Senate
4 June 1926

10th Parliament · 1st Session



page 2641

ABSENCE OF THE PRESIDENT

The Clerk:

– I have received an intimation from the President that, owing to illness, he ‘will be unable to take the chair this morning. Under the Standing Orders of the Senate, the Chairman of Committees, as Deputy President, will preside.

The Deputy President (Senator Newlands) took the- chair at 11 a.m., and read prayers.

page 2641

QUESTION

GOVERNMENT’S TAXATION PROPOSALS

Senator GRANT:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask the Leader of the Senate if there is any truth in the statement published in the Melbourne newspapers this morning that the Government intends partially to vacate the field of direct taxation, and if so, will the Minister make a statement?

Senator PEARCE:
Minister of Home and Territories · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · NAT

– The honorable senator knows that it is not customary, in reply to a question, to state the policy of the Government.

Senator GRANT:

– Does not the Minister think it is derogatory to the dignity of the Senate that honorable senators should have to look to the daily newspapers for information as to the Government’s intentions instead of the Ministry directly informing the Senate?

Senator PEARCE:

– The honorable senator is under a misapprehension. No member of the Government has made a statement to the press with regard to the legislation referred to. What happened was that the Treasurer in another place gave notice of motion for leave to introduce a bill, and the press formed their own conclusions and made their own comments. I am not responsible for those conclusions, and I do not propose to take any responsibility for statements that appear in the press.

Senator FINDLEY:
VICTORIA

– May I ask the Minister whether the statements published in the press - the Minister knows what they are - are correct or incorrect?

Senator PEARCE:

– Not having read the newspapers this morning, beyond glancing at the headlines, I am not in a position to say whether the statements made as to the Government’s taxation proposals are incorrect or otherwise. A statement of policy will be made by the Prime Minister or the Treasurer when the bill is introduced in another place, and subsequently by myself or some other Minister when the measure comes before this Chamber.

Senator FINDLEY:

– “Will the Minister say whether or not the statements as published in the press properly indicate the intentions of the Government?

Senator PEARCE:

– I am afraid the honorable senator’s last question is out of my depth. I cannot answer it.

page 2641

QUESTION

OODNADATTA TO ALICE SPRINGS RAILWAY

Senator McHUGH:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Works and Railways, upon notice -

  1. When is it expected that the construction of the railway from Oodnadatta to Alice Springs will be commenced?
  2. Have tenders been called for?
Senator Sir VICTOR WILSON:

– The Minister for Works and Railways supplies the following answers :: -

  1. The .Commonwealth Railways Commissioner reports that he is not yet in a position to advise when actual platelaying will commence, but works in connexion with water supplies, &c, are being carried out in advance, and the necessary rolling-stock and material are being procured. It is anticipated that the working survey will be completed towards the end of the present calendar year.
  2. No.

page 2641

CUSTOMS TARIFF BILL

In committee (Consideration resumed from 3rd June, vide page 2587) :

Item 114 -

By omitting the whole of sub-item d and inserting in its stead the following sub-item: -

And on and after 27th March, 1926-

Upon which Senator Findley had moved, by way of amendment -

That the House of Representatives be requested to make sub-item d read -

Caps made of flannel, per doxen,8s. British, 10s. intermediate, 12s. general; or ad valorem, 35 per cent. British, 40 per cent, intermediate, 45 per cent, general, whichever rate returns the higher duty.

Caps and sewn hats, n.e.i., per dozen, 15s. British, 17s. 6d. intermediate, 20s. general; or ad valorem, 35 per cent. British, 40 per cent, intermediate, 45 percent.’ general, whichever rate returns the higher duty.

Senator FINDLEY:
Victoria

– When I submitted this request for an amendment last evening, I did not antipate that there would be much, if any, opposition to it.

Senator Thompson:

– It represents an increase of 40 per cent, on a previous increase of 50 per cent.

Senator FINDLEY:

– I know that a little heat was imported into the debate, but I now ask honorable senators, especially those who were returned to support the protectionist policy of the Government, to free their minds from any bias or prejudice, and deal with each case on its merits. Every honorable senator of protectionist proclivities must desire the development of Australian industries and the betterment of the workers engaged in those industries. Higher duties have been voted without hesitation in respect of other items, so honorable senators should have no hesitation now in supporting my amendment. I have already explained that, as far as boys’ caps are concerned, it will mean a reduction in the duty of 4d. for each cap. Whilst on this subject, I remind Senator Payne and other honorable senators that nearly all the college boys in Australia, and nearly all the boys attending our public schools, wear caps made in Australia from Australian material.

Senator Payne:

– That is all right. No one is opposing that item, so the honorable senator need not labour it.

Senator FINDLEY:

– I did so because Senator Payne said last evening that certain other caps were worn by a number of boys.

Senator Payne:

– I was referring to the strong serge and tweed caps worn by working boys.

Senator FINDLEY:

– Most of the. men’s imported caps which I exhibited last night were made from what is known as shoddy material, and under sweated labour conditions, and imported and sold at a price below that at which they can be made in Australia. So acute has the competition become that some cap manufacturers have gone out of the business altogether, and, instead of making the caps in Australia from Australian material, they are importing these articles. The industry should almost be a natural one, because we produce the raw material, and our operatives have been doing the work. The . industry, properly established and adequately protected, should give employment to from 500 to 1,000 operatives, instead of the few who are engaged in it to-day. The Government’s proposal is for a duty of 12s. a dozen British, on both boys’ and men’s caps. That is certain to be carried. My amendment seeks to differentiate in the duties between men’s and boys’ caps, and honorable senators who have voted for protective duties in respect of other items, to be consistent, should give this industry the measure of protection that I am asking for it.

Senator Ogden:

– The industry does not employ more than 150 persons.

Senator FINDLEY:

– Many small industries which have been encouraged by protective duties and assisted by the Parliaments of the States and the Commonwealth have grown into mammoth institutions, employing thousands of people. At one time the manufacture of boys’ caps was a small industry, but to-day thousands of these caps are made in Australia. The wearing of caps by men is on the increase.

Senator Ogden:

– I do not think so.

Senator Reid:

– It if the vogue to wear caps now.

Senator FINDLEY:

– Australian caps are better than imported caps. The material in them is better, and there is a greater variety of design. We should encourage this industry. I cannot understand how honorable senators who profess to be protectionists can vote against this request. Do they wish to see our importations increased ? Notwithstanding the recommendations of the Tariff Board, which he helped to bring into existence, and regardless of the fact that these proposals have been introduced by a Government which he professes to support, Senator Lynch now has no good word for the Tariff Board or for the Government, and he also voices his “ hymn of hate “ against the party to which I belong politically and industrially.

Senator Payne:

– The honorable senator is going beyond the Tariff Board. He has said that the board has not done its duty.

SenatorFINDLEY. - I say that the Tariff Board has not given to one phase of this industry the measure of protection to which it is justly entitled.

Senator Payne:

– Some of us think that the board has given too much protection.

Senator FINDLEY:

– I desire to see our importations decrease and our industries develop. I shall not remain silent while Australian industries are being strangled because of importations which could be stopped if honorable senators would do their duty. The Government’s proposals are quite inadequate. The material in an imported cap costs about 71/2d., the lining11/4d., peak and canvas1d., button and thread1/2d., making the total cost of the cap in Great Britain 101/4d. The caps are made in the homes of the poorer people under conditions which amount to sweating, and ave delivered f.o.b. London at 12s. a dozen. Adding -14s. 6d. a dozen for freight, &c, the landed cost in Australia is 26s. 6d. per dozen. The cost of manufacturing men’s caps in Australia, making no allowance for profit and not including the cost of material, is 20s. 3d. per dozen. For a dozen caps 21/2 yards of material at 5s. 6d. a yard is required. The total cost, therefore, is 34s. a dozen, or 7s. 6d. a dozen more than imported caps made of shoddy.

Senator Payne:

– What evidence has the honorable senator that the imported caps which he exhibited in this chamber were made in the homes of the poorer people in Great Britain?

Senator Guthrie:

– There is truth in the statement.

Senator FINDLEY:

– Outdoor work is carried on extensively in the Old Country.

Senator Guthrie:

– Unfortunately, these caps are not made out of doors, but in ill-ventilated back rooms.

Senator FINDLEY:

– By outdoor work, I mean work done, not in factories under conditions which have to be observed in Australian factories, but in the homes of the people.

Senator Guthrie:

– - There is a lot of sweated labour in Great Britain.

Senator Payne:

– The honorable senator has submitted no evidence to show that the imported caps which he exhibited yesterday were not made in a well-ventilated factory in London.

Senator FINDLEY:

– I ask Senator Payne whether they were made in England under conditions equal to those which have to be observed in Australian factories ?

Senator Payne:

– The honorable senator will not answer my question.

Senator FINDLEY:

– The honorable senator himself will have an opportunity to submit proofs, if he can, that the caps made in England are made under conditions similar to those obtaining in Australia.

Senator Payne:

– They are not.

Senator FINDLEY:

– I ask that this item be dealt with in the same way that other items on the tariff have been treated, namely, from a protectionist viewpoint, and I add that I will do all in my power to assist in the development of Australian industries; but if the Government will not support this reasonable request and will not, in connexion with this item, submit its supporters to the same discipline to which they were submitted in relation to another item, it cannot expect my whole-hearted support to its other proposals.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Kingsmill:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– The honorable senator has exhausted his time.

Senator THOMPSON:
Queensland

– I regard the proposal of Senator Findley as a sprat set to catch a mackerel and I am sorry that the Minister so eagerly accepted it.

