House of Representatives
11 September 1901

1^st Parliament · 1^st Session

PETITIONS
HANSARD
QUESTION
- DEPUTY POSTMASTER-GENERAL OUTTRIM
QUESTION
- IMMIGRATION OF AFGHANS
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
QUESTION
- EXEMPT KANAKAS IN QUEENSLAND
QUESTION
- PUBLIC SERVANTS’ INCREMENTS
QUESTION
- TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY SURVEY
QUESTION
- TELEGRAPHIC COMMUNICATION WITH TARCOOLA
PAPER
DISTILLATION BILL
ADJOURNMENT
- Commandantof New South Wales Defence Force

Mr. Speaker took the chair at 2 p.m., and read prayers.

ATTEMPTED ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT McKINLEY.

Mr. SPEAKER. - I have to announce to the House that yesterday I forwarded the following telegram to His Excellency the Governor-General, for transmission to the Secretary of State for the Colonies, with the request that His Majesty the King would cause it to be communicated to the Government of the United States : -

For the House of Representatives of the Commonwealth of Australia I desire to express the utmost indignation at the attack on President McKinley, and the earnest hope that his life may he spared to his family and the nation.

F. W. Holder, Speaker.

I have received a letter from the Private Secretary to the Governor-General stating that His Excellency had transmitted the telegram as requested.

Mr. BARTON (Hunter- Minister for External Affairs). - I wish to express the concurrence of the Government, and, I hope, of honorable members, in the course which you, sir, have taken. As tho attack upon President McKinley was made known to us last Saturday, and the House meets for the first time since then to-day, it would not have been proper to allow so long an interval to elapse without some expression of the sympathy of this Parliament with the great Republic of the United States in the terrible attack which has been made upon a man who has always been distinguished for his sympathy with popular rights and the aspirations of his own great nation. 1 think the House will relieve me from the necessity of putting myself in order by concluding with amotion ; but I may add that I hope that, long before any possible prorogation, we shall be able to express by resolution our congratulations to the President of the United States upon his complete recovery.

Sir WILLIAM McMILLAN (Wentworth). - I think that all parties in this House will indorse most cordially your prompt action, Mr. Speaker, in sending this message of condolence, and expressing our horror and regret at the fearful crime which has been attempted upon one of the greatest men in civilized countries to-day. I am sure we are heartily thankful that there is every hope of his recovery, and we pray that that hope may be realized.

page 4703

PETITIONS

Mr. GLYNN presented a petition, signed by 30 residents of the Commonwealth, praying that a federal project for conserving the waters and improving the navigability of the rivers may be carried out.

Petition received.

Mr. KINGSTON presented a petition, signed by 542 persons, praying that the retail liquor trade of the federal capital may be carried on by the Federal Government.

Petition received, and read.

Mr. A. McLEAN presented a petition from residents of Morwell, another from residents of Stratford, and a third from residents of Stratford, Valencia Creek, and Briagolong, praying that clauses 54 and 55 of the Post and Telegraph Bill may be retained.

Mr. A. McLEAN, on behalf of Mr. A. C. Groom, presented a similar petition from residents of Frankston and Langwarrin.

Mr. WINTER COOKE presented a similar petition from residents of Portland.

Petitions received.

page 4703

HANSARD

publication of friday’s debates.

Sir WILLIAM McMILLAN:
Wentworth

– I should like to draw the attention of the Prime Minister to the fact that the Hansard report of Friday’s debates does not become available until the end of the following week. Last Friday there was a very important debate upon the second reading of the Immigration Restriction Bill, but the Hansard report of it will not be in the hands of honorable members until the end of this week, and in the meantime we shall have to continue the discussion without it. I know that the difficulty has arisen because each member is supposed to correct the proof of his speech, and as most honorable members leave Melbourne on Friday night, they are unable to make their corrections until they return. I think, however, that it would be almost better to drop the practice of correcting speeches than to allow a week to elapse before the publication of the debates, especially as there is no proper report of the speeches in the daily press.

Mr BARTON:
Minister for External Affairs · Hunter · Protectionist

– I am obliged to my honorable friend for calling attention to this matter. The change in the original practice was adopted by the heads of the two Houses, with a view to facilitating the receipt of proofs of their speeches by honorable members, and perhaps, until we made Friday a Government day, the system did not work badly. I am sure, however, that the President and Mr. Speaker will take into consideration the representation which the honorable member has made. While not venturing to trespass upon their functions in a matter which I leave entirely in their hands, I should like to have it taken into consideration whether it would not be possible to issue the weekly number of Hansard on Mondays, so that it might be in the hands of honorable members in at least three of the States on the day before the resumption of business for the current week. If that can be done, I think it will be an improvement, though I am sure none of us wish to interfere with your functions, sir, or with those of the President.

Sir William McMillan:

– I apologize, sir, for my inadvertency in not addressing my remarks to you in reference to this matter.

Mr SPEAKER:

– There are two courses which may be followed in regard to this matter. One is the publication of Hansard, including Friday’s debates, on Monday, but that will involve delaying the circulation of the report of Tuesday’s, Wednesday’s, and Thursday’s proceedings for three days longer than at present.

Mr McDonald:

– That will be very inconvenient for the Queensland mails.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The other course would be for honorable members to relinquish their right to correct Friday’s speeches. If they are prepared to give up that right, there is no reason why the whole of the week’s report should not be completed in time for the issue of the Ilansard on Saturday. I shall be glad if honorable members will assist me in coming to a conclusion by making known to me during the afternoon their views on the matter.

Mr Barton:

– I will begin by saying that I do not want to correct any of my speeches.

page 4704

QUESTION

DEPUTY POSTMASTER-GENERAL OUTTRIM

Mr O’MALLEY:
TASMANIA, TASMANIA

– I wish to know from the Prime Minister what action the Government has taken in regard to the complaint of Deputy Postmaster-General Outtrim against political patronage, and the irregular recognition by the Minister of the grievances of employes of the service ? Will the right honorable gentleman lay upon the table any correspondence that he has in regard to the matter 1

Mr BARTON:
Protectionist

– The whole of the action taken is expressed in a few papers, which, at the request of the honorable member, I will lay upon the table of the House tomorrow. I cannot obtain them sooner.

Sir WILLIAM McMILLAN:

– Does the Prime Minister intend to make any statement to the House in regard to the very remarkable action of Mr. Outtrim in giving to the press certain information connected with the public service ?

Mr BARTON:

– The honorable member is virtually asking me to express an .opinion, and I do not know that I can do that now ; but, if the House will forgive me for going beyond the usual limits of an answer to a question, I will say that I consider that a high official should set an example of discipline. If he has to complain of breaches of discipline in the communication of matters to outside sources - whether to the press or to members of this House - it is his duty to refrain from a similar breach in trying to bring about any reform that he may think desirable. It is his duty primarily to deal with his official superiors, including his Minister, before he resorts to interviews with the press.

Sir William McMillan:

– It was a most disloyal action.

Mr BARTON:

– I shall say no more on the subject now, because of the promise I have just made to lay the papers upon the table to-morrow.

page 4704

QUESTION

IMMIGRATION OF AFGHANS

Mr MCDONALD:

– I desire to ask the Prime Minister if his attention has been directed to a telegram from Perth, Western Australia, to the effect that a further batch of 47 Afghans are on their way to Melbourne on the French mail steamer Tonkin I Will he take the necessary steps to prevent their landing ?

Mr BARTON:
Protectionist

– The necessary action has already been taken in that case.

page 4704

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

Mr GLYNN:
South Australia

– With the permission of the House I should like to make a personal explanation. Speaking on Friday, on the second reading of the Immigration Restriction Bill, I said -

On the whole, the number of Chinese amongst us is gradually declining, and I do not believe there are 12,000 in the whole of the States as against 45,000 in 1859.

What I intended to say was about 12,000 in “Victoria now, as against 45,000 in the whole of the States in 1859, and 43,000 in Victoria in 1859. I made an explanation immediately after resuming my seat, but I thought that as a matter of courtesy to the House I should remove all possible apprehension by this further statement this afternoon.

page 4704

QUESTION

EXEMPT KANAKAS IN QUEENSLAND

Mr BAMFORD:
HERBERT, QUEENSLAND

– I would like to ask the Prime Minister a question with reference to the return relating to exempt kanakas in’ Queensland, which on 14th J une was ordered to be laid on the table. I may be wrong, but I thought that a couple of days would allow ample time for furnishing the return, and yet up to the present we have seen nothing of it. I would like to know when it will be laid on the table, because I understand that we shall soon becalled upon to deal with the Pacific Islanders Bill, and it was with the object of gaining information relating to the subject of that measure that I moved in the matter.

Mr BARTON:
Protectionist

– My attention was invited to this matter before the meeting of the House. I can say frankly that I was not aware of the delay that had occurred, and I gave directions before the House met that the return should be expedited and laid before honorable members as soon as possible.

page 4705

QUESTION

PUBLIC SERVANTS’ INCREMENTS

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice -

Whether he has read the utterance of the State Premier of New South Wales to the effect that a new regulation has been issued restoring the increments to certain public servants from £10 to £15 per annum ?
Whether he will see that the transferred officers concerned also receive the increments from the date of their transfer ?

