saying that the Department and the Minister have based their case on the most flimsy evidence imaginable. When the Minister tells me that I cannot read plain language, and, inferentially, that I am trying to mislead the Committee, I tell him that he does not know what he is talking about. When he dares to charge me with twisting words I regard that as an insult, which I fling back in his teeth. I am not twisting words. I said, at the outset, that I am willing to make allowances for misapprehension, but I will not consent to the imposition of a heavy duty on this particular type of welding machine. It might take the place of 100 riveters and boiler-makers and it should not carry an impost of £50 or £60. The Minister asks me to swallow that proposal, but why should I do so? As a reasonable man, I set out to inform my mind as to the facts in this matter. I have given the correspondence to the Committee, and the answer is that I cannot read plain language. I ask the Minister to say whether he can extract any meaning from Mr. Weymouth’s letter that his firm did not handle work of this sort, other than that which I took from it.

When Mr. Leslie was referred to Bryce> and Company, their reply was that they had a machine introduced from London, and the correspondence justifies me in saying that the statement that these machines are made here should not be used as a means of influencing votes in this Chamber. If the Minister were prepared, to say, “ We have been deceived in this matter,” I should admit that I am satisfied, and would have nothing further tosay. But when the honorable senator puts the onus of proof on me and charges me with the responsibility of trying to mislead the Committee in order to bolster up a false -case, I am entitled to give the proof I have given that the machine is not made here and that, to put it mildly, the Minister and the Department have supplied insufficient evidence for the stand they have taken. I ask honorable senators to judge as between the Minister and myself which of us has gone about his work most thoroughly to inform his mind as to the merits of the case ? I have shown that I have done my best. I attributed no wrong motive to the Minister, and did not accuse him of twisting. He had the temerity to say that I twisted words or tried to twist them. I put no false meaning upon words. I have given the ordinary meaning of the correspondence I have quoted. It contains no ambiguity. Perhaps honorable senators do not realize what they are about in imposing a heavy duty on these machines. If they had gone to the trouble to which I have gone to inform their minds on the subject, they would understand the effect which the use of these machines may have in the industrial life of the country. I have a book before me, published by the proprietors of the Baldwin Locomotive Works in America, containing photographs of locomotives entirely constructed by the use of these welding machines and in which not a single rivet is used. I do not suppose that a locomotive has ever been built in the Commonwealth entirely by the use of welding machines. When I give the Committee the benefit of my research, I am taunted with twisting words, and I will not have that from the Minister or - from any one else. The importance of these welding machines and the far-reaching effect their use must have upon industry in this country should be evident. Their

The CHAIRMAN (Senator Bakhap:

– Order ! The time allowed the honorable senator by the Standing Orders has expired.

Senator LYNCH:

– I intend to submit a motion in connexion with the duty to be imposed on these machines.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The honorable senator must resume his seat.

Senator E D MILLEN:
Minister for Repatriation · NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

– The last thing I propose to do now or at any future time is to ask Senator Lynch to take my word. It makes it extremely difficult, if what we have just listened to is to be the experience of’ the Minister in charge of the business for the time being, to give information to any one. When a Minister is asked for information, every reasonably-minded man in this Chamber assumes that he honestly gives it from facts supplied to him in good faith by one Department or another. It has been made a . personal accusation against me that the information I have supplied on this item is more or less incorrect or incomplete. I think I have a legitimate grievance in the circumstances, when I gave literally the information given to me by responsible officers in good faith, that it should be . made a personal grievance on the part of Senator Lynch. The question was raised as to whether these welding sets are made in Australia. [Because I recognise that these things are not always simple, and knowing the difficulty of supplying information gathered hurriedly, from one party to others, I suggested to Senator Lynch that he should go down to the office of the Minister for Trade and Customs, confer with the officers, and see the papers in the possession of the Department, to discover what the position really is. The honorable senator did not accept my suggestion.

Senator Lynch:

– I was quite reasonable until, the Minister charged me with twisting words.

Senator E D MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

– -It was only during the honorable senator’s last speech that I made that interjection, and not during his original statment at

Senator THOMAS:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– What about the Minister and Senator Lynch going together and making personal investigations ?

Senator E D MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

– The matter is no concern of mine. It is for Messrs. Bryce and Company to explain to the manufacturers for whom they distribute these welding sets how it is that, when they were called upon for a quotation, they quoted only English manufactures. I have given honorable senators all the information in my possession, and, if that is an offence, I plead guilty. I understand that Senator Lynch, dissatisfied with the information which has been provided, proposes to delete such general reference as is contained in sub-item d bearing upon these machines, and to move for the insertion of a new sub-item, specifically naming the electric welders, and proposing their admission free ofduty.