Senator Crawford:

– Not eagerly.

Senator THOMPSON:

– The Minister’s readiness to accept it reminded me of a phrase which was once current in this Parliament - “ Yes, Mr. Watson.”

Senator Findley:

– It is a reasonable request which I have moved.

Senator THOMPSON:

– It is not. The Government’s proposals already provide for an increase of 50 per cent, on the old tariff. Now, Senator Findley would increase the old duties to 90 per cent. ; I am referring to the British tariff. The attitude adopted by the honorable senator bears out, to a marked degree, the statement of the Townsville Chamber of Commerce, to which reference was made last night. That view is still held by many people in Queensland.

Senator Crawford:

– The Townsville Chamber of Commerce has, so far, failed to obtain the support of any other Chamber of Commerce.

Senator THOMPSON:

– So far as Senator Findley’s threat is concerned, the Minister would be well advised to accept suggestions from honorable senators on this side rather than those which emanate from honorable senators opposite.

Senator Duncan:

– The Minister has lot accepted the suggested amendment..

Senator THOMPSON:

– He has.

Senator OGDEN:
Tasmania

. -Senator Findley is certainly consistent; but one would imagine that this item, which he fights so- strenuously, was of such importance that to grantthe additional duties would save the country from disaster. It is uselessfor honorable senators who believe in moderate protection to attempt, by logical argument, to stem this tide of fiscal madness. Senator Findley asks the committee to raise an already high duty on men’s caps to 90 per cent. That is stretching the principle of protection rather too far. Senator Findley is concerned with this item only because the making of caps is a Victorian industry.

Senator Findley:

– It is an Australian industry.

Senator OGDEN:

– It is so small an industry that it is not worth consideration. It can never grow to any great extent. I shall oppose the request. Rather than support it I should be disposed to move for a reduction of the Government’s proposals. I hope that we shall not be carried away by the honorable senator’s enthusiasm.

Senator McLACHLAN:
South Australia

– If we are to continue a discussion of this kind we shall never reach finality in the consideration of the tariff. Parliament has’ appointed a tribunal to deal with tariff matters and to make recommendations. I, on. one occasion, came into sharp conflict with the Tariff Board because I thought that one of its recommendations was not justified by the evidence. We have heard from Senator Findley nothing to justify our goingbeyond the recommendations of the Tariff Board, which, I understand, are embodied in the Government proposals. By them I am prepared to abide ; but I am not prepared in this chamber to traverse the whole of the arguments in favour of increasing the duty by 2s. or reducing it by1s. We have before us the maximum duty recommended by the Tariff Board. The facts which have been presented to us this morning were, no doubt, placed before the Tariff Board. If they were not, they ought to have been. If this commitee is to consider the whole of the details which should already have been presented to the Tariff Board, we shall arrive at a state of absolute confusion. What the Tariff Board recommends I shall stand for, but not more.

Senator Findley:

– In all cases?

Senator McLACHLAN:

– In all cases, except where I think that the board has acted on insufficient evidence.

Senator Crawford:

– In that case, why bring the tariff before Parliament at all ?

Senator McLACHLAN:

– It is necessary to obtain legislative sanction to its recommendations. No good case for additional duties was made out in connexion with the first item, but honorable senators voted for the recomendations of the Tariff Board.The argument which applied then should apply now. I admit that Senator Findley is consistent, and that he has presented his case well; but the arguments whch he has brought forward this morning should have been addressed to the Tariff Board. If that has not already been done, an opportunity to do so would readily be granted. Finality has not yet been reached. Seeing that the Tariff Board appointed by Parliament has considered this matter and made its recommendations, I shall stand by those recommendations.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Kingsmill:

– I must ask honorable senators to endeavour to restrain themselves, and keep to the item under consideration.

Senator PAYNE:
Tasmania

– I am pleased that Senator Findley has dealt further with this very important question. He has over-reached himself

He has told us that “the- invoice price of the average cap worn by the ordinary individual in- Australia is 12s. a dozen f .o.b. London, but he has not told the committee that his proposed duties amount to 125 per cent.

Senator Findley:

– It amounts to a duty of ls. 3d.. each on men’s caps.

Senator PAYNE:

– No, it amounts to 125 per cent, ad valorem. The duty of 15s. on an invoice cost of 12s. must mean an ad valorem duty of 125 per cent. That is a prohibitive tariff. But, of course, Senator Findley would prohibit anything from entering Australia if he possibly could. There is evidently a desire on the part of the Government to accept the proposed rate of duty, which goes fax beyond the recommendation of the Tariff Board. 1 was astounded at the Minister, apparently after consultation with his officers, taking the advantage of the opportunity to procure more revenue;

Senator Crawford:

– The honorable senator evidently forgets the reduction on boys’ caps which represents 80 per cent, of the trade.

Senator PAYNE:

– As Senator Thompson has said, that concession is but a sprat to catch a mackerel. I agree with the desire of Senator Findley to relieve the fathers and mothers . of schoolboys, who wear caps, of some of the burden they have to bear, but when he proposes am absolutely prohibitive duty on men’s caps, it seems to me that the Senate should oppose his request.

Senator GRAHAM:
Western Australia

– I shall support Senator Findley’s request to protect the manufacturer of men’s- caps in Australia. The workers who make these caps in London, if the invoice price of them is 12s. a dozen f .o.b., must get something like 3½d. each for them. The material of which they are made is shoddy pure and simple, whereas the Australian-made caps are of Australian tweed. If honorable senators prefer the importation of these caps made with the shoddy material to the establishment of another Australian industry, they are indeed lacking in a true Australian sentiment. There is nothing to indicate that the caps described as being made in Great Britain are not made in Japan, Sweden, Germany, or some other country, and stamped as “ Made in Great Britain.”

Senator Guthrie:

– We should insist upon the- country of origin being stamped on these goods.

Senator GRAHAM:

– That is so. I doubt whether Senator Ogden was sincere when he talked about saving the Empire. In this1 case, it is not a matter of saving the Empire, but of keeping people from starving, because, if those engaged in this industry have> to compete with caps which’ cain be landed here from other countries at the price indicated by Senator Findley, they must starve. I appeal to> the better judgment of honorable senators to support Senator Findley^ request, and bring about the establishment of a new industry in Australia.

Senator REID:
Queensland

Senator McLachlan is anxious to abide by the evidence submitted by the Tariff Board, but I remind him that he and his friends were very much opposed to the recommendation of the Tariff Board that the duties on whisky should be increased.

Sena-tor McLachlan. - Because there was no evidence to support the board’s recommendation.

Senator REID:

– I am nob saying that there was evidence to support the board’s recommendation in that regard. I SUP)ported the honorable senator in his op-, position to the increases. He and I and others rejected the recommendation, and decided the issue on the evidence as it appealed to- us. In regard to the duty on caps,, the Tariff Board submitted a certain recommendation, but when the matter was under consideration in another place, the Minister for Trade and Customs said that he would give further consideration to a request for a higher duty. He has apparently done so, because to-day the Government has accepted the request submitted by Senator Findley for the imposition of a higher duty. I believe that if the Tariff Board had had time to go into the question, it would have recommended the higher rate. It is eighteen months since it first inquired into the matter. Capmaking is, no doubt, a small industry; but, as pointed out by Senator Findley, many of our large industries started in a small way. They cannot grow up all at once. The wearing of caps’ is more’ common in Australia than it has been. The further you go into the tropics the more they are worn at night time, and in the cold climates of Melbourne and Sydney young people are wearing caps during the day time to a greater extent than formerly.

Senator McLachlan:

– Did not the Tariff Board have the matter before it?

Senator REID:

– Yes, eighteen months ago, but in the meantime the manufacturers of these caps have secured from the factories the tweed they could not obtain “previously. It was one of their drawbacks that they could not obtain this tweed. Some of the imported caps would not be fit to wear after a shower of rain; they are made of shoddy and would shrink. It ought to be recognized that there are far more boys’ caps worn than men’s, and Senator Findley’s proposal to reduce the duty on boys’ caps will mean a big reduction for the fathers of children who have to wear caps. The duty on boys’ caps will be reduced by 2s.

Senator Findley:

– The reduction is 4s. against the old tariff.

Senator REID:

– The proposed increase on the recommendation of the Tariff Board on men’s caps is 3s. The reduction on boys’ caps should balance the increase on men’s caps, because there are two boys’ caps worn to every one adult’s cap. The material made in the local mills and used in manufacturing the men’s caps exhibited in :the chamber is a credit to them. The manufacturers of woollen cloth in Australia have had a long struggle. The industry is struggling even now.

Senator Payne:

– The mills cannot execute the orders they are getting for woollen fabrics.

Senator REID:

– If that is correct, it is the best news I have heard for many a year, because our woollen mills have not been fully employed, and their employees have been working half time. Not long ago I inspected six factories in Geelong. One of them was working only half of the week, and the others were not working full time. If they are now all working full time to execute orders, it is the best evidence we have that the increased tariff is required. The tweed of which the caps exhibited by Senator Findley are made is 20 per cent, better than Senator Payne’s shoddy, out of which he would have our overcoats made. The people who are ask ing for this duty tell us that the cost of manufacturing in Australia without a profit, not including the cost of material, amounts to 20s. 3d. a dozen. There are 2£ yards in a dozen caps. Australian cap tweeds cost 5s. 6d. a yard. The co3t of the tweed in a dozen caps is, therefore, 13s. 9d. Adding this amount to the cost of manufacture, we see that the total cost is 34s. a dozen without profit, or 7s. 6d. a dozen more than the cost of imported caps. We have arbitration awards in Australia fixing certain wages and hours of work. We have factory laws requiring the industries to be carried on under certain hygienic conditions. These conditions, these hours of work and rates of wages, have not to be observed by employers in other countries. It is only reasonable, therefore, that when the Australian manufacturer has to compete with the manufacturers of other countries, he should have an amount of protection which will enable him to do so, even if it appears to be somewhat in the nature of a tax upon the consumer.