Mr BARTON:
Protectionist

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

I have not read the utterance referred to, but will procure particulars of the regulation.
I will make inquiry as to the number of transferred officers affected and the amount involved, and upon receipt of the information will give the matter full consideration. It may be stated that transferred officers are not, as a rule, affected by State laws or regulations passed subsequent to the date of their transfer.

page 4705

QUESTION

TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY SURVEY

Mr KIRWAN:
KALGOORLIE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice -

Whether any information has been obtained as to the present whereabouts and the work done by the surveyparties that are now examining the country intervening between the railway systems of South and Western Australia ?
Whether the right honorable the Prime Minister will lay before the House any such information as has been or can be obtained 1

Mr BARTON:
Protectionist

– The answers to the honorable member’s questions are as follows : - 1 and 2. I have been promised information on these subjects as the reports are received, and shall be glad to make any such information the property of Parliament.

page 4705

QUESTION

TELEGRAPHIC COMMUNICATION WITH TARCOOLA

Sir LANGDON BONYTHON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister representing the PostmasterGeneral, upon notice -

Whether the latter is now prepared to extend telegraphic communication to Tarcoola, seeing that the Government of South Australia have stated their readiness, on behalf of the Commonwealth, to undertake the construction of the line ?

Mr BARTON:
Protectionist

– The answer to the honorable member’s question is as follows : -

The Postmaster-General is not prepared to at once extend telegraphic communication to Tarcoola, but such extension will be considered when money is available. To accept the assistance of the State Governments generally in the execution of works to be charged against the Government of the Commonwealth would be undesirable on many grounds.

page 4705

PAPER

The PRIME MINISTER laid on the table the following paper : -

Correspondence re introduction of Japanese into the Northern Territory, received from South Australia-

Ordered to be printed.

– The conditions which the vignerons will have to observe are practically those attaching to a general spiritmaker’s licence. The distinction is that as they are allowed to distil so far as material is concerned only from a specified material, the growth of which in Australia we have every desire to encourage, they shall pay a lesser fee than that imposed for a general distiller’s licence, but not so small a one as that payable in respect of a vigneron’s licence. I propose to subdivide paragraph (a) into two parts. The first part will read - .

Spirit-Duikers’ licences (1) general licences, authorizing the licensees to distil spirits from any material.

The second portion will read -

Brandy-makers’ licences authorizing the licensee to distil spirits from wine or lees of wine.

Mr Watson:

– Does that allow of distillation from skins 1

Mr KINGSTON:

– I intend to introduce an alteration into the interpretation clause, including in lees the grapes, so as to avoid all doubt on tine subject. I am sure honorable members will see that it was the intention of the Government to have all the proposed amendments before them.

Mr McColl:

– I was never treated by a Government in this way before.

Mr KINGSTON:

– I am very sorry. If I had been able to carry out what I wished, the honorable member would not be in a difficulty, but under the circumstances which I have already explained, I am sure that his sympathy with the adoption of legislation on desired lines will induce him to hesitate in pressing his objection further* I move -

That after the words “ spirit-makers’ licences,” in paragraph (ti), the words “ (1) general licences “ be inserted.

Sir JOHN QUICK (Bendigo).- This proposal meets one of the principal objections urged by the deputation which waited on the Minister some time ago, and to that extent it is satisfactory. At the same time, it is desirable that we should have some idea of the conditions to be annexed to this .£25 licence. As the Minister is aware, the recent deputation suggested that the still and the plant which the holder of these intermediate licences are required to possess should not be so great, extensive, or expensive as those required of the holders of the £50 licences. The Minister has not given any indication of his opinion in regard to this matter. I hope that he will be able to propose less stringent conditions in regard to plant, still, &c, than those required under the .£50 licence. As a matter of nomenclature I believe the term “ wine distillers’ licences “ would be preferable to that of “ brandy-makers’ licences.” The former was the term suggested by the deputation.

Mr. McCOLL (Echuca). - We have no objection to the amendment so far as it goes. At the same time I object to the Minister charging us with a desire to delay the Bill. The deputation, which has already been referred to, waited upon the Minister on Thursday last, so that, there have been six days in which to prepare the amendments. Now, however, we are told they are in the hands of the printer. I do not think that this is acting fairly to honorable members. It is not fair to ask honorable members to proceed with the discussion of amendments which they have not had time to consider. I think that the amendment, so far as it goes, can be agreed to with the addition of the change suggested by the honorable and learned member for Bendigo. The conditions attaching to these licences should, however, be embodied in the schedule. In answer to the honorable member for Wentworth the Minister said that the brandy-maker’s licence was only in force in Victoria. I wish to point out that it was in force in Victoria under a £10 fee, and it was virtually in force in New South Wales under a £1 fee and £1 for stamp duty. In New South Wales the vignerons had the privilege of distilling their wines into spirits for the purpose of fortifying their wines, and also of distilling for the purposes of sale. They could also fortify for sale, for home consumption or exportation, by putting the wine in bond, receiving. it from bond, and paying the duty whenever they required to sell it. I would point out that there is a very great difference between £10, £1, and £25. There was no agreement arrived at by the conference, which was held recently, as to a £25 licence-fee. I think that a £25 licence-fee is altogether too high, but that matter, I presume, can be discussed upon the schedule. I think that we ought to substitute the term “ wine distillers “ for “brandy-makers.”

Mr KINGSTON:

– I hasten to reassure the honorable member that I never suggested that any honorable member was trying to delay the passage of the Bill. The honorable member for Echuca has said that the Government ought to have been more prepared than we are. Our time is pretty well engaged one way or the other, and I think that the committee will sympathize with us in the matter. In talking about the sum to be charged, and in suggesting that in New South Wales distillers possess additional privileges to those pOSsessed by distillers here, I think the honorable member was altogether wrong. I think so for two reasons. The first is that I do not know where in New South Wales any preference is given for the encouragement of local distillers. I know that they have not a single distillery there.

Mr MCCOLL:

– They have vignerons’ distilleries.

Mr KINGSTON:

Amendment agreed to.

– How does the Minister propose to discriminate, seeing that the stills used for distilling water and for distilling spirits, are exactly the same? I know a case in which a chemist was in possession of an old still for years, and did not know what it was. I do not know what the Government can do, unless they make every one who has a still register it ; if a still be used legitimately, there will be no difficulty in registering.

Mr. HARPER (Mernda). - I think registration is absolutely necessary for the protection of the excise. In “Victoria, a bond, under a heavy penalty, has to be given to the Customs department by the owners of these stills, as a guarantee that they will not be used for any purposes such as the making of spirits or any other dutiable article. In this way the purpose for which the still is to be used is clearly and definitely stated, and the proprietor has no right to use it other than for that specific purpose.

Mr. McDONALD (Kennedy). - In clause 73 it is provided that -

No person shall - (1) Use or unlawfully have in his possession or custody, or under his control, or upon his premises, any illicit still.

A man might have a still on his premises for the distillation of water, and under this Bill he would be distinctly liable. . I understand that the Minister for Trade and Customs intends to deal with this point.

Mr V L SOLOMON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · FT

– I would call the attention of the Minister in charge of the Bill to clause 10, and ask him to read it in conjunction with the definition clause, which describes a still as -

Any apparatus for or capable of distilling spirits.

In some of the States, notably South Australia, stills are licensed for the distillation of eucalyptus oil. Such stills are equally fitted for the distillation of spirits. I would ask the Minister to look into this point, and determine whether in making such a provision we do not clash with local legislation with regard to the distillation of eucalyptus oil.

Mr Harper:

– Stills are used for many other purposes.

Mr V L SOLOMON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · FT

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Postponed clause 28 -

Every distiller shall provide in connexion with his distillery reasonable office accommodation for the supervising officer, and where the distillery is distant more than two miles from a licensed public-house, board and lodging for the officer in each case to the satisfaction of the collector.

Penalty : £50.

Mr. McCOLL (Echuca). - There are some amendments proposed in previous clauses. I would ask the Minister whether he intends to recommit those clauses subsequently ?

Mr KINGSTON:

– Yes ; but I shall have to take the schedule first. Under this clause we come to a matter which we debated at some length - namely, what is the duty of the distiller in regard to the provision of accommodation. A suggestion was made from the other side of the committee, and what we propose to do is this. We propose to strike out the arbitrary definition of the circumstances under which a distiller shall be called upon to provide accommodation, and to make the clause read that accommodation shall be provided when required by the collector. I propose afterwards to introduce a clause providing that any person providing board and lodging pursuant to the request of the collector shall be entitled to fair remuneration therefor, at suchrates as may be agreed upon or prescribed. I do not like the idea of board and lodging at all. It may be necessary insome cases, but, I hope, very few. I move -

That the words,” where the distillery is distant more than two miles from a licensed public-house, board and lodging for the officer in each case to the satisfaction of the collector,” be omitted, with a view to insert in lieu thereof the words, “ when required by the collector board and lodging for the officer.”

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Postponed clause 41 -

Entries may be made by the distiller, and passed by an officer, and mayauthorize the removal of spirits for -

Home consumption.

Removal to a warehouse.

Exportation.

Mr Batchelor:

– I should like to hear the opinion of the Minister in regard to the proposed amendment of the honorable member for South Australia, Mr. V. L. Solomon.

Mr KINGSTON:

– The reasons of removal which are stated in the honorable member’s amendment are all embraced in. the term “Home consumption.” It will, of course, be a question for consideration in connexion with the Tariff, whether the rates should not be different.

Mr. V. L. SOLOMON (South Australia). - Considering the amount of time which the Minister has taken to look into this question, I am surprised that he has not been better advised by his officers in regard to it. It seems to me absurd to say that the removal of spirits from the bond of a distillery to another place, for the purpose of fortifying wines, is removal for home consumption.