Senator Lynch:

– I can do nothing else, with the facts in my possession.

Senator E D MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

– Then I invite the honorable senator to do so forthwith, so that the Committee may proceed with further business.

Senator Lynch:

– It is my intention to move that the request be modified to provide for the inclusion of a new sub-item “ e, Electric welding sets, free.”

The CHAIRMAN (Senator Bakhap:

– I understand that the subject-matter of the proposed new sub-item is referred to generally, though not specifically, in subitemd. It will be competent, therefore, for the honorable senator to move in the way he has indicated. But, if his proposed new sub-item embraced some new subject-matter, it would not be within the competence of the Committee to make such a modification. To clarify the position, I now put the question -

That the words “ not pressed,” proposed to be left out, be left out.

Amendment agreed to.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The question now is -

That the words proposed to be inserted be inserted.

Amendment (by Senator Lynch) proposed -

That after the word “ modified “ in the amendment the following words be inserted: - “by inserting a. new sub-item, (e) Electric welding sets, free.”

Senator Gardiner:

– I desire a ruling whether it is in order for an honorable senator to move for the insertion of a new sub-item at the present stage. If one such may be included now, any number of new sub-items may similarly be added to the item. In my view, the stage at which additional sub-items may be added has passed, but it is still competent for the Committee to modify any request. If Senator Lynch’s purpose were successful, the way would be opened for an interminable discussion based upon entirely new matter.

Senator E D MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

– Although Senator Lynch has proposed what is technically a new sub-item, the effect is merely to divide an existing item into two parts. A precedent for this has been established both in previous Tariff sessions and in the course of the original discussion by this Committee of the present Tariff.

The CHAIRMAN:

– I have already indicated that the subject-matter of the proposed new sub-item isnot new . but is covered actually, though not in so many words, in sub-item d. I rule, therefore, that the amendment is in order.

Senator E D MILLEN:
Minister for Repatriation · NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

– I am not prepared to support Senator Lynch’s amendment, which provides that if these machines are not being made in Australia they are to be admitted free. I am assured by the Customs authorities that they are being made here. Therefore, I cannot be expected to support an amendment based on the assumption! that they are not being manufactured in this country.

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

AYES: 5

NOES: 20

Majority . . . . 15

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Amendment of the amendment negatived.

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

AYES: 21

NOES: 4

Majority . . . . 17

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Amendment agreed to.

Motion, as amended, agreed to; request modified accordingly.

Item 180-

Electrical and gas appliances, viz. : -

Senate’s Request -

House of Representatives’ Message -

Sub-item (b) (1) - ‘Made, with the following modification: - The duty, British preferential Tariff - Made 27½ per cent.

Sub-item (c) - Not made.

Senator E D MILLEN:
Minister for Repatriation · NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

– Honorable senators will notice from the schedule that the Senate requested a reduction in sub-item b of the British preferential Tariff from 30 to 25 per cent., and that the other House has done what has just been done by this Committee in the previous item, namely, it has split the difference. I move, therefore -

That the modification, sub-item (b), be agreed to.

Motion agreed to.

Motion (by Senator E. D. Millen) proposed -

That the request, sub-item (c ) , be not pressed.

Senator THOMAS:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– I suggest that, in order to make this subitem consistent with sub-item b, we request that the duty, British preferential Tariff, be 27½ per cent. Could the Minister explain why, in subitem c, the other House agree to a difference of 2½ per cent.; and in sub-item b they insist on the difference of 5 per cent. ?

Senator E D MILLEN:
Minister for Repatriation · NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

– The honorable senator will recognise that I would have considerable difficulty in saying why this Chamber took a certain action. It is much more difficult for me to say why the other House did a certain thing. I understand that the other House supported the higher duty in sub-item c on the ground that the articles mentioned there were more complicated, and that more work and skill were involved in making them than in making gas meters. For these reasons I understand that the other House supported the Minister in dissenting from the Senate’s request for a lower duty. Senator Thomas has suggested that the Committee should go below 30 per cent. It cannot do that, because 30 per cent, was the request from the Senate itself.

Question - That the request (sub-item c) be not pressed- put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 16

NOES: 8

Majority . . . . 8

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to.

Item 194 -

Chain and chains, viz.: -

And on and after 1st January, 1922, ad val., British, 30 per cent.; intermediate, 35 per cent.; general, 40 per cent.