Senator Thompson:

– Evidently the honorable senator favours the prohibition of imports.

Senator REID:

– No. I am in favour of encouraging manufacturing industries in Australia by imposing reasonable duties. I understand that the cap-making industry in Australia is only in its infancy, and, if that ‘ is the case, it is worthy of more support than some industries which have had the benefit of fairly high protection for a number of years. The samples of Australian tweed produced are of a very satisfactory quality, and there does not appear to be any reason why men’s caps should not be made of such material. If the father of a family has to pay, perhaps, ls. more for his own cap, he will receive a corresponding benefit by being able to purchase caps for his boys at a lower rate.

Senator McLachlan:

– Then the Tariff Board must have been wrong in both instances.

Senator REID:

– No, it is eighteen months since the Tariff Board investigated this matter, and in the meantime tweed suitable for cap-making has been manufactured in Australia. Frequent reference has been made to the fact that the workers will have to pay additional prices in consequence of the higher duties imposed, but it is peculiar that the members of the Labour party, in this chamber, and in another place, are solidly supporting the higher duties. It cannot, therefore, be said that the higher Customs duties inflict hardships upon the working classes.

Senator NEEDHAM:
Western Australia

– I have listened for some time to the discussion on the requested amendment moved by Senator Findley, and I am somewhat surprised to find that a good deal of the opposition to it is because it was moved from this side of the chamber. Senator Payne endeavoured to work himself into a state of’ fury because the Minister accepted a proposition submitted by a member of the party to which I belong. I do not think it is an extraordinary proposal to reduce the duty on boys’ caps and to increase the rate on men’s caps. I wish to remind Senator McLachlan, who said that we should adhere to the decision of the Tariff Board, that a considerable period has elapsed since this matter was investigated by that body, but the honorable senator should know that if additional evidence is submitted the matter should be further discussed. In opposing the requested amendment Senator McLachlan said that he would stand by the recommendations of the Tariff Board, because it had heard the evidence for and against higher duties, but he qualified his statement by saying, except when he thought it “had acted on insufficient evidence.” In this instance the honorable senator considers that he is a higher authority than the Tariff Board. This committee has, of course, greater powers than the Tariff Board, and as further evidence has been tendered to justify the amendment suggested by Senator Findley we should be guided by it.

Senator McLachlan:

– Does the honorable senator suggest that similar evidence was not submitted to the board.

Senator NEEDHAM:

– Conditions have altered since the Tariff Board’s inquiry. Suitable tweed is now being manufactured in Australia, and as the cap-making industry is in its infancy it deserves a higher protective tariff than those industries which have been established for some time. Honorable senators have not referred to the time the industry has been in existence, but it is admitted that it is only now becoming estab lished. I am a protectionist, but, as I stated on the second reading of the bill, I shall not support the continuance of high duties to protect industries which have been established for some time. In this instance, I am quite consistent in supporting Senator Findley’s requested amendment, which has been moved with the intention of assisting a new industry.

Senator ANDREW:
Victoria

– I have listened with considerable interest to the opinions expressed by honorable senators. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Senator Needham), who, when speaking on the second reading of the bill, said that he believed in industries being protected for ten or fifteen years, but that thereafter they should be able to continue without additional protection, is prepared in this case to vote for increased duties.

Senator Needham:

– That is not what I said.

Senator ANDREW:

Senator Grant, another member of the Labour party, declares that he is opposed to the policy of protection, . yet on every occasion he supports higher dutiesSenator Findley has, however, been consistent in his attitude. It is surprising to find honorable senators supporting the interests of the manufacturers and entirely disregarding the claims of the consumers. Unfortunately, that important section of the community is not represented on the Tariff Board, but I think it is the duty of the Government to provide some means by which its representations may be heard.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Kingsmill:

– I must ask the honorable senator to confine his remarks to the sub-item before the committee.

Senator ANDREW:

– A majority of the Australian people favour fairly high protection, and in this instance, Senator Findley has moved a request to reduce the duty on boys’ caps, and to increase the rates on men’s caps. It. appears to me that the protection already afforded to the manufacturers of men’s caps, which already are mad© in Australia, is adequate, but that manufacturers who can get the ear of Ministers or certain honorable senators have an excellent opportunity of obtaining even higher protection. The articles under consideration will, no doubt, be machine sewn.

In the town in which I live a sewing machine factory has been established, but it has received no assistance.

Senator Graham:

– It is doing good work.

Senator ANDREW:

– It was, but, unfortunately, it has been strangled. The representatives of the industry . appeared before the Tariff Board, and the Minister for Trade and Customs (Mr. Pratten), the Comptroller-General of Customs, and the accountant in the Department of Trade and Customs visited the factory. After a most careful investigation into the industry had been made, a promise was . given that it would receive adequate protection. In the first place, a deferred duty was proposed, and the payment of a bounty was also considered, but up to the present, the only notification received from the authorities is that the matter will be brought before Cabinet. The factory is now closing down, and the unfortunate workmen, who have not been paid for the last fortnight’s work, are being thrown out of employment. Capital will not be invested in such an industry until investors are assured that it will receive adequate protection. The factory to which I . refer is the only one of its kindin Australia, and . as everything but the bobbins . and needles are produced locally, surely it should be encouraged by means of a bounty. This has been done without any assistance. The industry should be encouraged by means of a bounty until it is properly established. People who are in poor circumstances require a reasonable respite from high protection. That applies with particular force to widows who have children to maintain.

Senator Crawford:

– What about widows’ daughters, who secure employment in our factories?

Senator ANDREW:

– Frequently, if it were not for the efforts of their daughters, widows would have nothing.

Senator Needham:

– That is an old gag-

Senator ANDREW:

– It may be; but it is voiced by a young man. For fifteen years I have belonged to an institution which feeds between 400 and 500 starving children every week. Should not the parents of those children be enabled to purchase the necessary food and clothing for them?

Senator McHugh:

– If there were a sufficient amount of work for those parents, institutions such as that to which the honorable senator has referred would not be necessary.

Senator ANDREW:

– If any honorable senator will join me at 7 o’clock tomorrow morning, I will show him, between that hour and 12 o’clock, an example of what is done every week in feeding these unfortunate children. On behalf of their parents and the people generally, I appeal to honorable senators not to further increase the cost of Irving by imposing excessive duties, even on caps. Australia could get along very well with a moderate measure of protection. If, as Senator Needham says, a reasonable amount of protection is not sufficient, let the industry go. The Government made a very temperate proposal, but they have agreed to accept Senator Findley’s suggestion to increase it. I consider that the item, as it stands, is sufficient to build up that industry, and I shall, therefore, support it.

Senator Payne:

– I ask that the request be put to the committee in two parts.

Senator Findley:

– I object to that.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

-(SenatorKingsmill). - The decision of the matter rests with the Chair. Under standing order 130, the President may order a complicated question to be divided. Under the provisions of another standing order the powers of the President in the Senate devolve upon the Chairman of Committees, and consequently upon a Temporary Chairman of Committees when the Senate is in committee. This is undoubtedly a complicated question, and I see -no reason for declining to agree to Senator Payne’s . request. I shall, therefore, divide the question.

Senator Findley:

– Before you do that, sir-

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

– - Order! The honorable senator may not debate my ruling. If he wishes to disagree with it, he must do so in writing, and at once.

Senator Findley:

– I have no desire to fall foul of you, sir, or of any other occupant of the chair; but I hope that you will permit me to show the unfortunate position in which I . shall be placed if Senator Payne’s request is granted.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN As the mover of the request, if you wish to make a personal explanation, I shall allow you to do so; but my ruling is not open to debate.

Senator Findley:

-i submitted this as one request, not as two, because one is dependent upon the other. If the first portion were agreed to, the duty on boys’ caps would be 8s. instead of 12s. The only condition upon which I favour that is that a higher duty be imposed on men’s caps, as provided for in the second part of my request.

Senator Payne:

– This is a trapwhich has been set by the honorable senator.

Senator Findley:

– I am satisfied that honorable senators opposite want to trap me..

Senator Crawford:

– The two matters cannot, be taken separately ; one is dependent upon the other. It is a deliberate trap to suggest that they should be put separately.

Senator Findley:

– Let the request be decided as a whole, on its merits, and not be divided into two parts.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

– The honorable senator, therefore, wishes to disagree with my ruling?

Senator Findley:

– You know, sir, that that is a very awkward step to take. I put it to you that our Standing Orders are not as the laws of the Medes and Persians. I ask you, would it not be better to take the request as a whole? If the committee negatives the whole of my request, I shall have some satisfaction, but if it favours a reduced duty for boys’ caps and declines to approve of an increased duty for men’s caps, I and other protectionists will be placed in a very invidious position.

Senator Thompson:

– That is the result of the honorable senator’s bargaining.

Senator Findley:

– It is not a question of bargaining.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN.Hay I. suggest that the honorable senator alter the order in which his request is proposed? If he obtains the leave of the committee - which I feel sure will be given to him - he can so amend his request that the second part will be taken first.