Mr Kennedy:

– Is not the question more a matter for consideration in regard to the rates of duty to be imposed ?

Mr V L SOLOMON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · FT

– This is a machinery Bill which we have been told must be passed before the Tariff can be brought in, and we have therefore a right to provide in it the reasons for which spirit may be removed by the distiller. The clause at present provides for a removal for “home consumption,” “to a warehouse,” and for “ exportation.” I move -

That the following words be added to the clause : - “ (d) For fortifying wines.

The manufacture of vinegar.

Methylation.”

When spirit is removed for home consumption, it means that the moment the entry is passed, and the duty paid, it may be vended by merchants - subject, of course, to the licensing laws of the States - as freely as candles or any other commodity. With regard to the second reason for removal - “ to a warehouse “ - that provides a method for dealing with locally-made spirits precisely in the same way as if they were imported. When dutiable goods are imported, “the merchant either pays duty upon them at once, and they go direct into consumption, or he places them in bond, and the duty is not paid until they are required. The clause finally provides for removal for “ exportation.” It is not to be supposed that the Tariff which is to be brought in will place any duty upon colonially distilled spirits, which are exported to foreign countries, and if we may take the existing State laws as a criterion, the excise duty will be somewhat less than the import duty upon spirits. I take it that the term “home consumption” does not include a removal of spirits for the fortification of wine. Mr. Thomson. - Not unless there is payment of duty.

Mr V L SOLOMON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · FT

– Surely, if duty is to be paid, some distinction will be made between an ordinary “ home consumption “ entry, which will free the spirit absolutely for mercantile trading, and an entry for fortification of wines.

Mr Kingston:

– Of course, there will.

Mr V L SOLOMON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · FT

– I am supported in what I propose, not only by my slight knowledge of Customs work, acquired by following mercantile pursuits during a number of years, but also by the opinions of the wine makers and distillers of South Australia, who say that, in addition to the three purposes mentioned in the clause, removal should be authorised for the three other purposes which I have named. Surely it is reasonable to suppose that spirits may be removed from a distillery for the purpose of fortifying colonial wine without paying duty, as if they were intended for home consumption ?

Mr Glynn:

– Is not this rather a matter for discussion when the Tariff comes up ?

– That would come under regulation, I suppose.

Mr THOMSON:

– That would be a roundabout way of arriving at the same result as the honorable member for South Australia, Mr. Solomon, proposes to bring about by direct means.

Mr. V. L. SOLOMON (South Australia). - The whole object of this clause seems to be to lay down the ‘ conditions under which a distiller may remove spirits from his distillery to other places. In the first place he is permitted to remove spirits to a bonded warehouse, where they will be under Customs control until the excise duty has been paid. In the next place spirits removed for exportation will be under control until they reach the vessel by which they are to be exported, and are entered outward. The term home consumption is undoubtedly meant to cover the action of freeing the spirits from all further control of Customs by the payment of the highest amount of duty provided for. In South Australia the excise duty is 10s. per gallon on spirits for home consumption, but only 6d. or ls. per gallon is paid on spirits to be used foi’ the fortification of wines grown in South Australia. Surely spirits used for the fortification of wine do not come under the term home consumption. The wine-maker may not require even to take his wines out of the bond. Having mixed a certain quantity of spirits in his wines, he may not desire to pay duty on those spirits until such time as he clears the wines out of bond after they are matured, and the term “home consumption” does not cover such a case as that. I am taking up my present position as the result of representations from the wine-makers and distillers of South Australia, who have given it’ as their carefully considered opinion that the Bill requires amendment in the direction I have indicated, and we have just heard from the honorable member for South Australia, Mr. Poynton, that the Victorian wine-makers take exactly the same view. Against these opinions we have that of the Minister for Trade and Customs, who has not had a great experience in regard to distillation or wine-making, but is doubtless relying on the opinions of some of his officers. It seems to me that these two or three extra paragraphs will make the Bill more perfect, and I think that in view of the strong opinions held by those most interested, the committee might well agree to them. I trust that the Minister will see fit to permit of these additions being made. They can do no harm, and I think that the opinion of those honorable members who know most of the trade is entitled to some little consideration.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Postponed clause 52 -

No vigneron’s licence shall be granted to, or held byany person, unless he is the occupier of at least ten acres of vineyard in bearing.

Mr KINGSTON:

– I move-

That the following words be added to the clause : - “or is the proprietor of a winery.”

It has been pointed out that there are persons whose presence is a great advantage to the district in which they are located. These persons buy grapes, make wine, treat it, and do everything that they possibly can for the purpose of turning out a good article. Yet they are not able to obtain the privileges which are granted to the vignerons so long as the issue of vigneron’s licences is confined to persons who have ten acres of vineyard. The amendment will enable a vigneron’s licence to be granted to the proprietor of a winery. We propose to define “ winery “ in the interpretation clause, and we are considerably indebted to the honorable member for Echuca for the suggestions which he put upon the noticepaper, which suggestions we “nave utilized in the preparation of the definition. I am only too delighted to acknowledge our indebtedness.

Mr Watson:

– What is, the legal interpretation of “ winery “ ?

Mr SYDNEY SMITH:
MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT

– If the Minister insists upon an area of ten acres he will exclude a large number of vignerons in the State of New South Wales.

Mr KINGSTON:

– “ Winery “ means an establishment where wine is made from purchased grapes, and where not less than 200 tons of grapes are annually purchased from growers, and which is declared to be a winery by proclamation. I understand that there is a disposition to reduce the area.

Mr Watson:

– There is a very considerable disposition.

Mr KINGSTON:

– When a man having ten acres of vineyard is entitled to the privileges conferred by a vigneron’s licence, ought not a similar privilege to be granted to men who have banded themselves together and established a winery, are purchasing grapes and manufacturing wine ? A winery, I venture to think, is a great boon to any district, and a great advantage to wine-growers particularly. It is something on the lines of the local butter factory. It is infinitely better to have wineries established than to have a lot of little stills dotted all over the place. Where a winery is an establishment of the character referred to, where it is benefiting a district to the extent of purchasing 200 tons of grapes annually, and where any possibility of difficulty can be avoided not only by requiring proof of this, but by limiting the operation of the clause to cases where the winery is declared by proclamation, I think the provision is as safe as safe can be.

Mr. WATSON (Bland).- Before the Minister’s amendment is put, I desire to move -

That the word “ ten “ be omitted, with a view to insert in lieu thereof the word “two.”

In New South Wales at the present time the minimum area necessary to qualify for a vigneron’s licence is 2 acres. Any honorable member can easily see that the sudden jump from 2 to 10 acres as a minimum area practically means ruin to a number who have been encouraged by the State laws to invest their capital, not only in vines, but also in cellars and the necessary plant for wine making. I understand that the Minister suggests his amendment as a way out of the difficulty in regard to the area. I take it that the Minister is putting forward his proposal in regard to a winery with a view to allowing the small area men, where they cannot obtain a vigneron’s licence, owing to the small area which they occupy, to sell their grapes to a winery. I should like to quote an authority, which I think the Minister will respect, namely, Professor Perkins, of South Australia. That gentleman states in an article in the Australian Vigneron of 8th January last -

To-day the grower should be the wine-maker ; his perishable crop should not be under the whip hand of the wine-maker. As soon as the capacity of the wine-maker’s cellar is reached he will not buy, and the grapes rot in the vineyard. These and other ehanges in prevailing conditions put the grower of grapes at his wits’ end to dispose of his crop. In 1895, 350 tons of grapes were wasted, and 250 tons sold at unremunerative prices. One hundred acres of vines were uprooted in one locality alone.

The condition of affairs which obtains in South Australia should be a warning to the Minister in charge of this Bill. In that State the result of existing legislation has been to build up monopolies in regard to wine-growing and spirit licences.

Mr V L SOLOMON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · FT

– It has been highly conducive to a better class of wine.

Mr WATSON:

– It has been highly conducive to the interests of the large companies running the show, but it has not been to the advantage or protection of the small individual who is trying to make a home for himself and his family. There is no one in this House who seeks to perpetuate the evils which have existed in New South Wales. We had a lack of supervision there whichrendered possible evasion of the revenue. There was no proper control by the Customs in regard to the time at which and the places in which spirits were made. But surely the genius of the Minister and his officers can find some way by which, consistently with the issue of licences to distil to small vignerons, we can safeguard the revenue by insuring that they shall distil only in the presence of a Customs officer, and on the payment of a fee which will not be beyond their means. I trust that honorable members will hesitate before they consent to a clause which practically wipes out of existence the small vignerons right through the country districts of New South Wales.

Mr Harper:

– By giving them a greater facility.

Mr WATSON:

– Surely the honorable member has not read the clause. In New South Wales, under the present law, if the vignerons have 2 acres or more of vines, they have a right to distil for fortifying purposes. This clause proposes to place the minimum area at 10 acres. The result of such a provision, if adopted, will be that all those vignerons who possess between 2 acres and 10 acres will have to surrender their stills to the Government. Moreover, these people, having no outlet for their grapes for table purposes, will be compelled to uproot them altogether.

Sir William McMillan:

– How many gallons of wine would be represented by 2 acres ?

Mr.Conroy. - Not more than 400 gallons.

Mr Harper:

– Would it pay to keep a still for that small quantity? Would there not be illicit distillation?