Senate’s Request. - Sub-item (b), British preferential, lid.; sub-item (c), British preferential, 25 per cent.; sub item (d), British preferential, 25 per cent.

House of Representatives’ Message. - Subitem (b) - Made; sub-item (c)- Made with the following modification: - “ The duty, British preferential Tariff, made - 27½ per cent.”; sub-item (d) - Made with the following modification: - “The duty, British preferential Tariff, on and after 1st January, 1922, made - 27½ per cent.”

SenatorE. D. MILLEN (New South Wales - Minister for Repatriation) [10.6]. - I think this Committee will have little difficulty in accepting the message from the other House. The House of Representatives have agreed to the request for the reduction of the British preferential rate from l¾d. to1¼d. I want specially to draw to this item the attention of those honorable senators who have been so eloquent in pointing out that the other House accepted all suggestions for an increase of duty but rejected suggestions for lowering the duty. Here is a case in point to the contrary.

Senator E D MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

– If the honorable senator measures his loyalty in pence, it is probably a fair standard. With regard to sub-item c, the other House proposes to split the difference; their original proposal was 30 per cent., British preferential Tariff; the Senate’s request was 25 per cent.; and their suggestion is now 27½ per cent. I commend that to the Committee as a compromise, and also because it falls within a range of duties already approved. With regard to sub-item d, “ Chains, n.e.i.,” the House of Representatives did the same thing. I move -

That the modification of sub-items (c) and

be agreed to.

Senator THOMAS:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

.-In connexion with sub-items c and d, the other House favours 27½ per cent., which is 2½ per cent, more than the Senate’s request. Are members of the other House asking for that because they think there should be 27½ per cent, duty to enable these articles to be manufactured in Australia, or does the decision mean that 2½ per cent, extra revenue will be received?

Senator E D MILLEN:
Minister for Repatriation · NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

– I think the Committee can see that the House of Representatives were of opinion that 30 per cent, was a fair measure of protection; but, as the Senate took the view that 25 per cent, was sufficient, the other place has said, in a rough-and-ready way, which commends itself to Australians, and especially to legislators, “ Let us split the difference.”

Motion agreed to.

Item 211-

And on and after 17th June, 1921, printers’ type, including spaces and quads, lino, and other slugs, metal furniture and quotations, ad val., British, 22½ per cent.; intermediate, 30 per cent.; general, 35 per cent.

Senate’s Request. - British preferential, 20 per cent.; intermediate, 25 per cent.; general, 30 per cent.

House of Representatives’ Message. - Not made.

Senator E D MILLEN:
Minister for Repatriation · NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

– In this item the other House has not agreed to the Senate’s request for, I submit, a substantial reason. In item 138 - Type metal, the raw material from which type is made - they found that there was a duty higher than the duty on the manufactured article covered by the item that the Committee is now discussing. As that creates an anomaly, I ask the Committee to join with me in remedying it. I move -

That the request be not pressed.

Senator GARDINER:
New South Wales

.- I do not like the Minister’s reason for submitting this motion. Because the raw material from which type is made comes in under a certain duty, that is not to say that the two things are equal. This is a duty on percentages of value, and the manufactured article represents the value of the labour added to the raw material. To my mind, the percentage of duty on the manufactured article is greatly in excess of that on the raw material. In the one case, the duty is assessed* upon the value of the material without anything added except the labour of producing it in the natural state; in the other case it is based upon this value with the added value of the labour necessary to: make type. It’ appears to me that this is one of the taxes that the community has to pay. It is a means, mainly, of getting in revenue by taxation and spreading it over a large area. I shall certainly decline to agree to this item. The price of type affects practically the whole of the country press. There is a special class of people who use these papers, and the industry has not the means nor the opportunity of increasing its profits to meet the extra charge. That being so, we can well say that we will not add to the duty. When the Tariff was before theCommittee previously, honorable senators were told that the locally-made type was plain and crude, and incapable of good work. I am not disposed to tax the country newspaper people of this country, particularly the small offices which have to buy this type. The big offices use very little of it.

Question - That the request be not pressed - put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 14

NOES: 10

Majority . . . . 4

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to.

Item 220-

Traps, viz.: - (r)Rabbit .. . ad val., . British; 20 per cent.; intermediate, 25 per cent.; general, 30 per cent.

Senate’s Request. - General, 10 per cent.

House of Representatives’ Message.-Not made.

Senator E D MILLEN:
Minister for Repatriation · NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

– I do not think any argument will be required to induce the Committee to withdraw its request. The original proposal which came to this Chamber embodied duties of 20 per cent., 25 per cent., and 30 per cent. respectively. This Committee left the duty applicable to traps imported from Great Britain untouched at 20 per cent.