Senator Payne:

– I object to that.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN.Under the Standing Orders, the President, the Chairman of Committees, and the Temporary Chairmen of Committees have power to divide a question which, in their opinion, is complicated. In my opinion this is a complicated question. If any honorable senator holds a contrary opinion, it is open to him to disagree with my ruling; but that must be done at once, in writing; and without debate.

Senator Findley:

– You, sir, have ruled that the request should be divided’. I ask the. committee to agree to your suggestion that I be. allowed to so amend my request that the second part may be taken first. Surely honorable senators do not want to take an unfair advantage of me!

Senator Payne:

– The honorable senator has been endeavouring to take an unfair advantage of the committee’.

Senator Findley:

– We can have a vote on the question . if the committee will agree to my request being amended on the lines suggested by the Temporary Chairman of Committees.

Senator Plain:

– The honorable senator’s best plan is to withdraw the request.

Senator Findley:

– I shall withdraw it if the committee will not agree to my amending it in the direction that I desire.

Senator Payne:

– That is not a fair suggestion to make.

Senator Drake-Brockman:

– Put the request on the lines suggested by the Temporary Chairman, and let us see where we stand.

Senator Findley:

– Apparently I am not able to do that without the consent of the committee.

Senator Drake-Brockman:

– If the honorable senator asks for that consent and it is refused, he will not be in any worse position than he is in now.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

– I point out to the honorable senator that when the leave of the Senate or of the committee is sought, one dissentient voice has the effect of refusing that leave.

Senator McLachlan:

– Is it not competent for you, sir, to rule that Senator Findley may have the second portion of his request put first ?

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN.No..

Senator Findley:

– I ask the leave of the committee to so amend my request that the second portion may be taken before the first.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN.Is it the pleasure of the committee that Senator Findley have leave to amend his request ?

Several Honorable Senators. - No.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN.Leave is refused.

Senator Findley:

– As there is apparently no sense of fairness in the minds of some honorable senators, I ask leave to withdraw my request.

Leave granted; request withdrawn.

Senator Findley:

– In future I shall know how to deal with those honorable senators who have shown that they have no sense of justice.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN.Order !

Senator Findley:

– I am angry beyond measure. They have no sense of justice or fair play.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN.Order! The honorable senator must not make such statements.

Senator Findley:

– I have made them, and I will stick to them.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

– The honorable senator must withdraw the statement.

Senator Findley:

– What statement did I make that was incorrect or unparliamentary?

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

– That there is no sense of justice on the part of honorable senators.

Senator Findley:

– I say so still. If they were fair-minded men they would do a fair thing; especially when you, sir, considered it a fair thing to put my request in the way that I proposed. I do not see that there is anything to withdraw. There is no fair-mindedness in men who take up such an attitude.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN.I ask the honorable senator to withdraw the statement.

Senator Findley:

– I withdraw, if that will satisfy you.

Item 114 agreed to.

Item 115-

By omitting the whole of sub-item (b) and inserting in its stead the followingsub-item: - “(b) Woollen or containing wool, ad valorem, 45 per cent. British, 55 per cent, intermediate, 60 per cent, general.”

Senator LYNCH:
Western Australia

.- I move-

That the House of Representatives be re quested to make the duty on sub-item (B), ad valorem, British 35 per cent.

My object is to revert to the reasonable duties which prevailed under the 1921 tariff. I consider that they afford ample protection for this industry. I shall again refute the charge that these goods are manufactured under sweated labour conditions in Great Britain’ and are sent out here to compete with goods that are manufactured under superior conditions. We have heard quite sufficient of sweating, dumping, and shoddy. It is time we asked ourselves under what conditions these goods are manufactured in the Old Country. I quote from a document supplied by the Australian Association of British Manufacturers. It states -

Information has just come to hand from Great Britain and shows that for the last thirteen full weeks of work in 1025 in England one leading factory averaged . the earnings of a number of male and female workers in various sections of the factory with the following results: - “January 27, 1926. “ Average wages earned in various sections of the factories for thirteen weeks of 4S hours each in October, November, and December of 1925 -

This information is right up to date concerning the item before the committee - “50 knitters (male), average £5 3s. a week.”

Senator Guthrie:

– That was for piece-work rates. ,

Senator LYNCH:

– Whatever you like. I will even throw that in. Does the honorable senator object to piece-work?

Senator Guthrie:

– No, but it makes a difference when any comparison is made.

Senator LYNCH:

– There ought to be more evidence of piece-work in this country. Shearers and coal-miners, as we all know, will have nothing else. Printers in newspaper offices also work under the system. I object to this parrot-cry of “piece-work” merely because any comparison of work done under that system may be disadvantageous to a certain line of argument.

Senator Guthrie:

– I have no objection to piece-work.

Senator LYNCH:

– Then I shall be glad if the honorable senator will not throw that parrot-cry at me.

Senator Guthrie:

– The conditions under which wages are earned must be borne in mind when any comparison is made of wages in England and Aus-

Senator LYNCH:

– Well, I give that in. At all events, the average wage earned by British operatives is the result of 48 hours’ work. The following figures show the average weekly earnings in a British factory: -

Male. - 50 knitters, £5 3s.; 12 folders and counter-men, £41s. Female. - 48 winders, £2 9s.; 25 linkers, £2 7s.; 50 menders, £2 5s.; 24 stitchers, £2 15s.; 14 cutters, £2 16s.

Let us now compare these rates with the wages earned under Australian labour conditions. This document goes on to state -

In comparison, the following is a copy of the weekly time wage under the Victorian Wages Board rates for a 45 hours’ week: - “Male. - Cotton patent underwear or. foot-wear knitters, £4 18s. a week.”

Senator Thompson:

– Against £5 3s., the average wage in Great Britain ?

Senator LYNCH:

– Exactly.

Senator Guthrie:

– The British rate is piece-work. It makes a great difference.

Senator LYNCH:

– Now, we have the story of the wolf and the lamb over again. Senator Guthrie says he has no objection to piece-work, but he does not hesitate to use it as an argument against me if he thinks he can find a flaw in my contention.

Senator Thompson:

– In any case, the average wage in Great Britain was earned within 48 hours.

Senator LYNCH:

– That is so, and the onus is on my opponents to prove that the comparison I am making is not a fair one. They cry “piece-work!” and hope, in that way, to tickle the ears of the groundlings. Senator Guthrie, mark you, believes in piece-work, and I tell him again that piece-work is demanded by a vast majority of men even in this country. But let me return to my argument. This document shows that in Victoria X.L. knitters (males) get £4 15s. a week, as against an average of £5 3s. a week in Britain - that “sweated” country, against which we must have an additional 10 per cent, protection. Pressers in Victoria get £4 13s. a week. Female linkers, under a Victorian Wages Board determination, get £2 4s. a week against an average of £2 7s. in Great Britain; menders get £2 4s., overlook machinists £2 2s., and X.L. knitters £2 7s. a week, as against an average of £2 5s. in Great Britain.

Senator Drake-Brockman:

– What is the honorable senator’s authority for those figures ?

Senator LYNCH:

– I have just said that my information comes from the Australian Association of British Manufacturers. I suppose it is as truthful as that which is supplied to the Senate from other sources.

Senator Guthrie:

– Evidence before the Tariff Board is taken on oath.

Senator LYNCH:

– I presume that the statements supplied to the association I have mentioned could also be given on oath if required.

Senator Thompson:

– In any case, no one in this country is in a position to give evidence on oath as regards British wages and conditions.

SenatorReid. - And we have no evidence that the figures quoted by Senator Lynch are true.

Senator LYNCH:

– I am satisfied that they are as reliable as other information that is supplied to honorable senators. The document states further -

The above Victorian wages-

I have just given the figures- to the Senate- are the result of investigations by the Victorian Wages Board, and are based on the cost of living compared with Australian standards of living. If any higher wages are paid in Victoria, it indicates that the industry was, under the 1921 tariff, sufficiently well protected to pay such higher rates.

Although the industry was well protected under the 1921 tariff, those identified with it now come along for an additional 10 per cent, protection. What justification can they offer? It is all part and parcel of a definite campaign to secure favour after favour from this Parliament. As I have said on previous occasions, it is time to put a period to the process. We should think of other people. At the moment I am thinking of the vast number of people who have to buy socks and stockings, and also of those who, owing to their unfavorable position, are in danger of being unable to buy socks to wear. I want some relief to be given to them. I shall test the feeling of the committee on this matter. If my amendment is carried, I shall move for corresponding reductions in the intermediate and general tariffs.

Senator CRAWFORD:
QueenslandHonorary Minister · NAT

– I hope that the committee will not agree to the honorable senator’s request, because itwould seriously affect the position of one of our most important secondary industries, in which about £4,000,000 is invested in buildings and plant, and which gives employment to a large number of people. Prior to the introduction of this tariff in September last the manufacturers of woollen hosiery had practically ceased operations owing to the large importations, due principally to big surplus stocks being held in the United States of America and in Great Britain.

Senator Lynch:

– What about our surplus stocks of sugar?

Senator CRAWFORD:

– That commodity is not under consideration at “the moment. It is estimated that if the whole of our requirements in hosiery are manufactured in Australia the industry will give employment to an additional 2,500 persons. The increased duties have been in operation for over nine months, and my information is that there has not been any noticeable increase in the cost either of socks or stockings in that time. Our manufacturers now supply the greater proportion of the Australian demand, and they are employing a large number of operatives. Under this tariff the import duties on yarns for the manufacture of socks and stockings are increased by 10 per cent. An important Australian industry will be seriously injured if Senator Lynch ‘s amendment is agreed to.