Mr WATSON:

– A large number of them do it. Some of the wine is very good. I quite agree with the honorable member for Mernda that the revenue has to be safeguarded. But are we to confess that it is beyond the inventive genius of the Minister to propound a scheme which will protect the revenue, and at the same time not unduly harass and hamper these people ? I do not know that there is a very large number of vignerons with 2 acres and under. I know, however, that there is a considerable number who have less than 5 acres.

Sir William McMillan:

– Would not the cost of supervision run away with all the revenue ?

Mr WATSON:

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– But the proposal of the Minister will undoubtedly do so. If the proposal does not obliterate the small man altogether, it will bring about a fall in the price of his primary product, or will so hamper him with restrictions as to compel him to abandon his business. That is precisely what we do not want to do. We want to protect the revenue and make the supervision as efficient and adequate as possible ; but at the same time we ought to do nothing to interfere with the number of small growers who are trying their very best to make a living for themselves and their families. It is proved that just as good wine can be made by the small manufacturer as by the large one, by the fact that the prizes as a rule go to the former. Seeing that the revenue need not necessarily suffer by continuing the privileges these small men now have, and seeing that the quality of the wine need not suffer, there seems to be no reason why the Minister should seek to centre the wine production in the hands of a small number of rich individuals, and to deprive the smaller growers of the privileges they should undoubtedly enjoy.

Mr. PAGE (Maranoa). - It is most peculiar that as soon as “ boodle “ is touched there are plenty of honorable members here to get up in its defence.If the small man is to get any protection, it is Parliament that ought to give it to him. I am sorry there is at present no honorable member representing Darling Downs, but I can say that there we have a number of farmers who grow grapes, relying on that crop to pay their rent. All that the amendment asks the Government to do is to place the limit at two acres instead of ten, and so help the small man and the industry generally ? Many a man has made a good living on two acres in Queensland, where we have plenty of land. I am sure the Minister would be the last to desire to crush the small man, and will, when he knows how the smaller limit enables a good livelihood to be made for the grower’s wife and family, accept the amendment. We do not desire to harass the Government, but we want a square deal for the poor man as well as for the rich man. The party to which I belong desires no monopoly, but contends that every man should have equal rights, and an equal chance in life. I suppose that if it be that grapes in South Australia realize £2 10s. per ton less than grapes in New South Wales, the same disproportion will be found elsewhere. A man ought to have a chance of making his own wine instead of being compelled to take it to a central wine-maker, and either accept the monopolist’s price or allow his produce to go rotten. We are sent to this House to do away with monopolies, and while we have a voice and a seat here we will work to that end.

Mr E SOLOMON:
FREMANTLE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · FT

– I hope the Minister will take into consideration what has been urged by several honorable members. In Western Australia grape growing is almost a new industry amongst the small farmers, and it would be some encouragement to them if they were allowed to have the licences asked for. For years even in Western Australia growers have been obliged to sell at a sacrifice to those who were in a better position to make wine, and I hope the Minister will accept the amendment.

Mr. WINTER COOKE (Wannon).Before we come to a decision, perhaps the Minister would inform the committee why the minimum is placed at 10 acres in South Australia.

Mr Kingston:

– It is 5 acres in South Australia.

Mr WINTER COOKE:
WANNON, VICTORIA · FT

Mr Watson:

– But it has no value.

M!r. KINGSTON.- The other matter had not been discussed at all. No doubt some of us - I am sometimes guilty Of it myself - speak with more apparent force at times than the occasion justifies. The point which has been put is that we should not crush the small man who owns a still. We do not intend to do anything of the sort. We let him go on.

– They have not any such regulations in New South Wales, and if they had, it would be very difficult to enforce them, because of the distance separating the stills. An army of officers would be necessary.

Mr.Watson. - Could not the department charge them for the spirit distilled?

Mr KINGSTON:

– And rely on them for the returns?

Mr Watson:

– No ; put an officer there.

Mr KINGSTON:

– But there are 70 small stills in New South Wales for which it would be difficult to provide. Bather than take any man’s living from him, or deprive him of certain privileges which he has hitherto enjoyed, we will provide that people who at the present have vignerons’ stills shall not be deprived of them. That I think fairly meets the case, but at the same time I should not be dealing fairly with the committee if I did not say that I think it will be a good thing for everybody concerned when, instead of having a number of small Stills, each turning out a small amount of spirit of varying qualities, we have central stills worked on the lines of the Central butter factories, where allthoseinterested become associated for the common benefit, expert assistance can be obtained, and the best article can be manufactured. The position is very strongly put in a letter to the Daily Telegraph in Sydney, written by a gentleman from South Australia, who is an expert in this matter, and who is very hopeful, as I am, of the future of the wine industry. He says -

The wine industry, it’ allowed to expand into its natural growth, will become one of the most important natural products of Australia, and rival our wheat production in value and extent. But it will never expand in New South Wales at anything like the same rate as in South Australia if small growers of grapes are allowed stills to fortify wines whose natural saccharine contains enough alcohol, if properly fermented and matured, to make a wine up to 28 degrees of strength.

I understand that the inexperienced winemaker has recourse to the added spirit, when he would turn out a very much better article if he did not use it, but allowed the wine to become further fermented. The writer of the letter, Mr. H. J. Scott, goes on to say -

The fact is known to all in the trade that the small wine-maker of 2 or 3 acres is doomed; he must, in the course of natural law, give way to the larger co-operative wineries or winemakers.

What is co-operation but a combination for the benefit of the small people engaged in any industry ?

Mr Watson:

– Is that gentleman floating a company ?

Mr KINGSTON:

– I do not think he is, but there would be no harm if he were, as I am sure every wine-maker in the district in which the company was to be floated would be delighted to join in any scheme of union for the common good. Mr Scott proceeds to say that the small wine-maker must give way to the larger co-operative wineries -

Simply because the tastes of the wine-drinking community demand that a wine of a uniform character and quality shall obtain yeal’ by year. It is because of the small wine.maker producing wine by the rule-of-thumb process, and then adding to it crude spirit, full of fusel oil, that much of the obloquy at present attached to Australian wines if due. He is to blame because our peoplewill not drink some of the stuff placed before them, and until there are vine-growers and winemakers in New South Wales that industry will”, be always lagging behind.

I think our proposition is a fair one. I” propose to make provision for the encouragement of wineries which are intended to be co-operative. I would ask the honorable member not to press his amendment, but to accept my assurance that I will make it clear in clauses 24 and 25 that where a man has a licence by virtue of the possession of a couple of acres of vineyard, his licence shall be continued.

Sir WILLIAM MCMILLAN:
Wentworth

– I think we should come to a conclusion in this matter, because, afterall, it is a question of degree. I quite agree with the Minister that, in most eases, the same principle as has been applied to the manufacture of butter with such great success throughout Australia might be equally well adapted to the circumstances of the wine industry, where a number of vignerons are gathered together in a certain area. At the same time, however, there may be isolated cases, in some of the States where the winegrowers may not .have the advantage of a central depot, and as 2 acres seems tohave been the minimum in most of the States, I think it will be a fair compromise now to provide for a minimum of 5 acres. In framing these Commonwealth laws we should not take too restrictive or too harsh a view, and if the Minister will consent to fix the minimum at 5 acres he will meet every objection.

Mr. McCOLL (Echuca) - I would point out to the honorable member for Bland that the proposal to extend vignerons’ licences to wineries is not intended to hurt the small growers.

Mr Watson:

– I did not say it was, and I was not objecting to that.

Mr McCOLL:

– - As a matter of fact, the wineries are only asking for the same privilege as the small grower is to enjoy. In regard to the condition of affairs in South Australia which has been referred to, it is quite correct to say that there the small growers are Completely under the heels of the wine-makers. Professor Perkins, in his evidence given before the Royal Commission on Refrigerating

Stores and a Central Wine Depot in 1900, stated -

The wine business is merely in the hands of the large growers almost exclusively. The small growers grow grapes and sell them. Personally, I have been opposed to this arrangement, not taking the part of the small grower against the big, but on the stand that, as the arrangements exist at present, the grape-growers are on one side, and wine-makers on the other. The acreage under vines will not extend because the prices offered for grapes were not such as to encourage the vignerons to extend their vineyards. The price paid for Mataro has gone as low as 30s. per ton. The small grower would make two or three times as much by manufacturing the wine.

Small growers have been kept down in South Australia because they have not had the privilege of making the best use of their product in the same way as have vignerons in the other States. Two acres is rather a small area. The matter of vignerons’ licences was discussed at a recent meeting of vignerons, and although they wished the area reduced, they did not go so far as to suggest an area of 2 acres, because most of the vineyards in Victoria would come within a 10-acre minimum. Still they were willing to make common cause with the growers of New South Wales, where the holdings are of less area, as a rale, than in Victoria. If the present rights as to the size of buildings and stills and vineyards are preserved to those who now have stills, a minimum of 5 acres would meet all requirements, and I therefore trust that the Minister will give way in this matter. The Minister states that it is not his intention to crush the small growers, but we can only judge of intentions by what is set forth in the Bill, which would have had the effect of crushing out the small growers. I am now satisfied that the interests of the small growers will be protected.

Mr KINGSTON:

-Icannot admit for a moment the soft impeachment that the Bill would have had the effect of crushing the small wine growers. I am agreeable to adopt the 5-acre instead of 10-acre limit, and reserve all rights to present licensees. A great deal has been said about the success of small vineyards, and 1 wish them every success ; but I think, on examination, it will be found that the money which has been made has been derived from wine-making and not from the distillation of spirits.

