View PDF View XML View in Voyant

Senate
8 June 1926

10^th Parliament · 1^st Session

QUESTION
- FEDERAL CAPITAL TERRITORY
PAPERS
ASSENT TO BILLS
QUESTION
- KIDMAN-MAYOH SHIPBUILDING CONTRACT
QUESTION
- EXPORT OF BUTTER TO CANADA
QUESTION
- COMMONWEALTH CLOTHING FACTORY
CUSTOMS TARIFF BILL

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

page 2692

QUESTION

FEDERAL CAPITAL TERRITORY

Non-payment of Accounts by Residents.

Senator DUNCAN:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– Is the Minister aware that serious complaints are being made by traders in Queanbeyan regarding the non-payment of accounts duc to them by residents of the Federal Capital area? Further, is he aware that there is no power to enforce payment of these accounts ?

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

– Until Senator Duncan and the honorable member representing the Eden-Monaro electorate in another place fMr. Perkins) brought this matter under my notice, I was not aware of the state of affairs said to exist at Queanbeyan. I am, however, having inquiries made, and if it is found that the facts are as stated, tbe Government will fake steps to remedy tbe existing conditions.

page 2692

PAPERS

The following papers were presented: -

New Guinea- Ordinance No.13 of 1926 - Expropriation.

Public Service Act - Regulations amended - Statutory Rules 1926, No. 64.

Arbitration (Public Service) Act - Determinations by the Arbitrator,&c. - Nos. 8’ and 9’ of 1926 - Fourth Division Officers’ . Association of the Trade and Customs Department and the Federated Public Service Assistants’ Association of Australia.

Territory for the Seat of Government - Ordinance No. 6 of 1926- Rates.

page 2693

ASSENT TO BILLS

Assent to the following bills reported: -

Oil Agreement Bill.

New Guinea Bill.

Northern Australia Bill.

Aliens Registration Act Suspension Bill.

Audit Bill.

page 2693

QUESTION

KIDMAN-MAYOH SHIPBUILDING CONTRACT

Senator NEEDHAM:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

asked the Leader of the Government in the Senate, upon notice -

Are Messrs. Kidman and Mayoh paying interest on the money due by them to the Commonwealth in. connexion with the wooden vessels contract t
Does the Government intend to press for payment of the full amount outstanding?
If so, when?
How long does the Government intend to allow Messrs. Kidman and Mayoh to finalize the matter?

Senator PEARCE:
NAT

– The answers to the honorable senator’s questions are as follow : -

No interest has been received from Messrs Kidman and Mayoh. 2 to 4. Yes. Instructions have been given to the Crown Solicitor to recover the amount due, and necessary steps are being taken.

page 2693

QUESTION

EXPORT OF BUTTER TO CANADA

Senator NEEDHAM:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Customs, upon notice -

Is it a fact that Canada has imposed a dumping duty of 6 cents, a pound on all butter imported from Australia since the 1st January of this year.
If so, would that not amount to a contravention of the preference treaty between Australia and Canada?
Did Canada take this action on account of the Paterson stabilization scheme fixing a higher home price for butter against a lower export price?

Senator CRAWFORD:
Honorary Minister · QUEENSLAND · NAT

– The answers to the honorable senator’s questions are as follow : -

Canada has imposed dumping dnty of 9 cents per lb. on Australian butter. It is, however, not certain that such action has been taken with regard to all batter exported to that destination. Information on this po.int nas been asked for by cablegram.
No.
Yes.

page 2693

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH CLOTHING FACTORY

Senator NEEDHAM:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice -

Is it the intention of the Government to close or dispose of the Commonwealth Clothing Factory ?

Senator CRAWFORD:
NAT

– No.

page 2693

CUSTOMS TARIFF BILL

In committee (Consideration resumed from 4th June, vide page 2663).

The Schedule-

Divisionvi. Metals and Machinery.

Item 143-

By omitting the whole item and inserting in its stead the following item: - “ 143. Scrap iron and Steel; Materials for use as scrap iron, as prescribed by departmental by-laws, per ton, 20s. British, 30s. intermediate, 40s. general.

Upon which Senator Thompson had moved the following request: -

That the House of Representatives be requested to make the item “free.

Senator DUNCAN:

Senator THOMPSON:

– The request I make is a very small one. Although the reduction I propose would not make the slightest difference to the great iron and steel industry, it might be of some slight assistance to the copper-mining industry, which needs all the aid we can give to it.

Senator OGDEN:
Tasmania

.- I believe that the basic industry of producing iron and steel in Australia should be amply protected. We have the assurance of Senator Lynch that scrap iron is essentia] in the production of the highest class steel. There is no evidence in the Tariff Board’s report to that effect, but I should like to know from the Minister (Senator Crawford) if the Broken Hill and Lithgow works use scrap iron in the production of their steel, because, if so, one could understand a desire on their part to crush the smaller foundries, which are practically using nothing else but scrap iron. In the absence of that information, I feel inclined to support Senator Thompson’s request.

Senator Duncan:

– The figures I have given show that those firms do not use scrap iron.

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

AYES: 7

NOES: 19

Majority . . . . 12

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Request negatived.

Item agreed to.

Item 144-

By adding a new sub-item (c) as follows : - “C “ Zinc shavings, ad valorem, British free, intermediate free, general 10 per cent.

Senator CRAWFORD:
QueenslandHonorary Minister · NAT

– I move -

That the House of Representatives be requested to amend the item by inserting after the figures “ 144 “ the words “ By omitting sub-item (b) and inserting in lieu thereof the following sub-item : - “ (b) Sheet (plain) ; circles or ingots, bored or unbored, for cyanide gold process; zinc dust; zinc tubing; ad valorem, British 25 per cent., intermediate 35 per cent., general 40 per cent. and by making sub-item (c) read as follows : -

Zinc shavings; zinc blocks for marine boilers; ad valorem, British free, intermediate free, general 10 per cent.”

It is proposed to delete the words “ zinc blocks for marine boilers “ from sub-item b, and to insert them in sub-item c. These blocks are for use in marine boilers, and are” not produced in Australia. No benefit will accrue to any Australian industry from the retention of the duty. The effect of the proposal will be to take zinc blocks out of the present tariff and make them free.

Senator LYNCH:
Western Australia

– What is the source of supply of zinc dust and zinc shavings?

Senator Ogden:

– I think that they come from Japan.

Senator LYNCH:

– In that case, I desire to strike out 10 per cent, in the “ general “ column. I do not favour a preferential duty if its effect is merely to increase the revenue instead of giving preference to British products.

Senator CRAWFORD:
QueenslandHonorary Minister · NAT

– The sole object of the amendment is to take zinc blocks out of the tariff and make them duty free.

Senator McLachlan:

– Thus placing them on the same basis as zinc shavings?

Senator CRAWFORD:

– Yes. They Were admitted, under item 174, free and 10 per cent., from 18th April, 1923, until the Solicitor-General advised that zinc blocks of this kind were not eligible for admission under that item. They arc largely exported from Great Britain; but Continental countries are also producers. The blocks are necessary to en- able marine boilers to be used for an extended period to their utmost capacity.

Request agreed to.

Item agreed to, subject to requests.

Item 145 agreed to.

Item 152 -

By omitting the whole of sub-item (b) (twice occurring) and inserting in its stead the following sub-item: - “(b) Close jointed Iron or Steel Pipes and

Tubes; Cycle Tubing including Liners, Bent Tubing and Fork Sides, whether plated or brazed or not, but not including Cycle Frames partly or wholly finished; Wrought Iron and Steel Pipes, n.e.i., ad val British, 27½ per cent.; intermediate, 35 per cent.; general, 40 per cent.”

Senator ELLIOTT:
Victoria

.- I move -

That the House of Representatives bc requested to make sub-item (B) read as follows: - “(b) (1) Close jointed Iron or Steel Pipes and Tubes, per 100 feet, British, ls. 3d.; intermediate, 2s. 3d.; general, 2s.9d. ; or ad val., British, 27½per cent.; intermediate, 35 per cent.; general, 40 per cent.; whichever rate returns the higher duty.

Cycle Tubing including Liners, Bent Tubing and Fork Sides, whether plated or brazed or not, but not including Cycle Frames partly or wholly finished; Wrought Iron and Steel Pipes, n.e.i., ad val., British, 27½ per cent. ; intermediate, 35 per cent. ; general, 40 per cent.”

During the past few months large quantities of tubing made in Germany have entered Australia. This tubing has been sold at a price less than that at which tubing manufactured in Britain or in Australia can be disposed of. The result is that Germany ‘is capturing the trade. The effect of my request will be to leave the ad valorem duty unaltered, and to place a fixed duty upon German tubing.

Senator Ogden:

– Is it proposed to increase the preference to Britain?

Senator ELLIOTT:

– Yes, by means of a fixed duty on the German article. The prices of tubing in the capital cities of Australia are as follows -

Honorable senators will see that the greatest cut in price is made in respect of-inch tubing, which represents about 90 per cent, of our total requirements. The tubing manufactured in Australia into conduit pipes for electric light and telephone services is imported in sheets. Acceptance of my request will not increase the cost of British tubing, but it will place a heavier duty on German tubing. As the price of Australian tubing is regulated by the price paid for ‘ the raw material imported from Great Britain, from which it is manufactured, honorable senators will . see that the Australian and the British industries are interdependent; that any loss in trade is felt by both countries. The quality of Australian-made tubing is recognized as at least equal to that of imported tubing. Moreover, existing Australian factories are capable of producing tubing sufficient to meet double our present requirements. The sum of £100,000 has been invested in plant for the manufacture of this tubing in Australia. If this trade is lost, that plant will be useless for any other purpose.

Request agreed to.

Item agreed to, subject to a request.

Item 155 agreed to.

Item 160-

By omitting the whole of the sub-item (b) and inserting in its stead the following subitem: -

B ( 1 ) Cream Separators, free.

Senator DUNCAN:
New South Wales

– I move -

That the House of Representatives be requested to make sub-item (b) (1) read : - “ Cream separators, free British, 5 per cent, intermediate, 10 per cent, general.”