Senator PAYNE:
Tasmania

– I hope the request will be agreed to.

Senator Guthrie:

– The honorable senator wants to close up all our hosiery factories.

Senator PAYNE:

– I do not.

Senator Guthrie:

– That is what will happen if Senator Lynch’ s requested amendment is carried.

Senator PAYNE:

– This proposal ought to be considered from a commonsense point of view. I want honorable senators to go back to 1921, when, in face of a great deal of opposition, the British duty on socks and stockings containing wool was increased to 35per cent. There was a great deal of opposition to the proposed increase to 45 per cent. British. Notwithstanding that it was shown clearly that the imposition of a duty of 35 per cent.., as against the previous duty of 25 per cent., would only have the effect of increasing the cost to the people, the extra duty was agreed to, the Government of the day, believingthat that protection would be ample to enable the hosiery manufacturers of Australia to command a fair proportion of the trade. It is now proposed to further increase the duty. If the object is to prevent the importation of British hosiery, it will fail.

Senator Guthrie:

– The duty is not high enough.

Senator PAYNE:

– The duty would have to be 100 per cent. to keep out the British article. I say nothing against any industry in Australia which is conducted in an efficient manner; but I say unhesitatingly that the reason why the trade of certain Australian hosiery factories has decreased is that their product has not given satisfaction to the wearers.

Senator Guthrie:

– Does the honorable senator say that knitted underclothing made in Australia is not of good quality ?

Senator Drake-Brockman:

– It is of better quality than any other that I have seen.

Senator PAYNE:

– I have not made that statement rashly. I am giving the result, not only of my own experience, but also of many others. The reason for the decline in the trade of some Australian hosiery manufactories is the unsatisfactory articles which they produce.

Senator Millen:

– Is it not rather due to their shape?

Senator PAYNE:

– No. I give place to no honorable senator as a judge of textiles. Some time ago I bought some Australianmade articles of clothing which were of’ good texture and appearance. They were made of pure merino wool. As I am not a small man, I obtained the largest size made, and when I first wore them they fitted me. But after five washings - not at a laundry, but at home, by the most approved method - they were not large enough to fit Senator Hoare. I also bought some Australian-made cashmere half hose, measuring11½ inches along the foot. After four washings those socks were only 9½ inches long. I interviewed the secretary of the factory which made them, and told him that I had heard that he had represented that the reason the production of his factory had diminished was that British hosiery had been dumped in Australia, but that the real reason for the decline of trade was that the workers had not learned the art of shrinking the yarn before manufacturing it into garments. I received the reply that I did not know what I was talking about. If the Australian factories will produce an article which will give satisfaction to the wearers, it will find a ready sale. The effect of this higher duty will be to increase the price of “hosiery made in Great Britain by6d. or 9d. a pair. But it will not decrease the quantity sold to Australian people. Increased duties will give no greater protection to the Australian manufacturers. I do not say that every Australian factory turns out unsatisfactory hosiery. Some of them produce excellent articles.

Senator Duncan:

– The honorable senator should buy the products of Bond’s factory.

Senator PAYNE:

– They do not make woollen goods. I bought garments from the mills that I have mentioned because I was a shareholder in the company; but since the experience to which I have referred I have purchased no further goods made in that factory. I hope that by this time they have overcome their troubles. I wish them success. But higher duties will not increase their turnover. They will increase the cost of imported hosiery without protecting the local industry.

Senator Crawford:

– Since the additional duties have been in operation, Australian factories have engaged some hundreds of additional employees.

Senator PAYNE:

– A protection of 30 per cent. or 35 per cent. is ample so long as the goods turned out by Australian factories are satisfactory. A duty of 35 per cent. gives an effective protection of about 45 per cent., when we consider the natural protection afforded by reason of freight and other charges on the imported article.

Senator Crawford:

– That is not so. It costs as much to send goods from Mel bourne to Hobart or Brisbane as to bring them from Great Britain. Does the honorable senator think that the product of the Victorian mills is sold only in Melbourne?

Senator PAYNE:

– I am not referring to the cost of these goods in Brisbane or in Hobart, but to the prices charged for them in Victoria and New South Wales.

Senator Guthrie:

-Does the honorable senator support increased duties on woollen yarn ?

Senator PAYNE:

– Having read a great deal of the evidence submitted in favour of these increased duties, I am of the opinion that the recommendation of the Tariff Board was, to a great extent, based on the charge that British hosiery had been dumped into Australia. I do not believe that there is anything in the charge that British hosiery manufacturers supplied Australians with manufactured articles at a price less than the cost of the material used.

Senator Guthrie:

– That it was done two years ago was proved conclusively before the Tariff Board.

Senator PAYNE:

– I shall not believe that statement on the word of any one individual. I shall require proof before believing it. It is farcical to suggest that any business man would do what has been suggested. He could not afford to do so. I could understand the manufacturer of a commodity which had gone out of fashion sacrificing it to get rid of it. Brat that is not the case with hosiery, which is in continual demand. I enter my emphatic protest against this additional duty. It is not necessary for the development of Australian industries. All that is needed is that Australian manufacturers shall produce satisfactory articles. Many of them are doing so. So far as I know, everything which I am now wearing is of Australian manufacture. I buy Australian goods when I can; but in view of the experience to which I have referred I now carefully avoid purchasing certain brands of Australian made clothing. A man cannot afford to buy unsatisfactory garments. The committee would be well advised to agree to the request moved by Senator Lynch.

Senator GUTHRIE:
Victoria

– I am astounded at the attitude adopted by Senator Payne, who entered this chamber an avowed protectionist.

Senator Payne:

– I am a protectionist.

Senator GUTHRIE:

– The honorable senator is a- protectionist only when something affecting Tasmania is concerned. For instance, he is prepared to vote for an increased duty on woollen yarn because Messrs. Paton and Baldwin have established in Tasmania a factory for making it. No section of the woolmanufacturing industry in Australia is more deserving of increased protection than the knitting branch. We have i:i the mills of Messrs. Foy aud Gibson at Collingwood, and the Lincoln Mills at Coburg, some of the best equipped knitting mills in the world. The Lincoln Mills can produce woollen half-hose for 21s. a dozen. Is that an excessive price for articles made of pure merino wool? The machines in these mills are the best obtainable; the operatives working them are as efficient as any elsewhere; and for Senator Payne to say that those mills are not turning out satisfactory articles is pure humbug. I have bought underclothing in London, Paris, and New York, as well as in Australia. For the past four or five years I have worn no underclothing or socks which have not been made in Australia by Australian people. I have not found them to shrink. I say without fear of contradiction that it is the best underclothing manufactured in any part of the world. A few years ago, because of ah over-production in some English factories and pressure from the banks to reduce their overdraft, some English manufacturers sent large quantities of their manufactured goods to warehouses in Flinders-lane. Goods which the Lincoln mills were selling for 21s. a dozen wholesale were offered at about 15s. o dozen. That has been admitted in evidence. The percentage of overproduction might not have been more than 10 per cent. ; but in considering this question we must have regard to the size of some of those European manufacturing concerns. They go in for mass production. One mill makes nothing but one class of goods. As a consequence, their output is enormous. Ninety per cent, of it is probably sold in the home market at a profit, and thus they can afford to dump their surplus in overseas markets, selling it for practically nothing. The knitting industry in Australia was absolutely shattered two years ago, and half the mills were forced to close because of the goods dumped here by mills in Great Britain, who had been called on by their bankers to reduce their overdrafts.

Senator Lynch:

– That is just what the banks do in Australia occasionally -

Senator GUTHRIE:

– The knitting mills of Australia were hoping for higher protection than this schedule affords to them. In my plea for a higher rate of duty, I am speaking, not on behalf of the big concerns with a large amount of capital behind them, but mainly on behalf of the small knitting mills. This is a branch of the woollen industry which is specially adapted for country towns. A knitting mill does not require the huge outlay of capital needed to establish a big woollen mill, and it has been found possible to set up quite a number of these knitting mills in small country towns. It brings about decentralization, an object we should all have in view, but many of these small mills have failed on account of the inadequacy of the protection afforded to them. If I had my way, we should not import a pound’s worth of woollen socks. In Australia the manufacture of knitted articles is carried on very efficiently, and affords employment to a great many people, besides helping to bring about that decentralization we so much require, and it is an industry that we should protect up to the hilt.

Senator Ogden:

– How will this increased duty prevent dumping?

Senator GUTHRIE:

– I do not say that it will. I should like to see a big dumping duty in addition to this. The value of woollen socks and stockings imported into Australia in 1923-24 was £759,571. This increased, to over £1,000,000 for the year ending the 30th June, 1925. It is an anomaly for the greatest wool-growing country in the world to be importing woollen goods to such an extent. It is worse than an anomaly; it is a disgrace. Any honorable senator claiming to be a democrat who makes the cruel assertion that our knitting mills are not properly equipped, and turn out rubbish, and, that the goods they produce wear badly and shrink, is stating something that is contrary to fact. I cannot understand the attitude of Senator Payne; it has puzzled me. The honorable senator decries the products of the Lincoln mills and Foy and Gibson.

Senator Payne:

– I have not mentioned either of those concerns.

Senator GUTHRIE:

– The honorable senator cannot deny that he was referring to some material which he obtained from the mills at Coburg. There is no knitting material in the world for men’s or women’s underwear, socks or stockings, better than that which is turned out by the firms I have mentioned.

Senator Payne:

– What I said was absolutely true.