Mr. WATSON (Bland).- I think the suggestion now assented to will meet the case very fairly. The trouble I feared was in connexion with a number of those people who had been selling only just as much wine as was necessary each year to afford them the means of subsistence, and putting by the balance in their cellars to mature, so that it might afterwards be sold at better prices. I was afraid that these people would be placed at a disadvantage. Of course they have used a still for producing the spirit necessary for fortifying purposes, and although this class of still is not appreciated by the Minister, I know that very good wine has been produced at these vineyards.

Mr O’MALLEY:
Tasmania

– I regret that the leader of the equal rights party has not adhered to his 2-acre proposal, because if it is a good thing that spirits should be manufactured, why should the small man be shut out and opportunities be given to the monopolist ? It seems to me that if it is a good tiling for the morals of the community that every facility should be offered for wine-making, the minimum should be reduced down to an acre. Why should the 2-acre man have to depend upon the 5-acre man? It appears quite unreasonable to allow a man who has now a still on a 2-acre vineyard to continue to use that still, and to refuse a similar privilege to a new man unless he can show that he is the possessor of 5 acres of vineyard. Instead of promoting freedom we are bringing about a condensation of tyranny and monopoly.

Mr KNOX:
Kooyong

– If theargument of the honorable member for Tasmania is to hold good, there is no reason why we should not go right back to the man who has one grape vine and sits under it.

Amendment amended and agreed to.

Mr KINGSTON:

– I move-

That the words “ or is the proprietor of a winery “ be added to the clause.

A “ winery “ will be defined elsewhere as an establishment where wine is made from purchased grapes, and where not less than 200 tons of grapes are purchased from growers during the season. We only ask honorable members to affirm the principle that a winery shall have the same opportunities of distillation as has a vigneron.

Mr. V. L. SOLOMON (South Australia).I wish to point but that the term “ winery “ is intended to mean an establishment which treats not less than 200 tons of grapes annually. Before we insert the word “ winery “ it seems to me that we ought to know what that term means. Otherwise we are legislating in the dark. We have already discussed the conditions under which a man shall be permitted to have a still. We have agreed that he shall not have one unless he has 5 acres of vines. Why, therefore, should we not insist that a winery shall be capable of treating a certain quantity of grapes per annum ? The definition of “ winery “ which the Minister proposes to insert, should, I think, be made clear before we insert that word in this clause.

Sir MALCOLM MCEACHARN:
Melbourne

– I think it is quite right to insert the word “ winery “ here, because the Minister has already stated that he will afterwards define that term. In Victoria wineries are subsidized to the extent of 2,000. It would be manifestly absurd to say that we are going to give £2,000 to a vigneron who was going to treat only 15 tons of grapes annually.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Postponed clause 54 -

All operations and fortifying of wine shall be carried on in the presence of an officer.

Mr. McCOLL (Echuca).- The question of the operations being carried on in the presence of an officer received a good deal of attention at the recent conference of vignerons. They wish the definition of the word “ officer “ to be extended. Under clause 6, the word “officer” means an officer of Customs. The great body of the vignerons desire that there shall be some local officer representing the Customs to whom they can have ready access, because frequently they require to proceed with the process of fortification upon very short notice. “Unless they can apply spirit to fortify their wines, they will sometimes lose their whole season’s vintage. To send to Melbourne for an officer would involve them in very great expense, and cause a delay which might result in the loss of their whole vintage. I move -

That, after the word “wine,” the words “and the manufacture of vinegar” be inserted, and that the following words be added to the clause - “ or other authorized person, and it shall be lawful to appoint any justice of the peace, police officer, or constable to supervise the conveyance and application of spirits for the purpose of fortification of wine, the produce of any Australian vineyard under the provisions of this Act, and he shall forward a sample of the fortified wineunder seal to the chief Customs officer of the district in which the vineyard is situated.”

Mr KINGSTON:

– I think that the honorable member’s purpose would be better achieved by an extension of the meaning of the word “ officer.” If the honorable member will withdraw his amendment, I will deal with the matter in the interpretation clause.

Mr McColl:

– I am quite agreeable to do that.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment (by Mr. V. L. Solomon) proposed -

That, after the word “wine,” the words “and the manufacture of wine vinegar “ be inserted.

Mr KINGSTON:

– The honorable member for South Australia sees that this limitation applies at the present moment simply to the fortifying of wine. We have made no reference to the subject of the manufacture of vinegar. It is not necessary. I ask honorable members not to accept an amendment of the character referred to, which will only have a tendency to confuse and complicate matters.

Mr. V. L. SOLOMON (South Australia). - The Minister is wrong in saying that we have not had this matter alluded to. I think there was an amendment upon the paper in reference to it. The words were dealt with, but in a thin House. If necessary I will press this matter upon the motion to report.

– It is a power which should be carefully conferred and carefully exercised.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 55 -

Every person to whom a vigneron’s licence has been granted shall, if the officer’s services are required for more than one day, provide upon his premises, when they are distant more than 2 miles from any licenced public-house, board and lodging for the officer to the satisfaction of the collector whilst services of the officer are required.

Penalty : £20.

Mr WATSON:
Bland

– Will the Minister consent to a provision in this clause similar to that which he made in clause 28 ?

Mr KINGSTON:
Protectionist

– Of course I will make a general provision. I move- -

That all the words between “shall” and ‘ penalty “ be omitted, with a view to insert in lieu thereof the words “if required by the collector provide board and lodging for the officer.”

Mr McColl:

– Without any definition as to distance ?

Mr KINGSTON:

– The discretion will be with the collector.

Mr Poynton:

– It is understood, I suppose, that a reasonable amount shall be paid for the board and lodging.

Mr MCCOLL:

– I would suggest that the words “ at such reasonable rate as shall be determined” be inserted.

Mr KINGSTON:

– The reason some such words do not appear is that there is later on a general clause to the effect that every person providing such board and lodging, shall be entitled to a fair remuneration.

Mr V L SOLOMON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · FT

– There was slight misapprehension over a similar clause, and I then accepted the assurance of the Minister that another clause would be inserted providing for reasonable remuneration. But in the previous clause we provided that there should be a penalty of £50, and attached to the present clause is a penalty of £20. I do not think there ought to be such a penalty.

Mr Kingston:

Mr THOMSON:

– The wording I suggested was that where, in the opinion of the Minister, the situation of the distillery renders it necessary, lodging or board and lodging shall be provided. The honorable and learned member for Indi wants something to show the deciding factor.

Mr Kingston:

– The power is not likely to be arbitrarily exercised.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Postponed clause 57 -

No spirits shall be used for fortifying wine unless they are of a strength of at least 50 degrees above proof, and the duty (if any) has been paid.

– But the wine-growers are willing to have the strength fixed at 35 per cent.

Mr McCOLL:

– The “Victorian vignerons agreed to that. It was represented subsequently by others that in New South Wales the stills are of less capacity, and that 25 per cent, would be quite high enough for them. It is our desire to meet their wishes if we can do so. It would be a very wrong thing not to fix any limit. We should let the vignerons know what they have to do. It is stated by experts that a brandy that contains a lower percentage is the better spirit. In the circular sent out by the Corowa vignerons, it was stated that -

Every man who has the slightest knowledge of wine distillation is aware that brandy is at its best when it is distilled with the strength of from 66 to 72 per cent, of alcohol.

Mr KINGSTON:

– We are simply prescribing in what respect and to what extent these provisions are to be made, how they shall be exercised. Surely we have a right, in the fixing of any duty, to say that this excisable commodity shall go at this or that rate and on certain conditions for a specific purpose. I sympathize with what has been said by the honorable member for Laanecoorie - that it is a pity that we cannot have wines altogether pure. There is a prejudice naturally against fortification, and I am hopeful that our wines will largely sustain the reputation they have acquired on account of their purity, and because of the absence from them of all but the natural spirit in the wine itself. We know that whilst fortification can be dispensed with in a great many cases, experts state that it cannot be dispensed with in others, and that particularly in regard to wine for export it is not only necessary in order to suit the taste of the consumers in those countries to which the wines are exported, but to preserve it during the voyage, that a certain amount of spirit should be used. We have been considerably troubled in determining what the limit should be. We have had the advantage of the advice of our officers. We proposed originally that the strength should be 50 per cent. above proof. There is no doubt whatever that the greater the strength the greater the purity.

Mr Watson:

– That does not apply if the material is invariably good.

Mr KINGSTON:

– It is not necessary to enter into a full discussion of that subject at the present moment, but we are prepared to take the Bill in the shape that is now proposed. We have met the objection to the extent of reducing the strength of the spirits to 35 per cent., and we also propose to accept the provision as to the collector. We are perfectly prepared, seeing that it is quite possible that some fresh light may come necessitating a different course of action which should not involve the passing of a Bill, to take power by regulation to deal with the matter further. We desire to be reasonable, and if the committee will co-operate with us to that extent we will make these amendments. I move -

That the words” unless otherwise prescribed’” be inserted before the word “ No,” line 1.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment (by Mr. Kingston) proposed -

That the words “ approved by the officer and” be inserted after the word “are,” line 2.

Mr ISAACS:
Indi

– I should like to know what is to guide the officer in giving his approval? We shall have officers all over the continent who will have different ideas.

Mr Conroy:

– Would not that bemet by regulation ?

Mr ISAACS:

Mr Kingston:

– I am going to strike those out.

