Note: Where available, the PDF/Word icon below is provided to view the complete and fully formatted document
Thursday, 3 June 1926


Senator LYNCH (Western Australia) . - Apparently we have now reached that position when anything proposed by the Government and slavishly supported, as in this instance, by the Opposition, will be adopted. We should not, however, go so far as to impose an unnecessarily high duty on a garment, a sample of which Senator Payne produced, merely because the neck band contains about as much silk as would be sufficient to secure the bandage on an injured finger. I do not think there is even a half a yard of binding in the neck-band


Senator Payne - And there is no silk in the fabric of the garment.


Senator LYNCH - No; but because of this neck binding it is saddled with an extra1s. 6d. in duty. If silk is woven into the texture of the fabric the garment should be dutiable at the higher rate, but when there is only a small proportion of silk in the binding it should be admitted at the lower duty.

This is protection running stark, staring mad. As Senator H. Hays stated, this sub-item could be interpreted in such a way that heavier duties could be imposed on cotton garments, because the buttons on them were sewn on with silk thread. By a subterfuge, the users of these goods are being saddled with an excessive duty, to which I object.







Suggest corrections