In the previous tariff cream separators were free British, 5 per cent, intermediate, 10 per cent, general. This schedule removes the British preference, though in tariff matters our policy is to give Britain, if possible, a preference of 12½ per cent. When the schedule was framed, the only cream separators on the Australian market were of Swedish manufacture. Since then two British concerns have come on to the Australian market. One machine, known as the Lister cream separator, is a particularly good article, low in price, and well suited to Australian requirements.

Senator Payne:

– Is it not a fact that the Lister cream separator has been on the Australian market for two years?

Senator DUNCAN:

– I did not know that it had been on the market for that length of time, but it is obvious that, when the schedule was framed, those responsible for the elimination of the British preference of 10 per cent, were not fully aware of the circumstances.

Senator Thompson:

– Cannot the British manufacturers hold their own against foreign competitors?

Senator DUNCAN:

– No. Britain is endeavouring to re-establish herself in the Australian market, and, wherever possible, we have consistently given British manufacturers a preference over foreign competitors. I understand that already orders for 200 of these British cream separators have been placed in Western Australia, and that several hundred have been ordered in the other States also. Since our policy is to give Britain a preference of 12½ per cent., we should, in this item, assist British manufacturers by restoring to them that measure of protection which they enjoyed prior to the introduction of this schedule.

Senator CRAWFORD:
QueenslandHonorary Minister · NAT

– I am sorry that I cannot accept the honorable senator’s requested amendment, much as I sympathize with the policy of British preference. The effect of his request, if granted, would be to give British manufacturers a preference worth, on the figures for the last three years, about £700 per annum at a cost to the dairying industry in Australia of about £17,000.

Senator Duncan:

– No; my proposal is to allow British separators to come in free.

Senator CRAWFORD:

Senator CRAWFORD:

– The competition of the British machine has not been serious. In 1921-22 the value of the British machines imported was £11,435, and of other machines £285,483.

Senator Elliott:

– Can the Minister give any assurance that the £17,000 mentioned will not be passed on to the dairymen ?

Senator CRAWFORD:

– I cannot give any such assurance. As there does not appear to be any possibility of cream separators being manufactured in Australia for some years, this is an effort on the part of the Government to assist primary producers by removing the preferential duty and making the item free. Senator Duncan and Senator Payne are asking the committee to impose upon dairymen apenalty which is altogether disproportionate to the benefit which British manufacturers would receive.

Senator THOMPSON:
Queensland

– In reply to Senator Elliott’s inquiry concerning the cost, I should like to say that all manufacturers add the duty to the cost of their machines, and when duties are decreased or removed prices are reduced accordingly. If the 10 per cent, preferential duty is removed as is suggested, the dairymen will benefit. In the past, Swedish manufacturers have produced a machine that is pre-eminently satisfactory, and naturally Australian dairymen are likely to continue using machines which have always given satisfaction. I yield to no one in my desire to assist British manufacturers, but we have also to consider the interests of Australian dairvmen. I believe that the Minister is correct in saying that the dairymen will benefit under this proposal, and in this instance I intend to support the Government.

Request negatived.

Item agreed to.

Item 174 (Machine tools and appliances for use in connexion therewith).

Senator LYNCH:
Western Australia

– This item provides that on and after 27th March, 1926, machine tools and appliances for use in connexion therewith are to be British, free ; intermediate, 5 per cent.; and general, 10 per cent. I should like to know what duties are to apply to all the articles mentioned in sub-items a, b, and c, many of which were to be admitted free, prior to the alteration of 27th March, 1926.

Senator Crawford:

– They are all included in a new item 415a. The alteration is made for the purpose of making the administration easier.

Senator LYNCH:

– Will they still be free under the alteration ?

Senator Crawford:

– Yes.

Item agreed to.

Item 175 agreed to.

Item 176-

By omitting the whole of sub-items (b) and (c), and inserting in their stead the following sub-items : -

Cement-making machines, n.e.i.; road making machines; stone-crushing machines with jaws up to and including 30 inches by 12 inches in size; aerial ropeways, exclusive of cable; hand-operated, travelling, and portable cranes; coal conveyors and ash-handling plants, exclusive of motive power equipment, ad val., British, 35 per cent; intermediate, 45 per cent; general, 50 per cent.
Mining machinery, n.e.i., adval.,

British, 40 per cent. ; intermediate, 50 per cent.; general, 55 per cent.

Senator NEEDHAM:
Western Aus tralia

– When this item was before another place, the Minister for Trade and Customs (Mr. Pratten) moved to reduce the British rate on road-making and stone-crushing machinery, in sub-item d, from 35 per cent, to 30 per cent., but next day he changed his mind and allowed the rate to remain unaltered. It is my purpose to ask the Senate to agree to a request that the British preferential duty on road-making and stone-crushing machinery be 27½ per cent.

Senator Duncan:

– I cannot understand Senator Needham moving for a reduction.

Senator NEEDHAM:

– When I spoke on the second reading, I did not commit myself to every increase in the schedule. The proposed duty on stone-crushing and road-making machinery will seriously affect Western Australia.

The CHAIRMAN (Senator Newlands:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– The Minister (Senator Crawford) has notified his intention of submitting a request relating to sub-item d.

Senator NEEDHAM:

– I shall be pleased to give way to the Minister.

Senator CRAWFORD (Queensland-

Honorary Minister) [4.40]. - I move -

That the House of Representatives be requested to make sub-item (d) read as follows : - “ (d) Cement-making machines, n.e.i.; road-making machines, n.e.i.; stonecrushing machines; aerial ropeways, exclusive of cable; travelling and portable cranes, hand operated; coal conveyors and ash-handling plant, exclusive of motive power equipment, ad val., British, 35 per cent. ; intermediate, 45 per cent. ; general, 50 per cent.”

The alteration proposed is merely to shorten the verbiage of the sub-item, to embrace all stone-crushers with jaws of any size, and to add the letters n.e.i. after “ road-making machines.”

Senator NEEDHAM:
tralia · Western Aus

– I move -

That the request be amended by leaving out the figures “ 35 “, British preferential tariff, and inserting in lieu thereof the figures “ 27½ “.

– How much extra per mile will the work cost as the result of the additional 7½ per cent. British duty?

Senator PAYNE:

– I do not know; but I do know that because of the heavier traffic now passing over Australian roads it is absolutely essential that every local governing authority, and every State Government that is responsible for road construction, should be able to purchase as cheaply as possible all road-making machinery. Any attempt to increase the cost of these machines, by means of the tariff, should be resented by the people of Australia. If I thought that Australian manufacturers of this class of machinery could not carry on under the 1921 tariff, I should hesitate to object to the proposed increase; but I am satisfied that they are well able to continue the industry. I cannot estimate what the proposed increases will amount to in the aggregate. All I know is that the increased duties will add to the cost of these machines. For this reason, I intend to support Senator Needham’s amendment.

Senator McLACHLAN:
South Australia

– I find myself troubled with the grouping of the various machines included in this sub-item, so I shall confine my remarks to cementmaking, road-making, and stonecrushing machines. In my opinion, handoperated travelling and portable cranes, coal conveyors, and ash -handling plant are in a different category. The question of the efficacy of this class of machinery made in Australia has been raised in this debate. It seems to me that we are in the transition stage from rail traction to road traction, and that every support should be given in the various State Parliaments, and also by this Parliament, to those charged with the responsibility of road-construction. If we are to judge the success of roadmaking machines manufactured in Australia by the condition of the roads, we find in my own State, and also in portions of New South Wales that I have visited, we can only come to the conclusion that we know very little, if anything, about the business. I have been in touch lately with some people from the United States of America, who take an intelligent and scientific interest in road-construction. They advise me that Australian methods are little short of lamentable ; that our roads will never stand up to the traffic that has to pass over them. Unfortunately, in outlying portions of the country, at all events, there appears to be an entire absence of the application of scientific principles to road construction. We are about to develop a new province in the Northern Territory. I do not know who is going to pay the duty on road-making machines that will be required for developmental work there - I notice that one illustrious member of another place has suggested that instead of building railways, the whole of the traction should be on roads to be constructed - but in view of all the facts, we should strongly oppose the imposition of any duties that may lead to an increase in their cost to Australian users. For this reason, I am supporting Senator Needham.

Senator Crawford:

– Some of the roads in America cost more than the railways.

Senator McLACHLAN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · NAT

SenatorReid. - Has the honorable senator any instance of that?

Senator MILLEN:

– We have it in the item under discussion. I am reminded of a little ditty that I read in the New York Life ‘some years ago. So far as my memory serves me, it runs -

The railway man he made a raid -

A dollar more the railroad paid;

The railroad then demanded aid -

More fares, more freight, the shipper paid.

The shipper “‘stung” the wholesale trade;

It kicked a bit, but still it paid.

The wholesale trade, tho’ sore dismayed,

Promptly bled the retail trade.

The retail trade, as best it can,

Collects it from the railroad man.

And so it goes - so wise are men -

The railroad man began again.

Senator BARNES:
Victoria

.- The item before us is of great importance to Australia. In a new country, where a large proportion of the population is composed of primary producers, facilities must be provided to enable their produce to reach the markets. Those who oppose this item appear to have forgotten that, while it is necessary to provide roads along which our primary produce may be conveyed to market, it is equally essential that the country should be able to make the machinery to construct those roads. That road-making machinery is usually built for long service, and that local bodies do not require to renew it at frequent intervals appears to have been overlooked. The additional7½ per cent, dutv spread over the life of a machine would hardly be noticed. Is it not better to agree to this slightly increased duty, and thus enable the machines to be made here, providing employment for our own people, than that they should be conveyed thousands of miles by sea from Great Britain or the United States of America while our workmen roam the streets unemployed? Many of our shire councillors are tories whose only desire appears to bo to reduce wages. Rather than provide their own countrymen with employment at an additional 4d. a day they prefer to purchase their requirements from abroad, giving employment to the workers of other countries. They overlook the fact that lack of employment for Australian workmen is likely to adversely affect themselves. Australia certainly needs good roads; but it is just as important that* the machinery necessary to make those roads should be produced in this country, giving employment to our own people.