Mr ISAACS:

– I am glad to hear it, because that will leave the matter entirely open for consideration when the Tariff is introduced. The next point is in connexion with the Tariff also, and it is better to mention it now, because it should receive the serious consideration of the Minister. In America the Federal Congress has, with the same object in view as I have just referred to, namely, the maintenanceand the improvement of the reputation of American wines, adopted in its Tariff Bill of 1890 provisions calculated to effect that desirable end ; and the Minister will find in the Acts of Congress .of 1890, cap. 1244, a portion of the’ Tariff Bill which is called the Internal Revenue portion - clause 42 and subsequent clauses - -a series of provisions very ingeniously, very carefully,” and very fully framed for the purpose of advancing the cause of American viticulture. The mode in which that is effected is, roughly speaking, as follows : - Wine producers, who are also licensees of a still, are at liberty to use, free of duty, wine spirit for the fortifi- cation of the wines they produce, and, in addition to that, wine producers are at liberty to use, also free of duty, wine spirit procured from the warehouse in bond and taken to their own vineyard, and there used under the strictest supervision. All the details are given in the Act to which I have referred - except details which are dealt with by regulation - and as the whole matter is set out very fully, one can there see the means by which great encouragement is given both to the production of wine spirit and to the production of wine itself. Besides that, the plati there adopted* has the advantage of securing the reputation of American wines in this regard, that it is known that a strong inducement “is given in America to use pure wine spirit. That is what we ought to do here. In Victoria the State law already provides that only wine spirit shall be used in the fortification of wines, and it is a pity that a similar law is not in force in the other States.

Mr Conroy:

– Is it the case on the Continent 1

Mr ISAACS:

– I think it is the case in France. I am informed so, at any rate. I think it would be very advantageous if we were able to place before the world the fact that Australian wine can be regarded as free from foreign spirit. We know that wine spirit mixed with wine improves it, and that wine so blended improves with age. But if it is mixed with inferior spirit, such as potato spirit - which is a dead spirit - we know that it will not improve, but will, on the contrary, deteriorate. It has proved an excellent advertisement for Victorian wines that these regulations are in force here. I ask the Minister with a view to preserving and enhancing the reputation of Australian wines, and of encouraging the production of wines of a high and uniform class, to do what was done in 1890 by congress in America, namely, to encourage the production of wines fortified with wine spirit. In the annual report for 1889 and 1890 of the board of the State Viticultural Commissioners of California a very full account is given of this matter. I should be glad if the Minister would have that report looked into by his officers, because he will there see what a long struggle they had in California to secure the passage of that Act. It has been regarded as a triumph for viticulturists there, and I think that a similar method, if adopted here, would have the most beneficial results.

Amendment (by Mr. Kingston) agreed to-

That the words “and the duty if any has been paid” be omitted.

Mr. McCOLL (Echuca). - I move -

That after the word ‘ ‘ proof “ the f followiug words be inserted : - “ Any vigneron, winery, or Australian wine merchant requiringspirit for thefortification of Australian wine, may procure the same free of duty, or at such special duty as may be decided upon by Parliament from any bond (such fortification to be done under the supervision, and in the presence of a customs officer or other authorized person), or he or they may obtain the spirit required for the purpose aforesaid from any person having spirits in bond, or from any holder of a wine distiller’s licence (£10), and the spirit shall be taken in charge of a Customs officer or other authorized person and used for fortification in his presence.”

Mr KENNEDY:
Moira

– I do not see that any necessity exists for specifying who shall possess power to purchase spirit for the purposes of fortification. If such a necessity did exist we should have had to provide that all those vignerons within the Commonwealth who have not stills of their own shall have the power to purchase spirit. In Victoria there is a considerable number of wine merchants who have not stills of their own and who have to purchase spirit for fortification purposes. I apprehend that the wine merchants occupy exactly the same position. All that this Bill prescribes is the conditions under which stills shall be used and by whom they shall be used. Who. shall obtain wine for the purposes of fortification is altogether another question.

Mr. McCOLL (Echuca). - When the conference considered this matter there was a provision in the Bill that the duty should be paid. I quite recognise that the question of duty is a secondary one. If the Minister assures me that we shall have an opportunity of discussing this matter when the Tariff is under consideration I shall not press the amendment at the present time.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Postponed clause 58 -

No Australian wine shall be fortified under this Act so as to contain more than 35 per centum of proof spirit.

Penalty: £20.

Mr ISAACS:
Indi

– This clause provides that for the improvement of Australian wines, and in order to secure for them a good reputation, they shall not contain more than 35 per cent. of proof spirit. I move -

That after the word “spirit” the following words be inserted - “nor with any spirit except pure wine spirit.”

The adoption of this amendment would announce to the world that no Australian wine is fortified with anything but pure wine spirit. I think that the observations which I made on the previous clause are sufficient justification for the amendment which I now propose. It would be a splendid advertisement for the whole of Australia if the wine buyers of the world could see on the face of our Federal Act a provision forbidding the adulteration of our wines with any impure spirit.

Mr McCOLL:
Echuca

– I support the amendment submitted by the honorable and learned member for Indi. As the law stands at present, wine may be fortified by spirit the product of potatoes, beet-root, or any other kind of grain or root.

Mr Kennedy:

– In some of the States only.

Mr McCOLL:

– I think thatthe practice should be made uniform. It must appeal to the common sense of honorable members that to fortify Australian wine with spirit the product of roots, grain, or any substance from which spirit has to be made by the addition of sulphuric acid in order to extract the sugar from the starch, is not at all a proper proceeding. Therefore, in the interests of the wine-growers themselves, the amendment is one which should be strongly supported by this committee.

Sir JOHN QUICK:
Bendigo

– This was one of the proposed amendments brought under the attention of the Minister by the deputation which waited on him quite recently. It was considered by the conference of vignerons.

Mr.V. L. Solomon. - All Victorians.

Sir JOHN QUICK:

– New South Wales was represented, and a very strong expression of opinion was given that some provision of the kind should be made in order to strengthen the reputation of Australian wines. The amendment suggested was that spirit used in the fortification of Australian wines should be restricted to pure wine spirit. It was considered by the conference that, inasmuch as the Bill contains a provision as to the alcoholic strength of Australian wines, there should be no objection to going a little further and limiting the alcohol used to pure wine spirit.

Mr McCAY:
Corinella

– Clauses 57 and 58 seem to me to be placed under the wrong heading when they appear under “Vignerons.” By the Acts Interpretation Act the headings are a part of the Act, and it might be held that these clauses were limited in their effect to vignerons, which would largely defeat the object in view.

Mr Kingston:

– I thank the honorable member. I will look into the matter.

Mr V L SOLOMON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · FT

– The amendment proposed by the honorable and learned member for Indi is a most important one, and so far as the arguments he has submitted in its favour are concerned, I agree with him. At the same time, I am not sure but that we should be doing considerable wrong to some of our winegrowers by this limitation.

Sir Malcolm McEacharn:

– To winegrowers of South Australia.

Mr V L SOLOMON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · FT

– I am not at this moment speaking specially of South Australian or any other wine-growers.

Sir Malcolm McEacharn:

– But South Australia is where potato spirit is made.

Mr V L SOLOMON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · FT

– I may speak of South Australia, because I happen to have lived there for so many years, and because it is a State in which vine-growing and wine-making have assumed very considerable, and important proportions, which I hope will be imitated in other parts of the Commonwealth before long to even a greater extent.From the start I have said candidly that the information I had to give to the committee, and the amendments I have moved, have been given to me and instigated by a large number of wine-growers and distillers of South Australia, who are my constituents. These gentlemen have given me that information in the same way as the vignerons of Victoria have given information to the honorable members for Echuca, Indi, and Bendigo, none of whom, I suppose, has any great personal knowledge of wine-making or distilling. I should like the Minister to ascertain whether, by passing this amendment, we preclude, not only potato spirit, but spirit made from wheat, barley, and malt - spirit which at the present time is beingsold in Victoria. We know perfectly well that some of the Victorian brandy we hear so much about contains a large proportion of spirit distilled from wheat.

Mr Mauger:

– Victoria is not peculiar.

Mr V L SOLOMON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · FT

– I do not say that Victoria is peculiar in this respect. I merely point to the fact that if the spirit I have mentioned is sufficiently good to obtain prize medals under the name of brandy, however peculiar the brandy may be, it should be good enough for the fortification of Australian wines.

Sir J ohn Quick:

– We want to encourage the pure wine industry.

Mr V L SOLOMON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · FT

– But when we place in the four corners of the Bill a provision of the sort proposed, we maybe imposing a restraint on trade and manufacturing industry, and it would be just as well to look more closely into the matter, and see whether we are justified on grounds of health, or from the point of view of the improvement of the wines, in going to that extent. I think it is fairly recognised that potato spirit is somewhat detrimental to wines, though personally I am not quite certain of the fact. “We may, however, admit that potato spirit does not improve Australian wines ; but to include in this bar, spirit that can be distilled from grain, and which is being distilled every day, I think is wrong. I admit I am speaking without any definite knowledge on the subject, and I would ask the honorable and learned member for Indi. not to press his amendment now, but to have the clause recommitted later on, when we have a reprint of the Bill, and we are able to speak with more definite knowledge, having put the question fairly and properly before the various manufacturers.

Mr Isaacs:

– The amendment might be carried now, and reconsidered on a recommittal of the clause.

Mr V L SOLOMON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · FT

– That is an old game with which we are familiar, and I would really ask the honorable and learned member not to press his amendment, which, in my present state of ignorance, I should be forced to oppose.