Senator Drake-Brockman:

– They should be free !

Senator E D MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

– The Committee decided to leave 20 per cent. British Tariff, 25 per cent. against other countries with which we might enter into reciprocal arrangements, and decided to allow American, Japanese, and other traps to come in at 10 per cent. Does the Committee desire to retain that position?

Honorable Senators. - No.

Senator E D MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

– That was a mistake, and a decision was given evidently before honorable senators were aware of the position. I move -

That the request be not pressed.

Senator PAYNE:
Tasmania

– The statement of the Minister (Senator E. D. Millen) concerning what happened when this item was previously before the Committee is quite correct; and no one was more surprised than I to find the form in. which our request went to another place, because I had a good deal to do in connexion with the request for a 10 per cent. duty under the general Tariff. I was horrified to find that such an error had been committed which left the duties in the British and intermediate Tariffs at 20 per cent. and 25 per cent respectively, and 10 per cent. in the general Tariff. I move -

That the word “not” be left out with a view to insert after “pressed” the words “ with the following modification, viz., make the British preferential Tariff free, and the intermediate Tariff 5 per cent.”

My intention is to leave the general duty at 10 per cent. Honorable senators debated the question very fully when the item was previously before the Committee : but perhaps they need to be; reminded that in the item before this we allowed dog trapsfrom Great Britain to be admitted free, and a small duty to be imposed on the foreign article. The destruction caused by dogs when compared with that occasioned by rabbits is infinitesimal. Babbit traps are manufactured in Australia, and traps are being imported in large quantities; but the imposition of high duties has had the effect of considerably curtailing the work of rabbit trapping.

Senator Crawford:

– What do they cost per dozen?

Senator PAYNE:

– Thirty-six shillings, as against10s, 9d: in normal times. As one who has lived in infested districts, and who knows the expense to which trappers are put in obtaining a suitable trapping outfit, traps should be made available at the lowest possible price, to enable this pest to.be properly dealt with. I know of many men and boys who would be rabbit trapping at present if the traps could be secured at a lower rate; and, as every consideration should be extended to those who are making a living by destroying this vermin, I trust the Committee will decide to reduce the duties. Honorable senators are fully aware of the difficulties with which rural workers have to contend if they desire to use their land to the best advantage. ‘In many instances their blocks are surrounded by scrub country, in which the rabbits seek protection, and from which they emerge and destroy the valuable crops of unfortunate settlers.

Senator Vardon:

– Does the honorable senator think this duty will prevent them purchasing traps?

Senator PAYNE:

– It will prevent them purchasing the number they require, and if the honorable senator lived in a district where they were a pest he would realize the importance of low duties. There appears to be no justification for1 the enormous prices which are asked for traps, apart from the fact that high duties have been imposed. Hitherto they have been admitted free, but today there are duties of 20 per cent, on British traps, and 30 per cent, on those manufactured in other countries.

Senator WILSON:
South Australia

– I believe the Committee will be able to vote unanimously that the request as printed be not pressed>. If there is anything in the Tariff which should be admitted free it is the articles which are used by those who are exerting their energies and displaying their ability in developing this country to the best advantage. The time is npt far distant when the State Governments will have to compel all land holders and lessees to destroy rabbits.

Senator E D MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

– The State Governments should first see that the vermin on their own land is destroyed.

Senator WILSON:

– Yes. The Government are really the greatest offenders, because on large tracts of Crown land no effort is made to destroy rabbits.

Senator NEWLANDS:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– In the Northern Territory wild dogs are increasing in, numbers at a terrific rate, and they are finding their way into Queensland.

Senator E D MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

– And they are driving the rabbits from Queensland into South Australia. .

Senator WILSON:

– And South Australians are compelled to purchase traps at an enormous price. When this item was previously before the Committee, the Minister for Defence (Senator Pearce), who was in charge of the Tariff at the time, said that traps were being manufactured in New South Wales, but I da not believe the output is sufficient tol meet our requirements. Senator Guthrie will probably say that the worst form of catching rabbits is to trap them, and that is largely true. But there are men who have to earn a living by catching them and disposing of the skins, and the traps used should be made available at a reasonable rate. I am not satisfied that the factory in New South Wales can meet the Australian demand. It was promised that within, a certain number of weeks New South Wales would be able to make a quantity of traps. Perhaps the Minister is in possession of information that the traps are being made there, but the price of them is still very high. I certainly desire tol make all articles that are used by the individual largely for the benefit of the community free of duty. The time will cornel when we shall have to take some definite action to compel people to use rabbit traps. I favour British traps being admitted duty free, with a 5 per cent, intermediate duty, and a general Tariff, of 10 per cent.