Sitting suspended from 6.30 to 8 p.m.

Senator BARNES:

– Like other honorable senators, I have received a considerable amount of correspondence on this subject, but I have not been impressed by it, because I believe that those responsible for it misunderstand the position which honorable senators should occupy on such an issue as this. It has been said during the debate that higher duties mean higher wages, and that a manufacturer who secures a high tariff immediately increases wages by twice the amount warranted, in the full knowledge that he can pass on the extra cost to his customers. I have not heard of any such increase of wages. There is a remedy for the exploitation of the public, but I tell honorable senators frankly that it cannot be applied by this legislature, because those who are against the Government on this item supported it when Labour appealed to the people for authority to be given to this Parliament to prevent any exploitation of the public. Therefore, our only alternative now is to do what may he possible to improve the position by a strong expression of public opinion. It is claimed that manufacturers of these road-making machines in other countries produce a better article than the Australian product. In most instances they enjoy an advantage in the form of cheaper labour, and certainly they have had much more experience in the organization of manufacturing enterprises. But if these considerations are to outweigh all others; if Australian manufacturers are to receive no encouragement; then we shall never have an opportunity to develop our secondary industries to their fullest extent. The truth of this is so patent to me that I marvel that any honorable senator can hold the contrary view. Suppose it does cost us a little more to manufacture these machines in Australia. Are we not providing increased employment for our own people and at the same time attracting population from overseas? Honorable senators supporting the Government aTe everlastingly trying to persuade the people that their great anxiety is to attract immigrants to Australia. What is the use of talking in that way if, by tariff reductions on certain items affecting secondary industries, they limit opportunities for employment in this country ? 1 have here two samples of shovels. Whilst they might not be in the same category as road-making machinery, they at all events serve a useful purpose in all road-making work. One is an imported article and the other an Australian-made shovel. The imported article is supposed to be hammered out, but it is not. The Australian shovel is hammered out, and although it might cost a little more it is well worth the difference. I am told by the experts who make them, that the Australian shovel will last twice -as long as the imported article. Both have the maker’s name on them. When I was a. navvy, the maker’s name, instead of being on the blade of the shovel, was nearly half way up the handle, and we were told always to fill them Tip to the maker’s name. If I am permitted to make any comment at all about these articles, i should say that there should be some restriction upon the size of the implement, but if I were buying one for some one else to use I would certainly buy the Australian shovel, because the manufacturer is doing something to provide employment for Austra-Hans and at the same time supplying a very necessary tool for the maintenance of our roads. All Australians should be patriotic enough to insist upon being supplied with articles made in Australia by our own work people. Only by doing this can we hope to populate this country with a desirable race of people. Honorable senators supporting the Government are never tired of declaiming on the hustings that no man wanting employment in Australia need be without it To that I reply that thousands of Britishers are ready to come to Australia ; . but they know, from the experience of others, that the best inducement offered to them on arrival will fee about £1 a week. It is this kind of treatment that prevents more Britishers from coming to Australia. High wages are not a deterrent, because, as a general rule, British immigrants do not enjoy high wages until they have been here long enough to wake up to the situation. I hope that the committee will not agree to the proposed reduction of the duties. I intend wholeheartedly to support the Government in the imposition of the highest duties possible to ensure the development of Australian industries. I am satisfied that members of the Tariff Board made the recommendation with a full knowledge pf all the facts.

Senator GRAHAM:
Western Australia

– I had not intended to speak upon this item; but I feel it necessary to say a word or two to explain my stand in connexion with the schedule as a whole. I gather from the Minister’s remarks that the reduction proposed by Senator Needham will not materially affect the cost of road-making machinery, such as scarifiers, road rollers, scoops, and cement mixers. Western Australia is as much in need of good roads as any other State, and in my opinion concrete roads should, where possible, be laid down. Senator Millen referred to mining as a primary industry, and to the duties on mining machinery. He added that the proposed tariff was not calculated to assist that industry. I may state, for the honorable senator’s edification, that the Government which he supports, by its action in placing an embargo upon gold export during the war period, is responsible for the present position of the mining industry in Western Australia.

The CHAIRMAN (Senator Newlands). Order! The honorable senator is going beyond the item now before the committee.

Senator GRAHAM:

– You allowed other honorable senators to refer to the duties on mining machinery, Mr Chairman, so you should not prevent me from replying on similar lines.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The honorable senator was speaking of the embargo on the export of gold.

Senator GRAHAM:

– Other honorable senators who preceded me also mentioned the gold-mining industry, which, as I have stated, is in a languishing condition in Western Australia. On this item I intend to take the same stand as I have with regard to other items in the schedule. I intend to support the Government.

Amendment (Senator Needham’s) negatived.

Request agreed to.

Senator NEEDHAM:
Western Australia

– I move -

That the House of Representatives be requested to make sub-item (e) read -

Mining machinery, n.e.i., ad valorem, British 27½ per cent., intermediate 50 per cent., general 55 per cent.

This sub-item deals solely with mining machinery. That industry, as honorable senators are aware, has been severely handicapped in recent years. Western Australia is the leading gold-producing State of the Commonwealth. A royal commission was appointed by this Government in 1925 to inquire into the financial position of Western Australia, as affected by. federation. Two of the three commissioners expressed the view that, whatever benefit federation might have conferred upon other States, it had not benefited Western Australia. As the Western Australian gold-mining industry is at present declining, additional imposts such as are now proposed will handicap it still further. The value of mining in Western Australia in 1901 was £7,458,000, in 1910 £6,522,000, in 1920 £4,110,000, and in 1923 £2,747,000. The value of the gold produced in 1901 was £7,235,000, in 1910 £6,246,000, in 1920 £3,475,000, and in 1923 £2,232,000.

Senator Crawford:

– Can the honorable senator give the gold yield per ton of ore treated during those years?

Senator NEEDHAM:

– I have not the figures before me. The number of employees engaged in the gold-mining industry in Western Australia in 1910 was 17,711, in 1919, 8,346, and in 1923, 6,497. These figures clearly indicate the extent to which gold mining in Western Australia has declined during recent years. The decline is to some extent due to the fact- that the mines are now working on ore of a lower grade, which has increased the cost of production. The Western Australian Government is now conferring with the mining companies in that State in an endeavour to revive the industry, but up to the present I do not think the companies have expressed any opinion as to the feasibility of the scheme. It is reasonable, however, to assume that the imposition of higher Customs duties must further hamper the industry. Years ago, when the gold yield was greater and the industry generally more prosperous, duties such as are now proposed on mining machinery could have been paid without detrimentally affecting production. 1 quote the following from the annual report of the Tariff Board on the incidence of the tariff on Western Australia -

The significance of this oan be appreciated when it is learned that in the eastern States approximately50 per cent, of local primary products is consumed locally, whereas in Western Australia only 20 per ceut, at best, of some of their local primary products is consumed locally, and that in a number of cases this percentage falls to 10 per cent, and even lower. It is necessary to recollect in this connexion that the principal expnnsion in Western Australian industry is along the line of primary production, and that the cost of material and plant and tools has been greatly enhanced during the last decade, which adds considerably to their capital outlay in placing their settlers upon the land.

I have moved this request, not as Deputy Leader of the Opposition, but as a representative of Western Australia, and in doing so, have simply expressed my own views.

Senator THOMPSON:
Queensland

– To a certain extent I am in agreement with the opinions expressed by Senator Needham. I intend to ask the Government to go a little further than the honorable senator proposed, and to revert to the duties in force prior to the introduction of this schedule. The burden of my song will be to encourage the copper mining as well as the gold-mining industry, and, in fact, other metalliferous mines which are in need of assistance. It seems to me that’ the proposals of the Government are not designed to, in any way, assist the mining industry. Senator Needham quoted figures showing the extent to which gold mining in Western Australia has declined, and I too could quote interesting statistics showing the extent to which gold and copper production in Queensland has fallen off. Although large quantities of payable ore have been mined in Queensland, a much greater quantity would still be won if the conditions were more favorable. The cost of production has increased considerably during recent years, and if higher Customs duties are imposed on mining machinery, development will be further retarded. There was a time when 3,500 men were employed at the Mount Morgan mine - during that period a good deal of new construction was being undertaken - but, to-day, there are only 350. The future development of that mme largely depends upon the possibility of securing the necessary mining machinery at a reasonable price. A scheme is at present being tried out on a small scale, and if it can be shown that by means of it the ore can be commercially dealt with, a much larger project will be launched and fairly heavy expenditure on plant incurred. It is not now known whether the machinery it is proposed to purchase will be obtained in the United States of America, but, possibly, a good deal of it will come from that country.

Senator Crawford:

– If similar machinery is not manufactured in Australia, it will be admitted free.

Senator THOMPSON:

– My experience in connexion with the Rockhampton Harbour Board dredge compels me to regard such a suggestion rather sceptically. It would be preferable to revert to the duties in force prior to the introduction of this schedule, and I should be glad if Senator Needham would agree to such a proposal. I have received the following letter from the general manager of the Mount Morgan Goldmining Co. Ltd. -

I note that mining machinery, n.e.i., now carries 40 per cent. duty. Previously, the duty was 27½ per cent, under machines and machinery, n.e.i. The latter duty has been increased to 45 per cent., and mining machinery, n.e.i., listed separately at 40 per cent. There seems to be no good reason why the latter should carry a higher duty than ore-dressing machinery, rock-boring machinery, &c, 27½ per cent., or agricultural machines, n.e.i., 20 per cent, and no justification whatever for an increase from 27½ per cent, to 40 per cent. The foregoing are British preferential rates. If the increased duty is really put up for protective purposes, would it be possible to obtain a remission of duty paid by mining companies working at a loss ?

It would, I know, be impossible for the Government to give effect to the proposition mentioned in the concluding portion of the communication, and, apparently, the best way in which to assist the mining industry is to revert to the duties previously in force. If Senator Needham will amend his request accordingly, I shall support him, otherwise, I shall have to submit another request.

Senator Needham:

– What does the honorable senator suggest?