Mr KINGSTON:
Protectionist

– This is a question of an important character, and I do not think we should rashly decide it. I agree thoroughly with what the honorable member for South Australia, Mr. Solomon, has said, and I shall see that official reports are obtained as to the suitability of other spirits for fortifying wines, and I shall bring these reports before the committee before we lose control of the Bill. Under the circumstances, 1 hope the honorable and learned member for Indi will allow the clause to pass as drafted.

Mr ISAACS:
Indi

– The offer of the Minister is a very fair one indeed. None of us want to do anything but what is best to the whole continent, or anything which would precipitately injure the trade of Australia, or unnecessarily fetter the production of wine. If the Minister will obtain official reports, and lay them before the committee in time for us to properly deal with them, I shall be thoroughly satisfied.

Mr Kingston:

– I shall call for reports, and re-submit this clause to the committee.

Mr McCOLL:
Echuca

– I should be glad if the Minister would obtain something more than official reports. I should like to see reports from the growers and large distillers, so that we may know their opinions.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause agreed to.

Motion (by Mr. Kingston) agreed to -

That the following new clause be inserted before clause 80: - Any person providing board and lodging for an officer, pursuant to the request of thecollector, shall be entitled to fair remuneration therefor at such rates as may be agreed or prescribed.

Schedule 1 -

Mr KINGSTON:
Protectionist

– I move-

That after “ spirit maker’s “ the word ‘ ‘ general “ be inserted.

This is to carry out the division which it was intimated would be made in regard to the two classes of spirit-makers’ licences, one being a general licence, and the other a wine distillers’ licence.

– I do not suggest that.

Mr KINGSTON:

– We have provided that people who have stills shall not be harassed, and we have made liberal provision for the continuance of existing rights. These £10 licensees have for years enjoyed privileges which other distillers in the Commonwealth have not enjoyed, and to ask that the £10 licence-fee shall be continued to them is, I think, unfair. They have not hitherto been paying sufficient for the services required by them of the Customs officers, because it costs the department as much to control these small distilleries, from which they get only £10 a year, as it costs to control the large general distilleries for which they are paid a fee of £50 a year. I think that in matters of this sort we must be uniform. Although I should like to meet hard cases, if we adopted the honorable member’s suggestion, we should be introducing a system which we could not defend, because we should be making competition throughout Australia unequal.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments (by Mr. Kingston) agreed to-

That after the word “licence,” line 4, the words “exceeding one quart in capacity” be inserted.

That the following new line be added to the schedule : - “ For every test-still licence not exceeding one quart, one shilling.”

Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

– What about the £25 licensees ?

Mr KINGSTON:

– They are fairly big distillers, who can well afford to give the guarantee proposed. I move -

That the figures “2,000 “ be omitted, with a view to insert in lieu thereof the figures “1,000.”

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment (by Mr. Kingston) agreed to-

That the figures “500” be omitted, with a view to insert in lieu thereof the figures “250.”

Amendment (by Mr. Kingston) proposed -

That the figures “ 100 “ be omitted, with a view to insert in lieu thereof the figures “ 50.”

Mr GLYNN:
South Australia

– Does the Minister in charge of the Bill think that security will have to be given for each test still? Under clause 12 licences are to issue for the use of stills. Paragraph (c) of that clause refers to the use of test stills, and in the remaining paragraphs reference is made to other stills for distilling spirits. There is a slight doubt as to whether a licence will not be necessary for each test still. I am informed by some of the . vignerons that in certain cases they have as many as six test stills on their premises. It may be, therefore, that a separate licence and a separate security will be required for each. It is a matter of doubt, and I merely advance it for consideration.

Mr Kingston:

– I will look into it further.

Amendment agreed to.

Schedule II., as amended, agreed to.

Schedule III.-

Theremust be erected in the still house - (a) A still capable of exhausting at least one hundred and fifty gallons ofwash in an hour, or a wash still capable of containing at least six hundred gallons, and also capable of containing double the quantity which the low wines or spirit still is capable of containing.

Sir JOHN QUICK (Bendigo). - I desire to suggest an amendment in clause vi. of this schedule. Under the heading of “plant” it is provided that there must be erected in the still-house “a still capable of exhausting at least 150 gallons of wash in an hour.” It will be observed that that requirement of 150 gallons of wash per hour is one which, under the Bill as it stood originally, was applicable to distillers generally, to£50 licences. I want provision made for a reduced plant in the case of wine distillers with £25 licences, and I suggest that words be introduced providing in the case of holders of wine distillers’ licences that they shall be required to have only a still capable of exhausting at least 50 gallons per hour. That was the suggestion made by the deputation which waited on the Minister, and I believe it is one which will meet the requirements of the case.

Mr KINGSTON:

– What I understood from the deputation was that they were dealing with existing cases only, and not desiring to lay down a general law for the future. As regards existing cases we are making the necessary provision under clauses 24 and 25, but so far as the future issue of spirit-makers’ licences is concerned, I did not understand that there was any objection to the size of the still.

Mr. McCOLL (Echuca). - Not only in regard to wine distillers’ licences, but in relation to general distillers’ licences objection is taken to this clause. It provides that at least 150 gallons per hour of wash shall be exhausted. There are distilleries that cannot possibly do that amount of work. The Bendigo distillery takes three hours to put through 150 gallons. It cannot do more than 50 gallons per hour. The object of this provision apparently is to induce people to use patent stills. It is well known that the patent still does not give the best liquor. I have many letters to show that the best liquor turned out in all countries is made from pot stills. In England there are only ten distilleries and all of them use patent stills which turn out thousands of gallons per day. In Scotland there are 113 pot stills and only 13 patent stills, while in Ireland there are 2’2 pot stills and 8 patent stills. The pot stills make the best liquor. As the Minister has said on several occasions that the largest stills make the purest liquor, I would point out that the purest liquor is that which no one can drink. It is divested almost entirely of all by-products which go to give it that particular flavour which creates the market value. In the evidence given before the Select Committee in England, it was proved that patent stills produce the liquor at a cost of about ls. per gallon, while the cost of the liquor produced from pot stills is from 2s. to 3s., but that the liquor produced from pot stills brings two or three times as much as that from the patent stills. The patent still produces an absolutely silent spirit. It has to be kept for six months and then flavouring and various other things are added, according to the desire of the manufacturer. In Victoria we give a special privilege to those who use pure malt for the production of whisky, or wine for the production of brandy. We do that, not only to encourage our growers, but because we know that purer liquor is obtained in this way than from the patent still, which uses anything indiscriminately. Therefore I propose to move that the words “ one hundred and,” be omitted so as to make the clause provide that a still capable of exhausting at least 50 gallons of wash in an hour must be erected. Why should we compel the distillers to use a certain size ? Such a provision does not tend to the production of better liquor or the getting of more employment.

Sir JOHN QUICK (Bendigo).- Before that amendment is proposed I desire to submit a prior one. The object of the prior amendment is to discriminate between the two classes of licences that have been created, and to define the extent of the plant that is to be required in the case of a general distiller’s licence, and also the extent of the plant required in the case of a wine distiller’s licence. In order to submit the matter in a tangible form, I move -

That the words “in the case of ageneral distiller’s licence” be inserted after the word “ exhausting,” line 3.

The amount of the wash per hour to be turned out can be discussed afterwards. I will subsequently propose to insert “ and in the case of a wine distiller’s licence” after the word “hour.”

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment (by Mr. McColl) proposed -

That the words “one hundred and,” lines 3 and 4, be omitted.

Mr KINGSTON:

Mr MCDONALD:
Kennedy

– There has been an awful lot of time wasted over this matter. I cannot understand the action of the honorable member for Echuca in taking such a leading part in this agitation on behalf of the small distiller. I understand that the honorable member is a strong teetotaller. I think that he will occupy a rather unfortunate position so far as the temperance party is concerned when he again faces the electors. His grievance appears tobe in determining whether we shall get whisky distilled from pot stills or from patent stills. I do not know that there is a very great difference between the two, but the honorable member thinks that there is. He says, in effect, that the whisky distilled from the patent stills is rank poison, and can be manufactured for about 1s. a gallon. I am really surprised that he should advocate the distillation of whisky from any kind of still. He has told the committee that whisky distilled from pot stills costs 3s. a gallon, but that when it comes from patent stills all sorts of ingredients have to be put into it in order to make it a palatable decoction. He is showing an amount of anxiety over this matter that I cannot understand, because as a temperance man he ought to have taken the opposite course, and have backed up the Minister in trying to do away with distilleries. Such action would have been in the interests of the country and of the party to which the honorable member belongs.

Mr. McCOLL (Echuca). - I do not know that my private habits have anything to do with the matter before the committee. If it will comfort the honorable member for Kennedy, I may inform him that I am not a teetotaller. I have paid some attention to this matter because I felt sure that the honorable member would let it go by the board and pay no attention to it. But while I am not a teetotaller I could wish that every one were teetotallers. As we cannot have that, the next best thing we can do is to see that what people drink does them as little harm as possible. That has been my aim. I am very glad that the Minister has conceded this point. By the insertion of the words “ or stills,” those who wish to use pot stills will have the privilege of doing so.

