Symon, Sir Josiah Pulsford, E. Chataway, T. D. Dobson, H. ... AYES. ... 9 15 Neild, Colonel NOES. Pearce, G. F. Russell, E. J. Russell, W. Stewart, J. C. Story, W. H. Turley, H. Teller: Henderson, G. PAIRS. 6 Keating, J. H. Givens, T. Guthrie, R. S. Trenwith, W. A. Question so resolved in the negative. Request negatived. Senator MILLEN (New South Wales) [8.0].-Paragraph в of item 160 embraces the bulk of the machinery covered by the item. I wish to ask the attention of honorable senators, and particularly of the Minister, to a case which represents not merely a hardship but an absurdity. Whilst I am not prepared to say that the difficulty indicated can be met by an alteration of the duty, or by the insertion of a new item, it certainly calls for some action. The position is this: Item 160 covers all marine engines, and as the Customs Act stands and is administered serious detriment may be done to the shipbuilding industry of the Commonwealth. I do not propose to state an imaginary case, be se I have letters here which have passed between the Customs Department and a Mr. Roberts, of Sydney, which show that what I am about to refer to has actually occurred. Briefly, Mr. Roberts by correspondence with the Customs Department has ascertained that if he desires to build a ship in Sydney and imports marine engines to put into it, he must pay duty upon them, but if he chooses to import them in bond, and sends his vessel fitted with the bonded engines to New Zealand, he is able to secure a refund of the duty should the vessel go outside of the territorial waters of the Commonwealth, and he can then return with his vessel .and re-introduce the machinery duty free. It is unnecessary that I should read the whole of this correspondence, but it is at the disposal of the Minister if he cares to peruse it. The absurdity of the position becomes only the more obvious when it is explained that if the ship were built in New Zealand, and were then brought here to ply in Australian waters, the machinery would be admitted absolutely free of duty. Senator TURLEY.-That difficulty was represented long ago. Senator MILLEN. Senator Turley says that this matter was discovered before, and I am aware that very few matters have escaped the honorable senator's notice. Senator TURLEY.- A deputation of employés in the shipbuilding trade referred to the difficulty. Senator MILLEN.-I am quite sure that such a practice as that to which I have directed attention is too absurd to meet with the approval of a deliberative assembly such as the Senate. If machinery in a vessel constructed outside of Australia can be brought here for use in Australian waters without paying duty, there is no earthly reason why a man who builds a ship in Australia should be compelled to pay duty on the machinery he puts into it. I do not suggest that the difficulty is one which can be remedied by an amendment of this Tariff. We might admit free of duty all machinery required in the shipbuilding industry of the Commonwealth, or we might place some impost on ships and engines coming here from elsewhere. I need not point out to honorable senators which of these alternatives I should favour, but the absurdity of the present position is so pronounced that I feel sure the Government will themselves endeavour to find a remedy for it. Passing from that matter to the item itself, I think some measure of relief might be secured if the suggestion I intend to submit a similar request with I intend to make is adopted. In con- respect to other items dealing with manexion with all these items, in common I chinery. suppose with other honorable senators, I labour under the difficulty that I do not know all the machinery they cover. They are so vaguely worded that I suppose no one but an expert familiar with the decisions of the Customs Department could determine what particular engines or machinery are included under each heading. My task in dealing with this portion of the Tariff is rendered still more difficult by a lack of knowledge as to the machinery which is at present made in Australia not merely for exhibition purposes, but in a commercial sense. As a rough-and-ready way out of these difficulties, I submit that all these duties on machinery should be fixed at the rates adopted in the 1902 Tariff. I have to admit that if it were possible to classify the machinery which can be made here, and that which is not made here, it might be well to impose higher duties than those fixed by the 1902 Tariff on the machinery that can be made here, and to extend the free list to cover all the machinery that is not made here. However, I am not competent to suggest what machinery should be included in the free list, and, in the circumstances, I am concerned only to keep these duties down to what they were in the 1902 Tariff. Senator TURLEY.-And as much below as possible. Senator MILLEN.-I am not asking that. Senator TURLEY.-Not on this particular item. Senator MILLEN.-Nor do I intend personally to suggest that any lower duty than that imposed by the 1902 Tariff should be attached to any of these machinery items. I am asked by the Government to consent, not merely to increased duties upon machinery that is actually made and sold here, but upon machinery that is not made in Australia. It is all very well to say that certain machinery can, and will, be made in Australia, but my answer is that it is not being made here. One class of machinery has already been freed from duty as a result of the patriotic endeavours of Western Australian protectionists. I move That the House of Representatives be requested to make the duty on item 160, paragraph B (imports under General Tariff), 12 per cent. Senator BEST (Victoria-Vice-President of the Executive Council) [8.7].