Senator THOMPSON:

– I desire the British preferential rate to be reduced from 40 to 27 J per cent., the intermediate from 50 per cent., to 35 per cent., and the general from 55 to 40 per cent.

Senator CRAWFORD (Queensland- Honorary Minister) [8.301. - After hearing Senator Needham and Senator Thompson, one would imagine that the

Government had very little desire to assist the mining industry, and that the whole of the machinery and appliances used in mining carried very heavy import duties. So that honorable senators may know the exact position, I shall quote a schedule showing the machines, appliances, and materials used in connexion with this industry in Australia which are admitted either free or at a low rate of duty. Goods provided for in the tariff are as follows: -

Goods admitted under departmental by-laws for a limited period only to cover certain specific shipments are: - Machines and appliances used in the mining industry on which various rates of duty are charged are: - Further assistance is afforded to the mining industry as shown hereunder : - Furthermore, a bounty is payable on shale oil according to production as follows : - It is clear, therefore, that the Government has given very careful consideration to the requirements of the mining industry, and has made the tariff burden on the appliances used by it as light as possible consistent with the protective policy of the country. We all regret that mining is not as flourishing as it was some years ago ; but, as **Senator Needham** has admitted, the principal reason for this is the lower grade of ores available at the present time. I was very interested in a little pamphlet I received from a mining organization in Western Australia, advocating the pay ment of a bonus on the production of gold. It contained some most interesting information, and among other things showed that the oreraised in Western Australia last year averaged a fraction over 10 dwt. a ton. The position is the same in other States. Not only is the grade of the ore mined lower ; but it has to be raised from a greater depth. Last year the dividends paid in Western Australia were comparatively small. In fact, it cost as much to raise the gold as it was worth. Therefore, gold-mining is not a profitable business at the present time. {: .speaker-K8P} ##### Senator Thompson: -- AH the more reason for giving it assistance. {: .speaker-JRW} ##### Senator CRAWFORD: -- If the industry were assisted, it would last for a limited period only. No matter how rich a mine is, or how large the body of ore it has, it closes down sooner or later. Other industries, such as those protected by this item, if carried on under reasonable conditions, will last for all time, and be of increasing value to the country. No figures have been quoted, or facts advanced, to justify the claim that the reduction of duty proposed by **Senator Needham** would afford any relief to the mining industry. Honorable senators have complained that sufficient information has not always been available to support proposed increases of duties, but it can also be fairly claimed that practically no information is given in support of proposals to reduce duties. Statements are made as to the probable effect of a reduction, but .no figures are quoted in support of those statements. {: .speaker-K8P} ##### Senator Thompson: -- We depend on facts. {: .speaker-JRW} ##### Senator CRAWFORD: -- The Government has every sympathy with mining, and considers that it is equitably treated under the tariff. I am pleased to see **Senator Kingsmill** in the chamber. He asked earlier in the day what was meant by " commercially manufactured." It is impracticable to lay down a rigid definition of the term, but generally speaking, " commercial manufacture " in Australia means the manufacture of articles in reasonable quantities at costs which, having regard to the difference in costs of material and labour, reasonably compare with the costs of similar goods manufactured abroad. There are, in addition to the difference in costs of labour and materials, other factors to be taken into account, such as output and large home markets. Australian manufacturers have not the extensive markets enjoyed by the United Kingdom and other overseas manufacturing countries. These factors must be considered in determining whether an Australian manufacturer is producing commercially. For instance, wages and material costs in Australia are twice as high as they are in Great Britain or Germany. {: .speaker-JXV} ##### The CHAIRMAN (Senator Newlands: -- The Minister has exhausted his time. {: #debate-6-s37 .speaker-K09} ##### Senator PAYNE:
Tasmania -- I listened with great interest to the explanation by the Minister, who was at great pains to tell us how the mining industry had been assisted by the Commonwealth Parliament in regard to numerous lists of items on which little or no duty was imposed. In the framing of the 1921 schedule the principle laid down was that it was to be a protective and not a revenue-producing tariff. {: .speaker-JRW} ##### Senator Crawford: -- I do not think that the Commonwealth tariff has ever been held up to be protective, pure and simple. {: .speaker-K09} ##### Senator PAYNE: -- -In 1921 it was stated, by the Minister in charge of the measure in both branches of the legislature, that it was not a revenue tariff. {: .speaker-JRW} ##### Senator Crawford: -- The honorable senator needs only look at the first two items in the schedule-alcoholic beverages and tobacco - to find his answer. {: .speaker-K09} ##### Senator PAYNE: -- The Minister might to .better purpose have given details of the articles used in mining and not included in the list, because there are quite a number of other articles that are required to carry on mining operations. A considerable number of mining propositions, which have not been regarded as payable up to the present time, could be worked successfully if machinery were available at a reasonable cost, but any duty that will increase the cost of mining to any extent whatever may be the determining factor in preventing the development of certain properties on a commercial basis. The Minister said that mining was a vanishing industry, whereas the industries that the Government desired to protect would remain for all time. I point out, however, that it is highly desirable in the interests of the Commonwealth that the mining industry should be revived and maintained. Instead of the Minister's argument being in favour of the imposition of a heavier duty on mining machinery, it was quite in opposition to it.. Obviously, if we can lower the cost of production we are more likely to permit of the development of many of the low-grade mining propositions. Every extra cost, however, will place an additional handicap on mining. Certain industrial conditions are complied with by mineowners; but if they ,are compelled to use locally-manufactured plants, and pay high prices for them, it will probably lead to the closing down of the fields. Some time ago the committee passed an item which increased the British rate from 27½ per cent, to 35 per cent., and here we are asked to agree to a duty of 40 per cent, on mining machinery, and 45 per cent, on machines and machinery n.e.i. In order to be consistent, I willingly support a reduction in the duty. I entirely agree with **Senator Thompson** that we should go back to the rate fixed in the 1921 tariff. The mining industry is in such a parlous condition that any blow, no matter how slight, would have a serious effect upon it. {: #debate-6-s38 .speaker-KPQ} ##### Senator KINGSMILL:
Western Australia -- There are several peculiar features about the proposed increase. I was not present when the Honorary Minister **(Senator Crawford)** gave an explanation - if he did ' give one, which I doubt - as to why this increased duty is necessary. The arguments he used in support of the expediency of this duty appear to me, as to **Senator Payne,** to be the strongest he could possibly have used against it. Here is an industry that is languishing. Apparently the wish of those responsible for the tariff is to knock the mining industry on the head at once by imposing additional duties. Surely if an industry is languishing, it is time for the authorities to come to its assistance as far as possible; but we find that this languishing industry is to be put out of its misery at once. Now there is one section of the mining industry in Australia, which deserves some reparation from the Commonwealth Government for the circumstances that obtained during the war. I refer to gold mining. Through a set of circumstances which became known in Western Australia as the " gold steal " - and I am not going to say that I recognize the appropriate nature of that cognomen - Western ' Australia, more particularly because she was, as she is still, the biggest producer of gold in the Commonwealth, was deprived during the war period of the natural premium that gold was bearing in all other parts of the world. This was due to the fact that the patriotism of Australia led it to give whatever profits might have been made to the coffers of the Empire. For my own part I do not grumble at it, but any industry that has suffered in the cause of imperial unity should be the last to receive such a blow as is proposed un der the present tariff. Other branches of mining did not suffer proportionately, and while this amount was cut off from the profit end of the mining industry, it has to be remembered that the disabilities caused by the war were borne without any attempt at relief on the part of the Government, or anybody else. That is why I say that the gold-mining industry, especially, should receive every consideration at the hands of this or any other Ministry. The Government owes a debt to that industry which it should show some little anxiety to repay. The pamphlet to which the Minister alluded related to an attempt to bring the Government to that frame of mind by proposing a bonus on gold production. Of course, that matter is not under debate, but as the Minister mentioned it by way of illustration, I also have referred to it. Although the industry is languishing iu Western Australia,there are hopes that north of Coolgardie there will yet be found and worked another Kalgoorlie, but a Kalgoorlie that will not start off under the conditions that obtained during the development of the " Golden Mile ". At that time the tariff on mining machinery was much more favorable to mining propositions than it is to-day. The field to which I refer will require a large capital expenditure and a tremendous quantity of modern machinery, if it is to be developed. It is grossly unjust to a State like Western Australia, that has done so much to develop the mining industry of Australia, that these heavy imposts should be made upon mining machinery. I hope that the committee's sense of fairness will come to the rescue of the gold-mining industry, not only in Western Australia, but throughout the Commonwealth. For my own part I do not think that the Australian manufacturers require the proposed increase of duty, and no attempt has been made to prove that they do. For what purpose is it needed? With the wonderful advantages that they start with in the way of locality and costs of transport, I do not think that the additional tariff is justified. At any rate, I shall certainly vote against it. {: .speaker-KTR} ##### Senator McLachlan: -There will be no division. {: .speaker-KMP} ##### Senator Grant: -- The Government will win. {: .speaker-KPQ} ##### Senator KINGSMILL: -- There will be a division this time. Now, I pass on to a more congenial, because more amusing subject. I listened with interest to the Minister's definition of " commercially manufactured." It seems to me that wherever the framers of the tariff have a chance to insert an adjective they use the word " reasonable ", which, of course, is one of the hardest words legally to define. From what I can remember of that definition it appears to be adaptable to any set of circumstances. I cannot imagine any manufacture that could not be brought within the four corners of such a definition - that is, if it could have corners. I think that it is circular in form. There is no point which one may grasp. One slips over the smooth surface and is shot into space before getting hold of anything. So far as I could gather from the statement read by the Minister, no principle is laid down. It may be that, because of its extreme length, I was unable to grasp its import. I shall, therefore, study it at home to see if I can find anything in it. I , desire to appeal to honorable senators' sense of fairness in their treatment of the gold-mining industry, particularly so far as Western Australia is concerned. This industry already has made great sacrifices for the sake of the Empire. While it may languish in one place, it is possible that it may be resuscitated in another; but under these unnecessary imposts - unnecessary for the manufacturing of mining machinery in Australia - the Government is striking a blow at the goldmining industry of Australia from which it will be difficult to recover. Instead of treating the mining industry as a tender shrub, the Government, by asking the committee to agree to these high duties, is ringbarking it. I am sorry that **Senator Needham's** amendment to the previous request was not pressed to a division. Had a division been called for, I believe that the inherent justice of honorable senators would have risen to the surface, and that it would have been agreed to. I feel sure that that will be the result in this instance. {: #debate-6-s39 .speaker-KMP} ##### Senator GRANT:
New South Wales -- Any adjustment of the tariff presents almost insuperable difficulties. Some honorable senators have informed us that all their lives they have been protectionists; yet, even at- this late hour, they are unable to agree regarding what may be fairly termed a protectionist as against n revenue tariff. We have had a tariff in operation sufficiently long for honorable senators to have made up their minds. Of what use is it for honorable senators to say that this is a protective tariff when we know that every year the revenue from the Customs House is increasing? This year it will probably amount to £42,000,000. Some honorable senators still proclaim that they are protectionists, ignoring the fact that a protectionist tariff does not exclude foreign-made goods. It would appear that some among us have a suspicion that the tariff does, in fact, increase the price of the commodities that are taxed. A genuine protectionist does not admit that; but in the minds of **Senator Kingsmill** and others, the imposition of import duties not only increases the cost of the imported mining machinery, but may even have the effect of dealing a death-blow to an already harassed industry. Honorable senators who have been so consistent in their support of the Government have been afraid to call! for a division. {: .speaker-JXZ} ##### Senator Duncan: -- Is the honorable senator referring to the Deputy Leader of the Labour party **(Senator Needham)** ? {: .speaker-KMP} ##### Senator GRANT: -- In this instance, the Deputy Leader of the party to which I belong is supporting Senators Kingsmill, Payne, and Lynch. He is entitled to do that; I shall not object so long as I am allowed the same freedom. Some time ago Parliament, after having considered the imposition of additional Customs duties, appointed a Tariff Board to weigh the evidence for and against the imposition of import duties, and to make recommendations. In this case, the Tariff Board recommended that the duty be increased to 40 per cent. I am delighted to find Senators Lynch, Kingsmill, Payne, and Thompson, all ardent supporters of the Government, getting what they deserve. They are being forced to swallow what the Government gives them. {: .speaker-K8P} ##### Senator Thompson: -- If the honorable senator will help us, we shall not swallow this. {: .speaker-KMP} ##### Senator GRANT: -- The honorable senators whom I have mentioned represent States where mining is an important industry. Yet the Government which they support is determined, presumably on the recommendation of the Tariff Board, to impose an additional 12-& per cent.duty on mining machinery. That **Senator Kingsmill** has described as a death-blow to the industry; although I doubt whether he believes what he says. {: .speaker-K09} ##### Senator Payne: -- Is the honorable senator in favour of decreasing the duty? {: .speaker-KMP} ##### Senator GRANT: -- I am supporting the Government's proposal in preference to that advocated by some of its own supporters. Night after night Senators Kingsmill, Lynch, Payne, and Thompson have supported the Government in connexion with this tariff schedule. Now that they are being given some of their own medicine, they do not like it; they squeak and squirm and squeal in a disgraceful manner. If I were a supporter of a government which advocated a policy of this kind, I should tell it to go ahead; but I would not squeak in the way some honorable senators are doing. {: .speaker-K8P} ##### Senator Thompson: -- Is not the honorable senator a freetrader? {: .speaker-KMP} ##### Senator GRANT: -- I am what is termed a land values taxer. The first article of my political creed is that the people who own the country should pay the taxes. According to some honorable senators, the mining industry should pay the taxes. {: .speaker-K8P} ##### Senator Thompson: -- And the honorable senator is helping them {: .speaker-KMP} ##### Senator GRANT: -- **Senator Thompson** and others are supporting a government which, to quote **Senator Kingsmill,** is prepared to deliver a beath-blow to the gold-mining industry. They should CrOss the chamber and take their places among the intelligent senators on this side. If they are so opposed to a 40 per. cent, duty on imported mining machinery, why do they not ask for the complete removal of the duty? They are not game to do that. {: .speaker-KPQ} ##### Senator Kingsmill: -- That is because we are not unreasonable. {: .speaker-KMP} ##### Senator GRANT: -- Honorable senators are deceiving themselves. The schoolmaster is abroad aud is scrutinizing their actions. I regard them as arrant humbugs! {: .speaker-JXV} ##### The CHAIRMAN (Senator Newlands: -- The honorable senator is out of order. {: .speaker-KMP} ##### Senator GRANT: -- I have no desire to say anything offensive ; but I was unable in other language to convey my opinion of certain honorable senators. I should have liked the Minister to tell us the value of the machinery imported during the past few years for mining purposes, and the amount of revenue derived from that source. He might also have informed us what amount of additional revenue he expects to receive from the increased duty of 124 per cent. It is of no use for **Senator Lynch,** who has been an ardent protectionist all his life, to think that he can get protection in respect of certain articles and freetrade in respect of others, and not expect other honorable senators to claim the same privilege. He must know that people engaged in the engineering industry who are industrially well organized can make their voices heard more effectively than can those engaged in the gold-mining industry. Every Government will listen to the voice of those engaged in secondary industries. That is why this tariff has been introduced. The Minister referred to higher wages necessitating higher duties, and, later, an appeal to the Arbitration Court, resulting in still higher wages and a demand for further duties. At present the turn of affairs is in the direction of additional duties. Those honorable senators' who now are having a taste of their own medicine must tamely submit to it. When a division is taken they can find an excuse to retire; and the Government will win every time. I shall not forget that **Senator Lynch** voted in favour of increased duties on whisky. In that case the duty represented 700 per cent. Now he opposes the imposition of a duty of 12£ per cent. {: .speaker-KPQ} ##### Senator Kingsmill: -- That is national prejudice. {: .speaker-KMP} ##### Senator GRANT: -- I sometimes feel tempted to move " That the question be now put," but I shall not do so. I repeat that the Government will win in connexion with every item. We may as well pass the schedule as it is, and proceed with other business. {: .speaker-KRZ} ##### Senator Lynch: -- I intend to support the request, and if it is not carried, I shall move a further request. Question - That the request (Senator Needham's) be agreed to - put. The committee divided. AYES: 12 NOES: 15 Majority . . . . 3 AYES NOES Question so resolved in the negative. Bequest negatived. {: #debate-6-s40 .speaker-KRZ} ##### Senator LYNCH:
Western Australia .- I move- >That the House of Representatives be requested to make the duty, sub-item (E), ad valorem British preferential 35 per cent. I am asking for a reduction of 5 per cent, in the British preferential rate in the hope that the industry will get a crumb from the table of these rich gluttons - for they are nothing else - who come to this Parliament with a request to foist such outrageous duties on the dying gold-mining industry. I wish that industry to be placed on the same footing as other sections of the mining industry, and so I claim the support of **Senator Graham.** {: .speaker-KMI} ##### Senator Graham: -- I object. The honorable senator has no claim upon me. {: .speaker-JXV} ##### The CHAIRMAN (Senator Newlands: -- There is nothing unparliamentary in the remark. {: .speaker-KRZ} ##### Senator LYNCH: -- Speakers who have preceded me in this debate have given certain figures dealing with mining. I intend also to present some figures relating to the gold-mining section of the industry, and will then leave- the matter in the hands of the committee. Let us see what has been happening within the last few years. In 1901 the gold-mining industry produced new wealth to the amount of £14,000,000; but in 1921 the production was down to £4,000,000. In 1901 it gave employment to 70,000 persona; in 1921 less than 11,000 were en gaged in it. These figures indicate that the industry is sorely in need of some relief. I admit, of course, that a reduction of 5 per cent, in the British duty which I am now asking for will not mean the salvation of the industry - far from it. Other factors are responsible for the depressed state of gold mining, which once was a flourishing industry, especially in Western Australia. What I want to know is, why should goldmining be singled out and penalized in this way ? It has done more than any other industry for this country-; but, unfortunately, its services to. the community were forgotten by some honorable senators in the vote that has just been taken. Prior to the war there was a good market for all the gold produced in this country; but when war broke out there was an insistent demand for the preservation of the gold reserve, with a result that the producers of this precious metal were obliged to sell their output here at the rate ruling on the first day of the war. Other primary industries were not treated in that way. Wool, for example, was sold at a flat rate of 15½d. a lb., and wheat was disposed of at rates that gave a very fair return to primary producers in that field of endeavour. Other base metals received favorable treatment. Lead soared to a very high figure, and gave a handsome return to the companies producing it. Our gold producers, by the action of the Government in placing an embargo onexports, lost approximately £3,000,000, because, as I have stated, they were obliged to confine themselves to the Australian market, gold being sorely needed for the husbanding of our financial resources for war purposes. Besides losing approximately £3,000,000 through this restriction in the marketing of their product, our gold producers had to meet excess costs in production, and not one penny piece has come their way from that day to this. Now they are asked to bear an import duty of 40 per cent. British on mining machinery. {: .speaker-KPQ} ##### Senator Kingsmill: -- This is their reward! {: .speaker-KRZ} ##### Senator LYNCH: -- Yes, this is their reward for the efforts which they made during the war to produce the wherewithal to maintain our gold reserve. {: .speaker-KMP} ##### Senator Grant: -- This is the glorious policy of protection! Take your medicine! {: .speaker-KRZ} ##### Senator LYNCH: -- **Senator Grant** has occupied much valuable time of the Senate lately whilst he talked with his tongue in his cheek about these tariff items. He knows very well that he dare not vote against a single item, because if he did so he would be listed at the Trades Hall, Sydney, and thereafter be a marked man. And this from a disciple of Henry George ! Henry George would turn in his grave if he could realize that he had such a counterfeit exponent of his doctrine in this chamber. The gold-mining industry, I repeat, has been penalized as no other industry has, and as **Senator Kingsmill** remarked just now, this tariff increase is its reward. I wish it to be placed on the same footing as other industries. Therefore I am moving to have the British tariff reduced from 40 to 35 per cent. What objection can **Senator Glasgow** or other honorable senators have to this proposal ? Why should they single out the gold-mining industry for special persecution ? The facts are before us. The committee has just agreed to a duty of 35 per cent. British on cylindrical cement driers and coolers, and similar cylindrical containers. It has also agreed to a duty of 35 per cent. British on certain classes of road-making machinery. Why, then, should the gold-mining industry be called up to bear a heavier burden ? Why did **Senator Graham** troop across the chamber just now and vote for an exorbitant duty on this industry which is visibly vanishing ? Mining machinery comes from all parts of the world. Why should the tariff start at 40 per cent. British, and rise to 55 per cent, in the case of importations from foreign countries ? One honorable senator asked a while ago if I could state to what extent the gold-mining industry had been handicapped by these high protective duties. I cannot do that. The same question was asked by members of the Tariff Board of representatives of the Chamber of Mines in Kalgoorlie. They could not say either, but they pointed out that there was an increase of £12,000,000 in receipts from Customs over a period of seven years, and they left it to the average intelligence of the board to say how much of that additional revenue had been subscribed by the gold-mining industry. That was as far as they could go. With the duty increased to 40 per cent., the last chapter concerning the industry has been written, unless, of course, further rich discoveries are made which will enable it to stand up against such heavy imposts. It cannot be thought for a moment that the auriferous deposits of this country are exhausted. In Western Australia, which, up to the present, has produced 75 per cent, of Australia's output of gold, there are hundreds of millions of pounds' worth of gold which can still be mined, if the opportunity is only afforded. For the simple purpose of placing this industry on the same level, no higher and no lower, as dozens of other industries, I ask honorable senators in all seriousness, to give the gold mining industry a final chance to hold its own. {: #debate-6-s41 .speaker-JRW} ##### Senator CRAWFORD:
QueenslandHonorary Minister · NAT -- The same objection which I raised in connexion with the request moved by **Senator Needham** applies in this instance. If **Senator Lynch,** who says that the gold-mining industry has been specially singled out for the imposition of very heavy duties, will peruse the rates set out against other items in the schedule, he will see that under that following the one we are now considering, a duty 5 per cent, higher than that imposed on mining machinery is provided. It is very doubtful . whether the duties imposed on mining machinery are responsible in any degree for the present unfortunate position in the gold-mining industry; nearly all of the mines are fully equipped with modern machinery, which was paid for at a time when the companies were prosperous, and when big dividends were paid. As I stated when speaking on **Senator Needham's** request, it cannot be claimed that the cost of mining machinery is responsible. In these circumstances, I cannot accept the request moved by **Senator Lynch.** {: #debate-6-s42 .speaker-KMP} ##### Senator GRANT:
New South Wales -- There may be some truth in **Senator Lynch's** statement that during the war the Government disposed of the gold produced from the Western Australian mines at an upset price, but I am not prepared to admit that its action in that respect involved the mining companies in a loss of £3,000,000. During the war, the Government found it necessary to definitely fix the price of many commodities, including galvanized iron, which was extensively used throughout the Commonwealth. The Government also fixed the price of wool at a flat rate of ls. 5d. a lb., and annexed the whole of the newsprint in stock in the Commonwealth and appointed a special board to distribute it. In scores of other ways the Government fixed prices of commodities in the public interest, and arranged distribution. The gold-mining industry was not singled out for special treatment, but its decline is attributable to the fact that when once the metal is removed, mining becomes an unpayable proposition. Gold mining in Australia is costly, for obvious reasons, but other mineral deposits may be discovered. The proposed reduction of 5 per cent, in the duty is not worth speaking of. The action of the Government in this respect is merely a part of the great national policy of protection which **Senator Lynch** has advocated for a lifetime. If the speeches delivered by **Senator Lynch** since he has been a member of this chamber were studied, it would be found that he has always supported those who advocate excessive duties. He is now confronted with a position which he has assisted in establishing. . If the honorable senator desires to protect one industry, he must also be willing to assist others. If he thinks that the goldmining industry should escape these duties, why does he not advocate the entire removal of duties on all mining machinery, or adopt the logical attitude which I sometimes adopt, and advocate a straightout land tax ? If **Senator Lynch** and those supporting him, wish mining machinery to be imported absolutely free of duty, they should support land value taxation instead of suffering dose after dose of high protection which is really too good for them. **Senator THOMPSON** (Queensland) r/9.39]. - I cannot support the request moved by **Senator Lynch,** which I think is too trifling to occupy the time of the committee. I do not agree with the Minister **(Senator Crawford)** that the mining machinery in use was purchased when the companies were making good profits. {: .speaker-JRW} ##### Senator Crawford: -- I did not say all of it. {: .speaker-K8P} ##### Senator THOMPSON: -- I mentioned earlier in the debate on this item that there was a strong possibility of a very large new plant being laid down at the Mount Morgan mine, and consequently lower duties would be very beneficial. *1* saw the report of the South African expert who reported on the "Western Australian mines, and who said that a good deal of the inefficiency in Western Australian mines was due to the use of obsolete machinery. That indicates that if the mining industry is to improve, a good deal of new machinery will have to be installed. The same could be said of most of the mines in Australia. {: .speaker-JRW} ##### Senator Crawford: -- And of industry generally. {: .speaker-K8P} ##### Senator THOMPSON: -- But of the mining industry in particular. I am surprised that I did not receive more support from honorable senators on behalf of the copper-mining industry in Queensland. Quite a number of senators who should be following the debate are absent from the chamber until a vote is taken, when they support the Minister in charge of the bill. {: .speaker-JRW} ##### Senator Crawford: -- It is hardly fair of the honorable senator to reflect upon his colleagues. {: .speaker-K8P} ##### Senator THOMPSON: -- Closer attention should be given to tariff matters, on which honorable senators are allowed to express their individual opinions. As the Government does not expect honorable senators to support it on al] tariff matters, it is the duty of honorable senators to follow the debate intelligently and to record their vote in accordance with their convictions. {: #debate-6-s43 .speaker-JXJ} ##### Senator NEEDHAM:
Western Australia -- As the amendment I submitted to the committee, which has now been disposed of, can be regarded as a test vote on the whole of the proposed duties on mining machinery, there is no occasion to haggle or bargain. Even if **Senator Lynch's** request were adopted it would not affect the position one way or the other, whereas if my proposal had received the support of the majority of honorable senators,- the mining industry would have received substantial benefit. I intend to be guided by the decision of the committee iri that case, and therefore do not see the necessity of supporting such a trivial reduction as that moved by **Senator Lynch.** {: #debate-6-s44 .speaker-K2L} ##### Senator REID:
Queensland -- I expect some of those who have said that the tariff has been responsible for the decline in the mineral industry to prove their assertions. {: .speaker-K8P} ##### Senator Thompson: -- I did not say that it had. I suggested lower rates in order to assist the industry. {: .speaker-K2L} ##### Senator REID: -- It is a general practice to blame the tariff, but my observations on the mining fields throughout the Commonwealth lead me to the conclusion that the decline in mining is due, not to the protection afforded to the manufacturers of mining machinery, but to the fact that as the mining fields are becoming worked out working costs are higher. The taTiff was not responsible for the decline of Coolgardie. {: .speaker-KRZ} ##### Senator Lynch: -- It did not help it. {: .speaker-K2L} ##### Senator REID: -- It was not responsible for its decline. {: .speaker-KRZ} ##### Senator Lynch: -- In a measure it was. {: .speaker-K2L} ##### Senator REID: -- There are places in Queensland which carried a larger mining population than Coolgardie, but which are now almost deserted. Valuable mineral deposits exist in various parts of Queensland, but it cannot be said that the high duties imposed on mining machinery are preventing their development. The cost of production is certainly high, but the real trouble is thatwe have not yet discovered a cheaper means of extracting gold from the ore. {: .speaker-K8P} ##### Senator Thompson: -- We want cheaper machinery. {: .speaker-K2L} ##### Senator REID: -- **Senator Thompson** has spoken about the report of a South African expert on the method of mining employed on the Western Australian gold-fields, but even if the companies did introduce the up-to-date machinery he recommended, the question is whether there would be sufficient gold in the mines to pay for it. We know that gold is a vanishing quantity. We have seen gold-mining toAvns spring up and pass away within twelve months. That is part of the history of gold mining in Australia. Our gold mining period has passed by. No doubt it made this continent, but to-day it is . being supplanted by other industrieswhich, as the Minister **(Senator CraAvford)has** pointed out, should last as long as Australia lases. Those manufacturers Avhb were making mining machinery are now adapting themselves to the neAver conditions. They are supplying the requirements of other industries, and are not making much mining machinery now. I should not object to the free importation of mining machinery that could not be made in Australia, so long as it would help those who are engaged in an endeavour to develop our mineral resources, but I have not yet heard one honorable senator give evidence that the tariff as it now exists is hindering mining development. The machinery requirements of the existing mines are replacements only. Those who are managing the mines admit that all they are doing is to get the best out of the plants they now have. {: .speaker-K0F} ##### Senator Pearce: -- The South African expert recommended a joint power plant at Kalgoorlie instead of each company having its own plant. {: .speaker-K2L} ##### Senator REID: -- Every one knows the saviug that Avould be effected if all the mines on the Boulder belt were run as one concern, but eventually the gold Avould peter out. There is not one mining field in Australia that can be said to be hindered by the lack of machinery. I regret that the mines are dying out, but we have reached that stage when Ave must look to other avenues to bring more population to Australia, and to keep in employment the people Ave already have here. {: #debate-6-s45 .speaker-KRZ} ##### Senator LYNCH:
Western Australia -- If time permitted I could give reams of evidence to show **Senator Reid** and others the effect of the past moderate tariff on the gold-mining industry in Western Australia. And if it bore onerously on the industry on that State, it must likewise have borne onerously on the industry in Queensland. I shall quote briefly from the evidence given before the Tariff Board in Kalgoorlie. No names are mentioned. The mines are indicated by numbers, and the suppliers of the mines requirements by letters. In reference to mine No. 1, the following evidence Avas given: - >This mine reports having tested ten sets of five each shoes manufactured by *"A,"* the average life of which was 111 days. The life of the imported shoes of that mine averaged 146 days, or 32 per cent, longer than those manufactured in Australia. In regard to mine No. 3, the following evidencewas given: - >This mine reports having tested 25 shoes and dies manufactured by " A," with the result that nineteen of the tangs broke off long before the shoes had worn down. The experiment proved a costly one for the mining company. In regard to No. 5, the evidence was - >This mine states that it has tried several Australian makes of shoes and dies, " A," "B," and " H," with the following results:- *"A,"* which proved to be the best of the three, had an average life of 70 days, against that of 135 days for the imported article, or a difference of 93 per cent. Here is another example of the increased cost of gold-mining as the result of the industry being compelled to pay exorbitant duties. The experience of- mine No. 2 in connexion with the life of imported and Australian haunch-plates for No. 8 ball mills is described as follows : - >Australian. - Two sets of haunch-plates from "D" average a life of 70 days; three sets of hauneh-platcs from " E " average a life of 79 days. Average life of Australian, 77½ days. > >Imported. - Five sets of haunch-plates from " F " averaged a life of 104 days. The imported plates had a life of 34 per cent, longer than the Australian. In the case of mine No. 4, its experience in regard to manganese steel ball mill spares was that the imported plates had a 35.7 per cent, longer life than the Australian articles. This evidence bears out my contention that even the moderate duty that has hitherto prevailed imposed an extra charge on the mining industry. The following was also given in evidence before the Tariff Board: - >Last year it became necessary for one of the mines to obtain spare runners and blading for its turbines. lt was found that these could not be manufactured in Australia. One of the largest electrical engineering firms of England was then approached with a view of having the parts made there. The firm replied that it could not make the spares except at a prohibitive cost, and stated that it could procure them from Germany. On the facts being placed before the Comptroller of Customs, a permit to import the spares was obtained; but when the turbine parts were landed, the fact that they could not be manufactured in Australia was overlooked, and the mine had to pay duty to the extent of £349. However, this case has been brought before the notice of the department, and it is possible the duty may be refunded. I do not know the result of the application for a refund, but it is sufficient for us to know that the mine had to pay £349 duty on spare parts. There are thousands of instances in which the mines have been obliged to use spare parts that are not to be compared in quality with the imported article. I should like to be able to tell the reverse story, but I am quoting the sworn evidence given by the sponsors for the industry in Kalgoorlie. There is another instance of the effect of even a moderate tariff on the gold-mining industry. A comparison of haunch-plates, Australian and imported, is given in evidence as follows: - English - Set of 40 haunch plates from " F.," cost on mine, £122 0s.11d. *History.* - These plates have an assured life of eleven months with regular monthly inspections. We have previously tried Australian spares, with equally unsatisfactory results. Australian - Cost on mine, £107 5s. 2d. *History* - 14th April, 1924, installed in mill. 29th April, 1924, examined and tightened. 16th May, 1924, examined and tightened. 10th June, 1924, examined and tightened. 4th July, 1924, replaced one broken plate, leaving others cracked. 9th July, 1924, replaced one broken plate, leaving six cracked. 30th July, 1924, all cracked plates broken, haunch plates removed from mill and scrapped. From the above, it will be noted that the life of the imported haunch plates is about eleven months, and that of the Australian made three and a half months. I could go on further. There is plenty of evidence to show that men who are " all Australian," and desirous of encouraging Australia's secondary industries, have tried the output of those industries, and been unsuccessful in the use of them. Yet when we ask for the slightest measure of consideration for the gold-mining industry, we are met with a solid vote against us. It is not fair play. It is not playing the game decently with an industry that has done so much for this country. It will be driven rapidly to its doom unless we give it special consideration, not only by remodelling these duties completely, but also in other directions. If we allow this industry that has done so much for us to die, the responsibility will be on us. I propose to press my request to a division. My object is to place this pioneering industry of ours on the level of scores of other industries on which a tariff of 35 per cent, is deemed sufficient. Question - That the request (Senator Lynch's) be agreed to - put. The committee divided. AYES: 7 NOES: 17 Majority . . . . 10 AYES NOES Question so resolved in the negative. Request negatived. {: #debate-6-s46 .speaker-K09} ##### Senator PAYNE:
Tasmania .- Will the Minister explain why it is necessary that the British preferential tariff on sub-item f, " Machines and machinery n.e.i." should be increased from 27½ to 45 per cent? {: #debate-6-s47 .speaker-JRW} ##### Senator CRAWFORD:
