Note: Where available, the PDF/Word icon below is provided to view the complete and fully formatted document
Wednesday, 16 November 1921

Senator PAYNE (Tasmania) .- The statement made by the Minister (Senator E. D. Millen) would be perfectly correct if the proposal made by me, which was accepted by the Senate and rejected by the House of Eepresentatives, was to remove the duty from this particular article. I have not sought to remove the duty. My amendment was that a duty of 45 per cent., general Tariff, should be imposed. Consequently the Minister's criticism can carry no weight at all. The Senate has been told, time after time, that when a certain date arrives the duty on a certain item will be imposed if the Tariff Board reports to the Minister and to Parliament that the industry can supply the requirements of the people. I proposed a duty of 45 per cent. general Tariff, as against the original proposal of 55 per cent. Yet the Minister replies in his criticism as though I was not in favour of any protection.

Senator E D MILLEN (NEW SOUTH WALES) - You said that I was unfair when I mentioned the lower duty. I say that you are equally unfair when you speak of 45 per cent. general Tariff without making reference to the British preferential Tariff.

Senator PAYNE - I said that because, in a previous item, the Minister had particularly left out of a statement the fact that under the general Tariff a higher duty was proposed than that adopted.

Senator E D MILLEN (NEW SOUTH WALES) - And the honorable senator is leaving out of his statement the fact that a lower duty than the 45 per cent. general Tariff is proposed.

Suggest corrections