-Senator Millen has referred to what he has described as an absurdity arising from the present administration of the Customs Act. He has said that if machinery is imported and put into a ship built here, if the ship remains in the territorial waters of the Commonwealth, the machinery is liable to duty, but if the ship leaves those waters a refund of the duty is made. I point out that, in this respect there is no difference between marine engines and land engines. If a land engine is brought here, and left in bond, and is then sent away to another place, a drawback is allowed duty in the case of the marine engine. which is equivalent to the refund of the Senator McGREGOR.-But if the land engine is brought back here it is charged duty again. Senator BEST.-Undoubtedly. Senator MILLEN. The correspondence to which I have referred shows that that is not done in the case of marine engines. My point is that if a marine engine is taken out of the territorial waters of the Commonwealth a refund of the duty is allowed, and if brought back under its own steam it is re-admitted without the payment of any duty. Senator BEST.-There might be something in that. Senator MILLEN.-That is the whole point. Senator BEST.-That may be, but we do not require a steam hammer to break a nut. Senator TURLEY.-The machinery in all ships coming here from outside the Commonwealth to engage in our coastal trade is admitted duty free. Senator MILLEN.-But that is injurious to our ship-building trade. Senator TURLEY.-I admit that. Senator NEEDHAM.-Why not impose a tax on imported ships? Senator BEST.-The honorable senator's interjection opens up a big question which I hope we shall not waste time in discussing at this stage. Senator Millen, in accordance with his fiscal beliefs, wishes to have all these duties reduced. I point out that the protectionist section of the this re a more Tariff Commission recommended that the commended a duty of 25 per cent. machinery included in this item should on the machinery included in be dutiable at 25 per cent.; the free- item, it is equally true that the trade section recommended a duty of ΙΟ free-trade section of the Commission per cent., and we are asking for a duty commended a duty of only 10 per cent. of 20 per cent.. which is lower than the If the Government had strictly adhered to recommendation of the protectionist section the recommendations of the protectionist of the Commission. Nearly, if not ab- section of the Tariff Commission throughsolutely all, the machinery included under out we could have recognised an attempt the n.e.i. provision of this item is made to reconstruct the Tariff upon here, and a duty of 20 per cent. repre- equitable basis than we can expect will sents only a fair and reasonable protection result from the various departures from to the local industry. I urge that if there those recommendations which Ministers is any machinery included in this n.e.i. have themselves proposed from time to provision, which is not actually being made time. I urge upon honorable senators that here at the present time, there is no rea- 12 per cent. should afford ample protecson why it should not be made here in tion to the manufacturers of motive power the very near future. In the circum- machinery and appliances. It should be stances, I think 20 per cent. a most rea- borne in mind that the owner of every sonable duty to impose, and I hope the mill in the country who requires an engine Committee will agree to it. or machinery will have to pay duty at the rate of 20 per cent. ad valorem if this n.e.i. provision is agreed to at the duty proposed. Earlier this afternoon we decided that the duty proposed upon a certain form of motive power should be reduced, but our request was limited in its application to a motive power which is rot likely soon to become universally applicable to the various industries of the Commonwealth, and it will not apply to the ordinary engines, boilers, and machinery used by people in way of business who go to great expense in providing themwith regard to the building of ships in selves with first class appliences. But Senator Lt.-Colonel GOULD (New South Wales) [8.11].-I remind honorable senators that the Tariff with which we are of 1902. now dealing is very different from that ap one a small are unable to the Commonwealth, it is, and has for a long time been, a matter of great dissatisfaction that if a steam-ship is built in any of the States, and machinery is imported for the purpose, that machinerv cannot be put into the vessel without paying heavy duty; but if the builders go to the trouble of having the hull towed away to New Zealand or somewhere outside Commonwealth waters, they are able to put their engines into the ship, and she can steam back into port without paying any duty whatever. We ought to encourage the ship-building industry as much as we can. If we are to encourage it, we must not interfere with the opportunities of ship-builders to construct their vessels on the most reasonable terms. Senator MCGREGOR.