Note: Where available, the PDF/Word icon below is provided to view the complete and fully formatted document
 Download Full Day's HansardDownload Full Day's Hansard    View Or Save XMLView/Save XML

Previous Fragment    Next Fragment
Tuesday, 22 November 1910

Senator LYNCH (Western Australia) . - It is quite plain that this particular item, if adopted, will have the effect of bringing in revenue whilst affording no assistance either to an established or a prospective industry. In this item it is proposed to draw a sharp distinction between lace flouncings 18 inches in width and lace flouncings of a lesser width. What is the object of distinguishing between these flouncings? To flouncings 18 inches wide it is proposed to give a protection of 10 per cent, and 15 per cent., and to flouncings of less than that width of 25 per cent, and 20 per cent.

Senator E J RUSSELL (VICTORIA) - If flouncings are less than 18 inches in width they will be imported as piece goods.

Senator LYNCH - That is all the more reason why we should leave this item severely alone. If we are going to amend the Tariff by rectifying anomalies, we should admit free of duty articles which are not made in the Commonwealth. If we cannot do that we should defer their consideration until such time as we are able to undertake- a comprehensive revision of the Tariff. There are three classes of adornments, namely, lace flouncings, millinery and dress nets, and embroideries, in re spect of which an arbitrary limit of 18 inches in width has been fixed. Why has that limit been adopted ?

Senator Vardon - We have had no explanation of it yet.

Senator LYNCH - Its only, effect will be to impose a duty upon a particular class of article without the compensating advantage of establishing an industry in this country. The adoption of the item will certainly destroy that margin of protection which is already given to the manufacturers of the article itself. I shall oppose the item.

Suggest corrections