Senator GUTHRIE:

– Then the honorable senator must be different from other people. He must keep his underwear on him so long that it is glad to get off him, and shrinks so that it may not have to be worn by him again. I shall oppose most sincerely any attempt to wreck the woollen industry of Australia, and more particularly the knitting branch of it, by reducing this duty, which, in my opinion, is not high enough.

Senator FOLL:
QUEENSLAND · NAT; UAP from 1931

.- I agree with the remarks made by Senator Guthrie in opposition to any reduction of duty on this item. We have to remember that the knitting firms of Australia are using the same raw material and the same machinery as are employed in the manufacture of knitted goods in Great Britain. Yet Senator Payne tells us that because certain goods are made in Australia their quality is inferior to that of similar goods manufactured in Great Britain. One of the greatest handicaps on the Australian manufacturer is that there are not many people in our midst who are anxious to push the sale of the local article.. For some reason or other the employee in the average retail establishment will try to force English articles on his customers to the detriment of Australian articles.

Senator Thompson:

– My recent experience has been exactly the opposite.

Senator FOLL:
QUEENSLAND

– Quite recently when I went into a retail establishment to purchase some socks I was not sufficiently patriotic to insist on articles of Australian manufacture. In a week I was through the English socks I had served to me. In this chamber we hear Senator Payne on every item in the schedule endeavouring to champion the cause of the importer.

Senator Payne:

– I am not.

Senator FOLL:

– It is useless to say one thing and mean another. The atti tude taken up by the honorable senator this morning has confirmed a statement I made yesterday that he is evidently quite prepared to boost imported articles to the detriment of local articles.

Senator Payne:

– I am doing nothing of the kind.

Senator FOLL:

– A few moments ago the honorable senator was discrediting the product of an Australian manufactory.

Senator Guthrie:

– Yes, he absolutely tried to damn it.

Senator FOLL:

Senator Payne has made use of his position in this Senate to damn one article after another in favour of the imported article, yet we know that for months past he has been waiting, on the doorstep of the Minister for Trade and Customs advocating the imposition of duties on newsprint. Then, again, we had Senator Andrew commencing his remarks by urging lower duties on one particular article, and concluding his speech by kicking up a row because he could not get a higher duty on sewing machines, the manufacture of which he is anxious to see established in Victoria.

Senator Andrew:

– I asked for a bounty on sewing machines.

Senator FOLL:

– At any rate, while some honorable senators are not prepared to give proper protection to one industry, they are most ardent in their advocacy of duties on industries in which they or their States are interested. I recognize that the Government and the Parliament of Australia has been generous to the State of Queensland by imposing protective duties on some of the great primary industries of that State. I think that in these matters we should adopt a policy of give and take. As a Queenslander I feel that if the people of the other States are prepared to give Queensland industries a fair amount of protection to enable them to progress, Queenslanders should, in their turn, extend the same amount of protection to industries located in other States. I do not think that that is an illogical attitude to take up, but Senator Payne is willing to penalize other States in order to establish the newsprint industry in Tasmania. There is also no more ardent advocate of a duty on carbide than he is.

Senator Sir Victor Wilson:

– And on hops.

Senator Reid:

– And yarns.

Senator FOLL:

– If we keep on long enough we shall no doubt find dozens of items on which Senator Payne has been anxious to increase duties, but we must look at this tariff schedule-

Senator Thompson:

-Reasonably.

Senator FOLL:

– We have also to adopt the policy of give and take. Let me remind Senator Thompson that the people of Queensland look to the people of the other States to assist them in regard to many of their great primary industries.

Senator Thompson:

– There are special reasons attaching to the protection afforded to the greatest industry of Queensland.

Senator FOLL:

Senator Thompson knows that we in Queensland are enjoying wonderful advantages as a result of the protective duty on sugar, that we are anxious for assistance for our cottongrowing industry, and that the protectionist policy has been of great benefit to’ our banana and maize growing industries’. That being the case the honorable senator has taken up a very unfair attitude in attacking the Minister in regard to certain remarks made by him.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

-(SenatorKingsmill). - I call the honorable senator’s attention to the fact that he is not speaking to the item.

Senator FOLL:

– I have no desire to depart from the narrow path you (Senator Kingsmill) have laid down; but I have come to the end of my patience after listening to Senator Payne’s carping criticisms of some of our great Australian industries, particularly as I know that he, in common with other honorable senators, desires a protection for industries located in his own State. Honorable senators should be prepared to extend to industries in other States the amount of protection they expect to get for industries in their own State. At any rate, that is the attitude I take up.

Sitting suspended from 1 to 2p.m.

Senator PAYNE:
Tasmania

.- I desire to make a personal explanation. Senator Guthrie accused me of inconsistency, inasmuch as I supported a duty on yarn which would be of benefit to a Tasmanian industry, whilst to-day I was opposing a proposed increase in the duty on hosiery. I find on referring to the tariff debates of 1921 that I supported, on woollen yarn imported from

Great Britain, a duty of 10 per cent., which was to become operative on and after 1st January, 1923. In view of the fact that I supported that duty, and am now opposing an increase of from 35 to 45 per cent. on this item, I leave it to honorable senators to judge whether I am guilty of inconsistency.

Senator REID:
Queensland

.- Owing to inexperience in the manufacture of hosiery some Australian factories at the outset of their operations produced socks and stockings which, when washed, shrunk considerably, and that was responsible for a reduction in sales. The difficulties experienced in the early stages have now been overcome, and the manufacturers are placing goods on the market which are equal to anything imported. From personal experience in Queensland, where the climate is hot, and also in. Victoria where lower temperatures prevail, I have found the quality of the Australian product all that could be desired. I have tried the Jaeger brand, and have found the locallyproduced article equally good.

Senator Thompson:

– The honorable senator does not suggest that we produce the best in the world, as claimed by Senator Guthrie.

Senator REID:

– No, but first-class hosiery produced in Australia is equal to any imported hosiery sold at the same price. Some of the factories which are placing hosiery of the best quality on the market and are experiencing difficulty in marketing the articles of a cheaper grade, are asking for higher protection on the cheaper goods in order to keep their plants in operation. Senator Payne said that from a business viewpoint he could not understand manufacturers disposing of their goods at less than cost unless the goods were out of date, but in some instances it is done to keep the factories going.

Senator Payne:

– That cannot be said of articles in every day use.

Senator REID:

– Not unless a manufacturer has a surplus.

Senator Crawford:

– Manufacturers produce articles of summer and of winter weight, and when the season is over they do not wish to carry a stock for which there is no immediate demand.

Senator REID:

– That is so. Senator Lynch quoted the wages paid in Great Britain and in Australia for similar work, and endeavoured to show that those paid in Great Britain were higher than the flat- rate paid to Australian workers. I find, that according to evidence given before the Tariff Board the piecework rates paid to Australian operators and mechanics are much higher than those paid in England. Some of the girls engaged on piece-work in Australia earn up to £6 8s. a week, and junior mechanics from £6 5s. to £7 5s. a week. Expert mechanics in some factories earn up to £14 a week. The manufacturing costs in Australia and in Great Britain are as follows : -

In view of these figures it will seen that protective duties are necessary to ensure the success of the industry. The Tariff Board, which has conducted exhaustive inquiries into this matter, has reported that the manufacturing costs of mercerised cotton hose in England are ls. 8d. a dozen as against 7s. 7jd. a dozen in Australia. On cashmere stockings the respective manufacturing costs are 2s. 5d. and 8s. 2d. The board has also reported that certain hosiery mills have gone out of business, and that local plants are quite up to date. It is further stated by the board that “sales are being effected by the importation of socks and stockings of equal appearance to those locally produced, but of inferior quality, the staple and the yarn being shorter. Local spinners are unable to spin yarn from shortstaple wool. The short staple would not give the wearing qualities of the longer staple. The increased duties asked for are for the purpose of protecting local manufacturers against the cheap end of the trade, namely, the “ shoddy trade.”

Senator Thompson:

– What are the transport and landing charges?

Senator REID:

– I suppose they are equivalent to 8 per cent, or 10 per cent., but notwithstanding the duties imposed and the natural protection which exists, importations have been very heavy. I gave the actual wages paid in England.

Senator Lynch:

– I gave the average.

Senator REID:

– Proportionately, the wages are much higher when the men work at piece-work rates. I have nothing to say against piece-work. I believe that if a greater number of industries would adopt that principle it would be better for Australia.

Senator J. B. HAYES (Tasmania) f2.17]. - When I first entered the Senate two or three years ago, I was a very strong protectionist. I am still a protectionist, but, like thousands of others in Australia, my faith in very high protection is becoming less and less as time passes. I think that the majority of the duties are too high, and that they will result in a greater cost of living, which in its train will bring bigger wages, and the vicious circle will commence again. Senator Lynch on another item said that one could not tackle a tariff schedule without being illogical. I have endeavoured to keep an open mind upon this matter. My friend Senator Guthrie made the statement that £1,000,000 worth of socks and stockings is annually imported into Australia. I presume that he quoted the invoice price, and that the price to the people of Australia would be very much greater. It is a shame that a country which produces wool, and is continually talking about the manufacture of woollen goods, should find it necessary to import woollen materials to that extent. I believe that one of the causes is lack of efficiency. Although we now have a 35 per cent, tariff, I am still faced with the position that some of these mills are not doing well. This matter has been inquired into by the Tariff Board, and on that account I feel disposed to give the knitting mills another chance; but they will have to consider the desirability of increasing their efficiency. If they do not do so, any future requests for additional duties may be given a cold reception. I cannot help contrasting the treatment that is accorded to the town and country districts. We have enjoyed a wonderful measure of prosperity for a considerable period only because we have been obtaining high prices for our wool and wheat.