Honorary Minister · Queensland · NAT -- The reason for this, as in respect to the case of every increase provided for in the schedule, is that there has been a considerable alteration in the industrial position since 1921. {: .speaker-K09} ##### Senator Payne: -- Why should the duty be 5 per cent, greater in sub-item f than in sub-item e? {: .speaker-JRW} ##### Senator CRAWFORD: -- Because, as I previously explained, the lower import duty on mining machinery was a special concession to the mining industry. A further reason is that mining machinery being of a simpler character than much of the machinery included under subitem f, the ratio of labour in the former is not so great as in the latter. {: #debate-6-s48 .speaker-KPQ} ##### Senator KINGSMILL:
Western Australia -- Since the Government shows its readiness to increase duties in consonance with the increase in wages, will the Minister inform us whether that increase will ever stop? This is a very serious matter in connexion with this and other items. Is the Minister not of the opinion that if we continue, not in this vicious circle, but in this vicious spiral, we shall eventually cut Australia off from the rest of the commercial world to an even greater extent than she is cut off to-day? I ask the question seriously, and I hope to have a serious reply. Does the Minister think that there is going to be any end to this process, and, if so, when will it be reached? {: .speaker-K2L} ##### Senator Reid: -- Is the Minister expected to prophesy about the matter? {: .speaker-KPQ} ##### Senator KINGSMILL: -- No ; I hope that he will think about it. {: #debate-6-s49 .speaker-JRW} ##### Senator CRAWFORD:
QueenslandHonorary Minister · NAT -- **Senator Kingsmill,** in common with every other honorable senator, knows that I always approach political subjects in a serious frame of mind, and I have applied myself with all earnestness to every question that has arisen in connexion with this measure. But I think that one would be more than bold - in fact, one would be extremely rash - to say emphatically what was likely to be the industrial position of the world, or even of one's own country, a few years hence. However, I am not amongst those who appear to be greatly alarmed at the increase in the costs of production that has taken place, not only in Australia, but also in many other countries, during recent years. Whilst those costs have increased, there has been a very great improvement in the standard of living. The people have more comforts and pleasures, are living in better houses, and have better furnished homes than obtained some years ago when wages were much lower than they are at the present time. People today are better dressed" and much happier than they formerly were. Therefore, I, for one, cannot see any ground at all for complaining that the costs of production have increased. Concurrently with the increase in those costs, life has become very much more worth living than it was under previous conditions. We have to deal with circumstances as we find them to-day. We learn, from the reports of the Tariff Board, and from other sources of information available, that many of our industries are languishing, and that a great many persons who previously found employment in connexion with them are now unemployed. We have reason to believe that an increase in the degree of protection afforded to those industries would have the effect of placing them on a better footing, and enabling them to give increased employment. I think that we shall be failing in our duty if we are not prepared to apply a remedy that has proved efficacious in the past in order to meet the very unsatisfactory set of conditions that now exist. I have said repeatedly that this tariff has been in operation for nearly twelve months, and it has already had a very beneficial effect upon a number of Australian industries. We are keeping in the country money that was previously sent abroad. Apparently, there are some honorable senators who think that our guiding principle should be to buy always in the cheapest market. If we were to carry that policy to its logical conclusion, we should at last reach the stage at which we should produce nothing ourselves, and should get all we required from countries where the worst industrial conditions prevailed. We should soon find ourselves without the wherewithal to buy, and our last position would be very much worse than the first. I do not wish to labour the subject. It seems to me that we are discussing the general principles of protection instead of the item under discussion. {: #debate-6-s50 .speaker-K09} ##### Senator PAYNE:
Tasmania -- I desire to thank the Honorary Minister for his courteous reply to my question as to why it was necessary to increase the duty from 27½ per cent, to 45 per cent. I have found no evidence of failure on the part of those engaged in the manufacture of machinery in Australia to carry on reasonably well under the 1921 tariff. The Minister has suggested that the higher we make the protective Avail, the better it will be for the people; but that is a fallacious argument. I contend that the advantage that would be gained by theworkerswould be very small, having regard to the additional burden that would be placed on the general community. I realize that it is useless for me to say more than that I protest against the imposition. Item agreed to, subject to a request. Item 177- >By omitting the whole item (twice occurring) and inserting in its stead the following item: - " 177. (a) > >Locomotives; Road Rollers, n.e.i., including Scarifier Attachments, ad val., British, 40 per cent; intermediate, 50 per cent.; general, 55 per cent. {: #debate-6-s51 .speaker-K09} ##### Senator PAYNE:
Tasmania -- I move - >That the House of Representatives be requested to leave out the words " Road Rollers, n.e.i., including Scarifier Attachments," subitein (2), and to insert new paragraph as follows: - " (3) Road Rollers, n.e.i., including Scarifier Attachments, ad val,, British, 17½ per cent." I shall deal first with the British preferential tariff. Under the 1921 schedule, local manufacturers received the advantage of a duty of 27½ per cent, ad valorem. To that had to be added the cost of freight and other charges, which, in the case of heavy road-rollers, were considerable. It is estimated that freight and other charges of transportation on a road-roller imported from Great Britain would be approximately the same as the duty imposed under the 1921 tariff. The total protection afforded to Australian manufacturers of road-rollers under the 1921 tariff Avas thus from 50 to 60 per cent. {: .speaker-K2L} ##### Senator Reid: -- Who told the honorable senator that ? {: .speaker-K09} ##### Senator PAYNE: -- I have it in a statement from a reliable source. The freight and other charges on textiles and articles of apparel amount to from 10 to 12½ per cent. A heavy and bulky machine like a road-roller Avould bear much heavier freight charges than goods -which could be packed in a small space. The duty on a road-roller costing £700 in Great Britain was, under the 1921 tariff, £212; under the Government's proposals the duty on a similar roller will be £308, an increase of £96. {: .speaker-K2L} ##### Senator Reid: -- How does that compare with the price of the locally-made roller ? {: .speaker-K09} ##### Senator PAYNE: -- I have no informa- ' tion on that point; but I remind the honorable senator that we can pay too great a price for the privilege of having roadrollers made in Australia. A road-roller is road-making machinery. It should therefore, be regarded as one of the requirements necessary for the development of this country, and we should hesitate before increasing the duty from. £212 to £308. {: #debate-6-s52 .speaker-JRW} ##### Senator CRAWFORD:
QueenslandHonorary Minister · NAT -- I cannot accept the request moved by **Senator Payne.** For many years road-rollers have been made in Australia, but, owing to the severe competition from abroad, it has been found necessary, after full investigation, to increase the duty as proposed in this item. {: .speaker-KPQ} ##### Senator Kingsmill: -- Is that because of an increase in wages ? {: .speaker-JRW} ##### Senator CRAWFORD: -- The effect of the higher wages paid in Australia applies to every item in the schedule. Wages and the cost of raw material in Australia are approximately 100 per cent, higher than in Great Britain and European countries generally. {: .speaker-JZR} ##### Senator Ogden: -- Largely as the result of the tariff. {: .speaker-JRW} ##### Senator CRAWFORD: -- That is a matter of opinion. Great Britain herself is feeling the effect of competition from other countries, and has had to grant additional protection to a number of her industries. Many orders for road-rollers have gone abroad during recent years. If we desire to preserve this Australian industry, the increased duties are 'necessary. {: #debate-6-s53 .speaker-KPQ} ##### Senator KINGSMILL:
Western Australia .- I should like the Minister to inform us whether the Tariff Board, in' framing its report, took the trouble to ascertain the ratio which the output in the countries of origin of imported articles of this kind bears to the output in Australia. Is the output per man in Australia comparable with the output per man in countries whence these articles come? {: #debate-6-s54 .speaker-JRW} ##### Senator CRAWFORD:
Honorary Minister · Queensland · NAT -- I am not in a position to furnish the honorable senator with the information sought; but I think that it would be of very little use if available. Our manufacturers have to pay higher wages and higher prices for material. They have not the advantage in freight, as **Senator Payne** suggested, except in respect of markets strictly local. The cost of freight, say, from Melbourne to Sydney or Hobart is probably as great as it would be from Europe to Sydney or Hobart. What has been termed '" natural protection " disappears as far as the interstate market is concerned. {: .speaker-JZR} ##### Senator Ogden: -- How many men are employed in the industry? {: .speaker-JRW} ##### Senator CRAWFORD: -- This is not a separate industry. The work is carried out in establishments manufacturing all classes of machinery. In the engineering industry generally that are thousands of employees. **Senator KINGSMILL** (Western Australia) [10.27). - I do not think that .the Minister grasps the import of my question. I asked whether the Tariff Board had considered that aspect of the case in making its report, and, if so, would the Minister be good enough to let the committee know whether the output per man in Australia was comparable with the output per man in other parts of the world. The question of the payment of higher wages does not affect the issue except to lead one to expect a higher degree of efficiency in return for higher wages. I think that my request for information respecting the Tariff Board and its investigations should be complied with. {: #debate-6-s55 .speaker-JRW} ##### Senator CRAWFORD:
QueenslandHonorary Minister · NAT -- I quite understood the import of the honorable senator's question, and I said definitely that the information he sought was not available, and that even if it were, it would not be very helpful to the committee. *ISo* complaint whatever has been made by the Tariff Board respecting the standard of Australian workmanship. {: .speaker-KPQ} ##### Senator Kingsmill: -- Has it made investigations in that respect ? {: .speaker-JRW} ##### Senator CRAWFORD: -- I do not see how the board could possibly obtain definite information respecting the output per man in Australia and elsewhere, unless it visited other parts of the world to obtain evidence from those engaged in similar productions. The honorable senator will see how impossible this would be. {: .speaker-JZR} ##### Senator Ogden: -- It is not impossible. {: .speaker-JRW} ##### Senator CRAWFORD: -- I cannot see how it would be possible for the Tariff Board to visit other countries to obtain from manufacturers there costs regarding any particular machine or the whole of their production. That information is not disclosed by manufacturers to their competitors either here or elsewhere. {: .speaker-JZR} ##### Senator Ogden: -- The information can be obtained from the statistical returns of various countries. {: .speaker-JRW} ##### Senator CRAWFORD: -- The honorable senator will see from the statistical returns relating to our own industries that it is quite impossible to ascertain the output per man respecting any particular machine or number of machines. Wages in Australia are 100 per cent, higher than those in Great Britain, and must, therefore, be a great deal higher than those in Belgium, Germany, or other European countries. What is asked for is a 40 per cent, ad valorem duty, which is not equal to the difference between the cost of wages and material here and abroad. {: #debate-6-s56 .speaker-KMP} ##### Senator GRANT:
Now South Wales -- As it is no use trying to defeat the Government, I think it is time we divided on this item. Request, by leave, withdrawn. {: #debate-6-s57 .speaker-KTR} ##### Senator McLACHLAN:
South Australia -- I move - >That the House of Representatives be re- quested to amend sub-item (a) by leaving out the word " Locomotives " in paragraph 2 and inserting it after the word "Engines " in paragraph 1. This paragraph as it at present stands applies to locomotives required by State Governments. A very striking illustration of the way in which it would operate is furnished by developments that have recently taken place in South Australia. The Railways Commissioner there, a progressive officer, determined upon an improvement of the railway system, and, to that end, with the- sanction of the government of the day, embarked on a developmental policy that will cost that State something like £5,000,000. Of that amount, £3,500,000 will be spent in Australia, and the balance in buying various equipment, some of which is not available here and some of which is available, but at prices far in advance of what is thought to be reasonable. Progress reported. Senate adjourned at 10.36 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 8 June 1926, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1926/19260608_senate_10_113/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant

Senate 8 June 1926

QUESTION

FEDERAL CAPITAL TERRITORY

Senator DUNCAN:NEW SOUTH WALES

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

PAPERS

ASSENT TO BILLS

QUESTION

KIDMAN-MAYOH SHIPBUILDING CONTRACT

Senator NEEDHAM:WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator PEARCE:NAT

QUESTION

EXPORT OF BUTTER TO CANADA

Senator NEEDHAM:

Senator CRAWFORD:Honorary Minister · QUEENSLAND · NAT

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH CLOTHING FACTORY

Senator NEEDHAM:

Senator CRAWFORD:NAT

CUSTOMS TARIFF BILL

Senator CRAWFORD:QueenslandHonorary Minister · NAT

Senator LYNCH:Western Australia

Senator McLachlan:

Senator LYNCH:

Senator Drake-Brockman:

Senator LYNCH:

Senator Crawford:

Senator Thompson:

Senator LYNCH:

Senator Ogden:

Senator LYNCH:

Senator Grant:

Senator LYNCH:

Senator Findley:

Senator LYNCH:

Senator Ogden:

Senator LYNCH:

Senator Ogden:

Senator LYNCH:

Senator DUNCAN:New South Wales

Senator Ogden:

Senator DUNCAN:

Senator Thompson:

Senator DUNCAN:

Senator Thompson:

Senator Sir Thomas Glasgow:

Senator Thompson:

Senator DUNCAN:

Senator Thompson:

Senator Crawford:

Senator DUNCAN:

Senator THOMPSON:Queensland

Senator Crawford:

Senator THOMPSON:

Senator OGDEN:Tasmania

Senator Duncan:

Senator CRAWFORD:QueenslandHonorary Minister · NAT

Senator LYNCH:Western Australia

Senator Ogden:

Senator LYNCH:

Senator CRAWFORD:QueenslandHonorary Minister · NAT

Senator McLachlan:

Senator CRAWFORD:

Senator ELLIOTT:Victoria

Senator Ogden:

Senator ELLIOTT:

Senator DUNCAN:New South Wales

Senator Payne:

Senator DUNCAN:

Senator Thompson:

Senator DUNCAN:

Senator CRAWFORD:QueenslandHonorary Minister · NAT

Senator Duncan:

Senator CRAWFORD:

Senator DUNCAN:New South Wales

Senator Crawford:

Senator DUNCAN:

Senator LYNCH:Western Australia

Senator Payne:

Senator LYNCH:

Senate
8 June 1926

Senator DUNCAN:
NEW SOUTH WALES

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

Senator NEEDHAM:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator PEARCE:
NAT

Senator CRAWFORD:
Honorary Minister · QUEENSLAND · NAT

Senator CRAWFORD:
NAT

Senator CRAWFORD:
QueenslandHonorary Minister · NAT

Senator LYNCH:
Western Australia

Senator DUNCAN:
New South Wales

Senator THOMPSON:
Queensland

Senator OGDEN:
Tasmania

Senator CRAWFORD:
QueenslandHonorary Minister · NAT

Senator LYNCH:
Western Australia

Senator CRAWFORD:
QueenslandHonorary Minister · NAT

Senator ELLIOTT:
Victoria

Senator DUNCAN:
New South Wales

Senator CRAWFORD:
QueenslandHonorary Minister · NAT

Senator DUNCAN:
New South Wales

Senator LYNCH:
Western Australia

Senator PAYNE:
Tasmania

Senator CRAWFORD:
QueenslandHonorary Minister · NAT

Senator THOMPSON:
Queensland

Senator LYNCH:
Western Australia

Senator NEEDHAM:
Western Aus tralia

The CHAIRMAN (Senator Newlands:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Senator NEEDHAM:
tralia · Western Aus

Senator CRAWFORD:
QueenslandHonorary Minister · NAT

Senator LYNCH:
Western Australia

Senator KINGSMILL:
Western Australia

Senator PAYNE:
Tasmania

Senator McLACHLAN:
South Australia

Senator McLACHLAN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · NAT

Senator McLACHLAN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · NAT

Senator J B HAYES:
Tasmania

Senator REID:
Queensland