-They can be fitted in our ports and evade payment of duty. Senator Lt.-Colonel GOULD.-But how has that to be done? Senator KEATING.-Make the machinery induce people to have their ships built in here. other parts of the world, when they might very well be built in Australia. Senator Lt.-Colonel GOULD.-But I ask the honorable senator whether it is possible, under the law as it stands, to bring into this country steam engines and put them in the hulls of ships built here, and escape payment of duty? The honorable senator knows that that cannot be done. Senator KEATING.-I say, let the machinery be constructed here. Senator MCGREGOR.-The machinery can be made at Mort's Dock Senator Lt.-Colonel GOULD.-Mort's Dock themselves import the machinery for many of the vessels which they turn out. I have already said that while I have the highest possible opinion of the ability of our own people to manufacture, yet they have not the opportunities to manufacture at the same cheap rates and to make the same classes of machinery as have people in the Old World, where there is an immense demand for the machines manufactured. Senator MCGREGOR.-Up-to-date machinery can be made in some of our engineering shops, just as well as in any shops in the world. Senator Lt.-Colonel GOULD.-I know that there is in some of our engineering shops up-to-date machinery that has been imported from the Old Country. In our great railway workshops, there is no doubt some of the best machinery obtainable. But that has all been imported from the Old Country, and is used to turn out work that can be done here on satisfactory and remunerative terms. I urge that in a Tariff of this description, we ought to keep the duties as low as possible on such articles as high-class machinery. If we kept them down to 12 per cent., no Australian firms would be injured, and at the same time we should give the people engaged in other industries, and in manufacturing enterprises, where high-class machinery is required, opportunities for doing their work which they will not have under high duties. We have heard a great deal from honorable senators representing mining communities about the necessity for reducing the duties on mining machinery. I ask them to bear in mind the requirements of the ship-building industry of this country, and not to do anything that will penalize it. We certainly ought not to adopt a policy that will The Senator ST. LEDGER (Queensland) [8.20]. This n.e.i. provision of item 160 is certainly, as Senator Millen characterized it, a very drastic drag-net impost. Minister has said that he would like to preserve some similarity between the 1902 Tariff in regard to machinery and the Tariff under consideration. But, although there were many provisions for the free importation of machinery under the 1902 Tariff, I must say that I have scanned the machinery items in this Tariff pretty carefully, and have not noticed that provision is made for the free importation of many engines required for motive power. From item 160 almost down to the end of the division, with the exception of electrical machinery, dynamos, and other machines of that kind, there is, as far as I can see, no special exemption. That confirms me in the suspicion that this drag-net item is designed in such a way that even if the Government desired that a large proportion of imported machinery should come in free, it would probably be found that the Minister of Trade and Customs was tied up, and unable to permit the free inportation of such machinery. I hope the Committee will pause before committing what appears to me to be a grave mistake. Upon a preceding item honorable senators holding divergent fiscal views spoke from a common stand-point as to the necessity of permitting the development of the mining industry by means of the easy importation of necessary machinery. We succeeded in a division in overwhelmingly defeating the Government on that question. The reason was because of the powerful appeal made to the Committee as to the necessity for the free admission of such machinery. Now this drag-net item has a very dangerous appearance, to my mind. The more carefully it is considered, the more dangerous it seems to be. By what appears to be a peculiar process of reasoning, some of those honorable senators who voted previously to free machinery required for our industries important support this drag-net item. now The CHAIRMAN.-The honorable senator is not in order in discussing a previous item. Senator ST. LEDGER.—I point out that our industries cannot develop unless machinery is applied to the resources of the country. Many of our manufacturing some definite information as to the ground at hundreds of thousands of pounds. There are honorable senators on this side of the Chamber who desire to give some assistance to ironfounders as well as to other manufacturers, but who wish to have Senator St. Ledger. Question-That the House of Representatives be requested to make the duty on item 160, paragraph B," Motive Power Machinery (imports under General Tariff), ad val. 12 per cent. (Senator MILLEN's request)-put. The Committee divided. Aves ... Majority Gould, Lt.-Colonel Best, R. W. Symon, Sir Josiah AYES. ... Neild, Colonel 96 16 7 St. Ledger, A. J. Teller: Clemons, J. S. NOES. Pearce, G. F. Russell, E. J. Russell, W. Teller: Needham, E. |