Senator GUTHRIE:
VICTORIA · NAT; UAP from 1931

. - I hold a similar view, and I agree with’ Senator Wilson that all appliances imported for the purpose of killing vermin and noxious weeds should be admitted free. The rabbit pest has cost Australia many millens of pounds, and it now represents a loss to us of probably £1,000,000 a year through cost of combating, plus the damage to crops and pastures. I speak from practical experience, my family having been almost ruined on more than -one occasion through the ravages of this pest. Thousands of men are making a living adjacent to the cities by trapping rabbits for food; thousands more trap them for the skins when a favorable price can be obtained. Where rabbits are found near river banks, and in thickly timbered places where poisoning cannot be resorted bo on account of the proximity to centres of population, traps are essential and are the one means of fighting the pest. I would have liked traps to be free from duty in all columns, but on this occasion I shall support the suggestion to make the British preferential Tariff free, the intermediate 5 per cent., and the general 10 per cent.

Senator GARDINER:
New South Wales

– One would have thought that the increased price of rabbit traps would give sufficient protection. Before the war the article could be purchased for 10d., but it now costs 3s. At one time boys in country schools used rabbit traps extensively, but the high price of them has resulted in a falling off in this practice. The municipal authorities in Sydney have considered it wise to place traps for the catching of rats in the hands of the people free of charge, and, when the whole of Australia is threatened by the rabbit pest, we should not make rabbit traps dearer than necessary. A high Tariff always, means high prices. I would like all the traps to be free. The high price of them has put them beyond the reach of a great number of people.

Senator GUTHRIE:
VICTORIA · NAT; UAP from 1931

-Especially school children.

Senator GARDINER:

– Yes, and it is surprising how large a number of rabbits have been destroyed by children. It would pay the Government to distribute rabbit traps if people would undertake to destroy a certain number of the animals.

Senator EARLE:
Tasmania

– There are firms manufacturing rabbit traps in Australia to-day, and they can produce approximately 500,000 annually. Surely that is sufficient to supply the needs’ of Australia. With reasonable care a steel trap will last a lifetime. I do not approve of school children being encouraged to trap rabbits. There is nothing which tends towards brutalizing children more, and parents who have their welfare at heart should prevent them from vising traps. Professional trappers will never be able to purchase these goods at the prices prevailing in pre-war times.

It was a considerable time before the war when they could be bought at 10s. per dozen. When I was a boy I paid about 12s. and sometimes 15s. a dozen for them. We are told that traps now cost 3s. each, but I hazard the opinion that when the Australian manufacturers get their works into full swing there will be a reduction in price. Traps are being made and purchased all the time, and there is ample opportunity to obtain all that are necessary for the destruction of vermin. Hence I am going to lend my vote to build up those firms in Australia that are engaged in the industry. A few years ago we could not obtain goods from abroad, and that experience may be repeated. I hope it will not, but we shall be better off if we can meet our own requirements rather than depend on manufacturers abroad. I see no reason to anticipate any scarcity of rabbit traps in Australia.

Senator E D MILLEN:
Minister for Repatriation · NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1910; LP from 1913; NAT from 1917

– We are engaged in shaping a Tariff the purpose of which is to stimulate Australian industries. If the arguments advanced as to the effect of a duty on rabbit traps are sound, they are equally arguments against other items. We must remember that these traps are being made in Australia, and I hope that the fact that they are being turned out in New South Wales, and not in Victoria and elsewhere, will not affect the vote of honorable senators. I am in accord with Senator Earlein saying that children should not be allowed to trap rabbits. They are not likely to attend to their school duties if they are permitted to go rabbiting, and I doubt if the number of rabbits in Australia would be appreciably affected by such efforts. Tomake this item free would be a violation of all the votes recorded by honorable senators on the Tariff. Why should these articles not be given some protection? There may be room for a difference of opinion as to the measure of protection to be given them, but I fail to understand why, in a Tariff intended to be a Protective Tariff, the manufacture of these articles alone should not be protected. I ask those who may be disposed to support the amendment to bear that in mind.

Question - That the -word proposed to he left out be left out - put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 9

NOES: 15

Majority . . . . 6

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Amendment negatived.

Motion agreed to.

Progress reported.

Senate adjourned at 10.53 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 17 November 1921, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1921/19211117_senate_8_97/>.