Senator Lynch:

– Of which m the future there is no guarantee.

Senator J B HAYES:
TASMANIA

– The most optimistic person cannot expect those high prices to continue. We shall have to do more for ourselves, and the manufacturers will have to follow the example of the primary producers. The wool and wheat producers have not the benefit of a duty. Butter is being sold in London to-day for a little over1s. 6d. a lb. An honorable senator trotted out the argument that the dairying industry in Victoria was given a bonus about 35 years ago. If it had to conform to a 44-hour working week, and observe the holidays that are enjoyed by those who are engaged in some of the secondary industries, no butter at all would be produced.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Kingsmill:

– I ask the honorable senator to confine himself to the item under discussion.

Senator J B HAYES:

– I was merely replying to an observation that was made by an honorable senator opposite. I do not know whether I shall be in order in saying that the price of beef is about1s. a lb. because of the operation of the Navigation Act.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Kingsmill:

– That is somewhat irrelevant.

Senator J B HAYES:

– As a primary producer and a representative of the primary producers, I am unwillingly constrained to believe that the further you get from Melbourne and Sydney the less chance you have of receiving help from the Customs Department. On the other hand. I realize the benefit of big towns to the primary producers, and I am, therefore, willing to give the manufacturers in this case another chance.

Senator GRAHAM:
Western Australia

– I oppose Senator Lynch’s request. I have every sympathy for the man on the land, but I cannot escape the conclusion that everybody is not able to go on the land.

Senator Sir Thomas Glasgow:

– Neither can every person find employment in the towns and cities.

Senator GRAHAM:

– Perhaps it is a good thing that they cannot. Those who are engaged in the production of wool, meat, and wheat have my wholehearted sympathy. The duty on socks and stockings under the 1921 tariff was as follows: - Woollens, British preferential 35 per cent., intermediate 45 per cent., general 50 per cent. ; silk, British preferential 30 per cent., intermediate 40 per cent., general 45 per cent. The present proposal is, woollen 45 per cent., 55 per cent. and 60 per cent. respectively; silk, 35 per cent., 45 per cent., and 50 per cent. respectively. The manufacturers contend that the increase of 10 per cent. in regard to woollens and 5 per cent. in regard to silk, is insufficient. Australian mills cannot compete with the cheaper lines of socks and stockings that are manufactured abroad. The value of the importations of woollen socks and stockings in 1923-24 was £760,000; and in 1924-5 £1,076,000, an increase of over £300,000. The importation of silk stockings showed a reduction in those years; but despite the increased duty, which has been in operation since the tariff was tabled in the other House, the value for the first three months of this year has doubled that for the corresponding period of last year, as will be shown by the following figures : -

Those figures prove that the increase of 5 per cent. in the duty on silk socks and stockings is insufficient, as the value of the imports has increased by over 100 per cent. During the last two years the value of the imports of hosiery reached the £3,000,000 mark. It is estimated that two-thirds of this trade could be diverted to Australian mills, with the result that £1,000,000 per annum would remain in Australia instead of being sent overseas. That would represent, approximately, 750,000 dozen pairs of hose, and would give employment to an additional 2,250 operatives, whose wages would amount to approximately £350,000. The capital invested in this industry amounts to £4,000,000, and the employees engaged number 6,000. The present increase will enable the Australian manufacturers to hold their own with the better class of hosiery, but they are unable to compete in the cheaper lines of artificial silk stockings that are landed in. Australia at from 24s. to 27s. a dozen, and are being sold retail at from 31s. 6d. to 36s. a dozen. The manufacturer in Australia cannot supply the retailer with a similar class of goods at a figure lower than 36s. a dozen. A flat rate, or some similar proposal, ought to be adopted to enable our manufacturers to keep their machinery fully employed. I have here samples of both the imported and the Australian article, and honorable senators can see at a glance that there is no comparison between the two. A number of the machines in the majority of the factories are to-day lying idle when they should be fully employed.With adequate protection, or a flat rate, for that particular class of goods, our mills would be working full -handed. I should like to know if it is possible for these people who are applying for a flat rate to appear before the Tariff Board in order to present their case ?

Senator Crawford:

– That cannot be done in connexion with this tariff.

Senator GRAHAM:

– I regret that I am not in a position to submit an amendment to increase the duties on these articles. I am opposed to Senator Lynch’s proposal.

Question - That the request (Senator Lynch’s) be agreed to - put. The committee divided.

AYES: 6

NOES: 26

Majority … … 20

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Request negatived.

Item agreed to.

Item 118 -

Senator DUNCAN:
New South Wales

.- I move -

That the House of Representatives be requested to make sub-item (a) read as follows : - “ (a) (1) Carpets, carpeting, floor rugs, floor and carriage mats, not exceeding 36 inches in width, of wool, jute, or any other textile material excepting coir, carpet felt and undercarpet felt, ad valorem, 10 per cent. British, 15 per cent. intermediate, 25 per cent. general.

Carpets, carpeting, floor cloths, n.e.i., floor and carriage mats, n.e.i., of any textile material except coir; and floor rugs and coverings, n.e.i., not being of rubber and not being furs or other skins or carpet felt, undercarpet felt, or carpet felt paper; saddlebag in the piece or otherwise, ad valorem, free British, 10 per cent. intermediate, 15 per cent. general.

Under the 1921 tariff carpets were protected to the extent of 10 per cent. British, 15 per cent. intermediate, and 25 per cent. general. The Government’s proposal is to remove the duty on British carpets, and reduce the general tariff from 25 per cent. to 15 per cent. I understand that when the Tariff Board inquired into this industry it was advised that no carpets or floor coverings were being manufactured in Australia. That is not so. For the last two or three years a factory in New South Wales has been producing some excellent carpets. I do not desire to make any invidious comparisons between the Australian product and imports from overseas. I do not wish to say anything derogatory to the products of the Motherland. I content myself with saying that the articles being turned out by the Australian factory in large quantities are as good as, if not better than, similar commodities that are being imported. It is not desired that the duty shall apply to those carpets and mats that are not being made in Australia. We do not want to force people who prefer to buy that class of goods to pay an increased price due to the imposition of Customs duties merely for the protection of a different branch of the industry. Those connected with this Australian enterprise will be satisfied with tariff protection on the lines they manufacture. When I consider the protection asked in respect of other items in the schedule, I blush at my own modesty in proposing that, in this item, the duties be 10 per cent. British, 15 per cent, intermediate, and 25 per cent, general, and I am satisfied that there will be little, if any, opposition. I understand that the Minister is prepared to accept my proposal, which will give the necessary protection to a bona fide Australian industry that is producing a firstclass article. It will enable it to meet the competition in jute goods of a similar nature from other countries. If this Australian enterprise develops, as it is anticipated it will develop, and subsequently begins the manufacture of other classes of floor coverings and carpets, I have no doubt that it will then be accorded the necessary protection.

Senator Lynch:

– Do the manufacturers consider 10 per cent., sufficient protection 1

Senator DUNCAN:

– That was the rate of duty under which the industry was established, and, although those identified with it would like a higher rate, I have, after consultation with the Minister, effected a compromise. They are satisfied that they will be able to carry on and develop their business under this measure of protection.

Senator FINDLEY:
Victoria

.- This request is on right lines. The existing duties are low compared with those which have been agreed to, in respect of other items. In the A ge a few days ago, I saw a statement that, because of an alteration in the duties, those controlling this industry had failed to achieve an ambition which they had cherished.

Senator Duncan:

– The alteration of the duties stopped the flotation of the company -

Senator FINDLEY:

– The pioneers of this industry were, I understand, Gattino in Sydney. I am informed that this firm has installed a plant capable of supplying 20,000 yards of carpet annually, but that its product is only about’ 12,000 yards per annum. The firm says, further, that in competing with imported carpets, it is limited to the lower grades, because the tariff on the better class of goods is not sufficiently high to enable them to be produced here. The factory has been in existence at Waterloo, Sydney, for nearly three years. When the old tariff rates were in operation, they had representatives in different parts of the Commonwealth to secure orders for their goods.

Senator Lynch:

– That was under a 10 per cent, tariff.

Senator FINDLEY:

– They were dealing only with the lower grades of carpet. At that time there was also in course of formation another company with a proposed capital of £50,000. The company was being formed to manufacture the better class of carpet, such as Axminster rugs, carpet squares, and reversible rugs.

Senator Thompson:

– Will it not be some time before these articles are being produced in Australia?

Senator FINDLEY:

– When the duties were removed, and carpets made in Britain were admitted free, no further action was taken’ to form the company.

Senator Lynch:

– Now the cat is out of the bag.

Senator Thompson:

– Would it not meet the case if the request were deferred ?

Senator FINDLEY:

– The committee would be justified in agreeing to Senator Duncan’s request. This may be the beginning of a big industry in Australia. Why should not the carpets and rugs used in Australian homes be made here ? As there is indisputable evidence that rugs, satisfactory to the persons using them, are now being made in Australia, there is no reason why the rates under the old tariff should not again come into operation. I support Senator Duncan’s request.

Senator ELLIOTT:
Victoria

.- I should like to hear the Minister’s views regarding the repeal of these duties. Is it because no progress is being made in the manufacture of these goods.

Senator CRAWFORD (QueenslandHonorary Minister) f2.52].- The import duty on carpets which was previously in operation was practically a revenue duty. The only factory operating in Australia is that referred to by Senator Duncan. Attempts have been made to form other companies for the manufacture of these goods, but without success. This company has been operating for about three years.

Senator Needham:

– What amount of revenue did the duty produce?

Senator CRAWFORD:
NAT

– The duty resulted in a revenue of about £250,000. The proposed reduction represents about £15,000 per annum.

Senator J B Hayes:

– Does the Minister propose to accept the request?

Senator CRAWFORD:

– Before giving a decision I should like to hear some further discussion.

Senator J D MILLEN:
Tasmania

– Despite the invitation of the Minister (Senator Crawford), I shall not unduly prolong the discussion. Already there has been a painful reiteration of arguments during the debate on the tariff, and, as there is a danger of our becoming weary and nervy before it is finally disposed of, I shall endeavour to confine my remarks strictly to the item before us. In support of the requested amendment, I would point out that there is a likelihood of at least two companies, for the manufacture of carpets, being established in Tasmania.

Senator Needham:

– Oh !

Senator Findley:

– Now we shall hear from Tasmania.

Senator MILLEN:

– In reply to the Opposition chorus, I would remind the committee that the duty proposed in this instance cannot be regarded as ultraprotective, since it is only 10 per cent. Representatives of Tasmania have raised no objection to duties of 10 per cent. on other items; our opposition has been only to the imposition of very high duties. A telegram has been received by the Customs Department from the Premier of Tasmania, pointing out that with a duty of 10 per cent. there is a possibility of carpet-making factories being established either in that State, or Victoria. Our policy should not be to wait until an industry has become practically bankrupt before granting assistance to stabilize it. Rather should we endeavour to encourage new industries by assisting them from the beginning. Here we have an opportunity by means of a moderate duty to encourage a new enterprise, and ore should avail ourselves of it. The people of Australia are undoubtedly in favour of the policy of protection, and, in this instance, the protection sought is extremely moderate. This duty, while it may assist a new industry in Tasmania, will not clash with the interests of the Commonwealth generally. The land for the establishment of the factories has been bought.

Senator Thompson:

– As some time must elapse before the factories can have any output, would it not be better to provide for a deferred duty ?

Senator MILLEN:

– No. In New South Wales there is already one factory in operation, and some protection is required forthwith. In this tariff schedule we are assisting other industries, and why should a departure be made in this instance.) If unwarranted protection is given to some industries, labour will be drawn to them from equally essential but less protected enterprises. The manufacture of carpets and rugs is an industry for which Australia is eminently suited. It is therefore worthy of assistance in the direction suggested.

Senator Findley:

– Tasmania has spoken ! The Minister will now agree to the request !

Senator CRAWFORD:
Honorary Minister · Queensland · NAT

– I am prepared to accept the request moved by Senator Duncan. It refers only to carpets, carpeting, floor rugs, and carriage mats - not exceeding 36 inches in width - of wool, jute, or any other textile material, excepting coir, carpet felt, and under-carpet felt. This duty will assist the carpet manufacturing industry to a limited extent only at present; but it may prove to be the foundation of a much larger industry in the future, providing an additional local market for wool and other Australian raw materials.

Senator LYNCH:
Western Australia

– The request moved by Senator Duncan explains the beautiful symmetry of this wonderful schedule. We are assured that this industry, which is in its infancy, will be able to survive with a 10 per cent. protection. Yet other industries, which have been established for years, have been granted a protection up to 60 per cent. ; and some honorable senators have ‘Considered even that to be insufficient. What a beautiful mosaic this tariff is ! The 10 per cent. protection granted to an infant industry is increased to 60 per cent. when that industry has attained to what may be termed manhood. The moral to be learned is that we should not take the first false step.

Generally, an industry requires more protection in its infancy than when it reaches the adolescent or manhood stage. If we start them off as infants, we must continue supporting them as infants, but here we have just the reverse position, an industry proposing to start off with the watery stuff of 10 per cent. duty. It brings me back to my original statement that it is impossible to be logical in dealing with this tariff. For my part, I prefer to be illogical rather than irrational. I consider that a 10 per cent. duty is not enough for this industry, which is about to be started, but I am satisfied with the crumb that has fallen from the table overflowing with our generous gifts to manufacturers generally. I am mainly interested at the moment in pointing out the hollow mockery of all the protectionist arguments we have heard in this chamber. If a 10 per cent. duty is good enough for this industry, it ought to be the standard applied to other industries.

Request agreed to.

Item agreed to, subject to a request.

Item 120 (Towels and towelling).

Senator CRAWFORD:
QueenslandHonorary Minister · NAT

– The duty on towelling has been altered to afford protection to the Australian manufacturers, G. A. Bond and Company, who have spent a large sum of money in providing machinery for making towels, and are now in a position to turn out from 2,000 to 2,200 dozen towels a week, which is said to be about 90 per cent. of Australia’s requirements.

Senator Grant:

– It is good stuff.

Senator Payne:

– Hear, hear!

Senator CRAWFORD:

– From my own experience, I know they are turning out a very good article. The alteration will not affect the duty on towels ready for use. It will affect only those imported in continuous lengths of towelling in the piece, and it is believed that it will open up large avenues for the use of Australiangrown cotton. I understand that Bond and Company are using Australiangrown cotton to a very large extent.

Senator PAYNE:
Tasmania

.- I should like to know if the proposed duty on towels is higher than it was under the tariff of 1921.

Senator Crawford:

– There is no increased duty on towels, but there is an increase on towelling.

Senator PAYNE:

– Under what item did the duty on towels appear under the 1921 tariff?

Senator Crawford:

– Under item 120 (a), “ Articles of furnishing drapery and napery.”

Senator PAYNE:

– It is satisfying to have the assurance of the Minister that it is not proposed to increase the duty on towels. I ought to say how pleased I was recently when I visited Sydney to find the towel-making industry satisfactorily developed. Bond and Company are putting out a splendid article under the protection afforded by the tariff of 1921. They are making what are known in the trade as terry towels, but they arc not making what are known as honeycomb, huckerback, or crash towellings. Will these towels come in under the duty obtaining hitherto if they are finished towels ?

Senator Crawford:

– Yes.

Senator PAYNE:

– Towelling in the piece manufactured by Bond and Company is also terry. I should like to know what will be the position of crash, huckerback, or honeycomb towelling in the piece defined or not defined for cutting up?

Senator Crawford:

– That class of towelling will be admitted at the lower rates of duty provided in sub-paragraphs 2 and 3.

Senator PAYNE:

– It has been suggested to me that the word “ terry “ ought to be inserted before the word “towelling,” but I shall be satisfied if I have the assurance of the Minister that the other makes of towelling not made of terry may be imported in the piece at the reduced rates of duty.

Senator Crawford:

– It is not necessary to define any particular kind of towelling. I understand there is a large variety of towels imported.

Senator PAYNE:

– Yes. The only class made by Bond and Company is terry. Other varieties are not in general use, and they are not manufactured in Australia. Do I understand that British towelling in the piece not defined for cutting up, and of a class not manufactured in Australia will be admitted free?

Senator Crawford:

– Yes.

Senator THOMPSON:
Queensland

– The Minister stated that he hopes these goods will be manufactured from Australian-grown cotton; but as I am a representative of what is known as the “ Dixieland “ of Australia - Central Queensland - I should like to know how the industry will be affected if raw cotton is to be admitted free. It seems anomalous to impose high Customs duties on cotton goods, and pay a bounty to stimulate the production of cotton in Australia whilst at the same time we admit raw cotton free and cotton yarn at a low rate of duty. I hope that before very long Queensland, at any rate, will be in a position to supply Australia’s requirements of raw cotton.

Senator Crawford:

– Under item 392a duty is imposed on cotton yarn, but a duty on raw cotton has not yet been proposed. I am informed that Bond and Company Limited have placed a large order for raw cotton produced in Queensland.

Item agreed to.

Item 121 agreed to.

Item 128 (Milling silk).

Senator LYNCH:
Western Australia

– If milling silk is used to meet the lavish requirements of those with a somewhat refined taste, I do not see why it should be admitted free of duty. I suggest that this is possibly an article on which revenue could be obtained, which is in keeping with my previous declaration that anything in the nature of a luxury or a non-essential should be heavily taxed.

Senator Crawford:

– Milling silk is used in flour mills, and its importation free of duty is of assistance to primary producers.

Senator LYNCH:

– The Minister’s answer is quite satisfactory.

Item agreed to.

Item 135 agreed to.

Division VI. - Metals and Machinery.

Item143-

Senator THOMPSON:
Queensland

.- I move-

That the House of Representatives be re quested to make the item free.

I submit this request in the interests of the copper-mining industry, which at present is in a particularly bad state. Scrap-iron and steel are used in leaching copper, and if the industry is to receive consideration, and men are to be kept in employment, the importation of these materials free of duty would be of some assistance. I trust the Minister will explain the necessity for imposing these duties, seeing that prior to the introduction of this tariff scrap-iron and steel were admitted free. Honorable senators representing States in which copper mining is being undertaken should support my request, and thus assist in giving necessary relief to the industry.

Progress reported.

page 2663

SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT

Senator PEARCE:
Minister for Home and Territories · Western Australia · NAT

.- I move-

That the Senate at its rising adjourn until 3 o’clock p.m. on Tuesday next.

I notified honorable senators early this week that it would be necessary to sit an additional day next week in order to dispose of the business in hand, and to be prepared for the constitutional measures which are to come before this chamber. The slow progress which is being made with the tariff is, I think, sufficient indication of the necessity to sit an’ additional day next week.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Senate adjourned at 3.25 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 4 June 1926, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1926/19260604_senate_10_113/>.