Mr. HARPER (Mernda).- I was asked by the honorable member for Moira how there can be a loss to the State in connexion with the issue of these licences. I would point out that the staff to administer this Act will have to be maintained all the year round. The department is required by the regulations to furnish an officer upon 24 hours’ notice. These men, therefore, must be ready for duty immediately they are required. The honorable member must see that although a vigneron may have to employ an officer for two days at a stretch, and will have to pay for his services during that period, if the officer is kept for six months with little to do, the department will be the loser. The department will have to keep a large staff, which will only be employed for a short time during the year. The Government are, theref ore, bound to spend much more money than they will receive from the issue of licences.

Mr KINGSTON:

– I think that the object of the honorable member for Echuca would be met by an addition to the end of the clause.

Mr McColl:

– I ask leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment (by Sir John Quick) agreed to-

That after the word “hour,” line 4., the following words be inserted : - “ and in the case of a wine distiller’s licence, at least 50 gallons in an hour.”

Amendment (by Mr. Kingston) agreed to-

That at the end of paragraph (a), after the word “containing,” the following words be inserted: - “In lieu of one still of the required capacity, two or more stills aggregating the required capacity shall suffice. “

Mr. McCOLL (Echuca).- Regulation 9, relating to plants, provides - “ Every feints receiver must be connected with the safe at the end of the worm of the still by one close metal pipe,” &c. I think there is an omisson, and that after the word receiver the words “ or low wines charger “ should be inserted.

Mr Kingston:

– I will look into the matter.

Mr. POYNTON (South Australia).Regulation 8, dealing with the process of distillation, provides that -

No distiller shall mash or make wash or use a still between 12 o’clock noon on Saturday and 2 o’clock in the forenoon on Monday.

I would suggest that the words “ except by authority “ be inserted after the word “shall.”

Amendment (by Mr. Kingston) agreed to-

That after the word “ shall “ the words “ except by authority “ be inserted.

Mr. McCAY (Corinella). - I know nothing about the process of distilling, but I am told by gentlemen who do know, and who have certainly displayed the utmostreasonableness in considering the Bill, that regulation 11 dealing with the process of distillation might mean a week’s loss practically the use of the plant. The regulation reads -

No distiller shall begin to mash or use any material for the production of spirits liable to one rate of duty until all spirits produced liable to any other rate of duty have been conveyed into the spirits or feints receiver.”

From what I am told this regulation does not seem to be a desirable one in the absence of any cogent reasons to the contrary.

Mr KINGSTON:

– I think it is right to have this regulation, although there may be special cases in which it is not wanted. I move -

That after the word “ shall” the words “except by authority “ be inserted.

Mr McCay:

– Will the Minister make inquiries in addition?

Mr KINGSTON:

– Yes.

Amendment agreed to.

Sir MALCOLM MCEACHARN:
Melbourne

– Regulation 32, dealing with the process of distillation, provides -

All feints produced by and remaining from a previous distillation may be mixed with the low wines or feints produced by a subsequent distillation, and the process of re-distilling feints may be repeated as often as the distiller thinks fit, provided that they are the produce of the same kind of material.

I am advised that to keep separate feint receivers, with all the necessary connexions, will be extremely inconvenient, and a suggestion has been made that for the few last words the following should be substituted - “ Provided that such feints are liable to the same rate of duty.”

Mr KINGSTON:

– I do not quite like the idea that spirits should be made from all sorts of things, and not confined to one ; and evidently the regulation was drawn up with a view of preventing the mixing of potato and wine spirits. I do not mind amending the regulation so as to give the necessary authority to remove the limitation where it can properly be removed, and I move -

That the words “ they are “ be omitted, with a view to insert in lieu thereof “except by authority to the contrary the mixed feints must be.”

Amendment agreed to.

Sir MALCOLM McEACHARN (Melbourne). - Regulation 37 provides that -

Feints arising from re-distillation may be mixed with feints produced from the same kind of material.

I have to request that an amendment be made similar to that just passed in regulation 32.

Amendment (by Mr. Kingston) agreed to-

That the words “or by authority with other feints” be added to the paragraph.

Sir JOHN QUICK (Bendigo).- Regulation 40, dealing with the material store, provides -

The distiller shall-

Keep his material store account book written up daily and balanced monthly. (b) Produce the book when required by an officer.
Check the balance of any stock of material on hand when required by an officer.
Pay duty on the quantity of spirit that any material found deficient was capable of producing.

I would suggest that the words “ unless such deficiency is explained to the satisfaction of the collector” be added to subclause (d).

Sir MALCOLM McEACHARN (Melbourne). - I was going to ask the Minister to allow the following words to be added to that paragraph - “ reasonable allowance being made for the rent of storing, kiln drying, and malting.”

Mr POYNTON:
South Australia

– I have had an amendment on the notice-paper for some time to the same effect as that suggested by the honorable and learned member for Bendigo. As the regulation stands now, it makes it absolute that no allowance shall be made for any reason whatever. I move -

That the following words be added : - “unless he explain such deficiency to the satisfaction of the collector.”

Mr Kingston:

– Will the honorable member adopt the words which we have been using throughout, and make the amendment read -

Unless any deficiency is accounted for to the satisfaction of the collector.

Mr POYNTON:

– I am willing to do that.

Amendment amended accordingly, and agreed to.

Mr. McCOLL (Echuca).- I wish to call attention to rule 44, which says that -

Each vat must be (a) of a capacity of not less than500 gallons……

I have been told that in some distilleries they are using vats of a capacity of only 180 gallons, but I understand that the honorable member for South Australia intends to move that the capacity be reduced to 200 gallons. I ask the Minister to accept the honorable member’s amendment.

Sir JOHN QUICK (Bendigo). - I think that in this rule a distinction should be made between the size of the vats used in a general distillery and the size of the vats used in a wine distillery. I have not heard any serious objection to the use of vats of a capacity of 500 gallons under a general distiller’s licence, and thereforeI move -

That, after the word “capacity,” the words “ in the case of a general distiller’s licence” be inserted.

I intend to follow t amendment by a proposal to add to the rule the words -

And in the case of a wine distiller’s licence a capacity of not less than 80 gallons.

I understand that there is a distillery at Bendigo, which would probably be used under a wine distiller’s licence, which has a vat of the maximum capacity of 80 gallons.

Mr KINGSTON:

– It would be better to say “ in the case of a general distillery.”

Amendment amended accordingly, and agreed to.

Amendment (by Mr. Poynton) proposed-

That the word “five” be omitted, with a view to insert in lieu thereof the word “two.”

Mr KINGSTON:

– I venture to think that in the case of a general distillery 500 gallons is not too large for the minimum capacity of a vat. We do not want to have a number of small vats all over the store, and the minimum prescribed will be a convenient one to the distillers, and advantageous for the purposes of checking. I am prepared, however, to allow vats of a smaller size to be used in a wine distillery.

Mr. POYNTON (South Australia).The request for the amendment comes from some of the largest distillers in South Australia. The distillers say that the minimum prescribed is larger than is used now. Some of them say that the minimum capacity should be reduced to 100 gallons, and they are unanimous that a capacity of 200 gallons is quite large enough.

Mr Kingston:

– There will be no prohibition as regards existing plant.

Mr. V. L. SOLOMON (South Australia). - I hope that the committee will agree to the amendment. Although the Minister says that the Bill does not refer to existing distilleries and plants, clauses 24 and 25 offer very little protection, because it is there enacted that where premises in respect of which a licence has been issued under a State Act are not in accordance with the prescribed conditions the collector may fix a time within which the distiller must comply with them. I hope that th e honorable member for South Australia, Mr. Poynton, will insist upon his amendment, which is needed to meet the requirements of a great many of the moderate-sized distilleries. The rule provides that the vat is to be at least 3 feet from the ground or floor, and so placed that the whole exterior surface can be thoroughly inspected without inconvenience. Therefore I do not know what object there can be in requiring that it shall be so large.

Mr KINGSTON:

– I have already referred to the clause which allows distilling to be continued under existing conditions, and so that the notice to comply with the prescribed conditions may not be issued at the sweet will and pleasure of the collector, I propose to amend the clause so as to provide that only in the event of anything occurring which, in the opinion of the collector, shall render it necessary for the conditions to be complied with, shall such notice be given.

Mr. McCAY (Corinella). - Unless my memory plays me false, while clauses 24 and 25 were under discussion the Minister drew attention to the fact that they were entirely optional, and pointed out that some honorable members had misunderstood them when they stated that they would allow the small and improper still to remain in existence instead of the perfect article required under thismeasure. That statement does not seem quite consistent with the Minister’s reference to the clauses now.

Mr KINGSTON:

– I think the honorable and learned member is in error ; but, however, I intend to make the clause plain, so that all who run may read.

Mr. GLYNN (South Australia). - I understand that the Minister intends to insert after the word “conditions” in clause 25 the words -

And anything shall thereafter occur which in the opinion of the collector shall render it necessary that such conditions or some of them should be complied with.

Is the Minister willing to strike out the words “in the opinion of the collector “?

Mr Kingston:

– I think there is a good deal to be said in favour of striking them out.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment (by Sir John Quick) proposed -

That the words “and in the case of a wine distillery not less than eighty gallons “ be added at the end of the line after the word “gallons.”

Mr KINGSTON:

– I think the principle of making a distinction in favour of the wine distiller’s licence has something to recommend it. AVe have recognised this before in dealing with the capacity of the stills, but I should certainly have resisted so low a limit as 80 gallons but for the clear way in which the committee has indicated its opinion on the subject.

Amendment agreed to.

Sir MALCOLM MCEACHARN (Melbourne). - Rule 48 provides -

Every cask brought into the spirit store must be in sound condition and have legibly cut or branded or painted in oil colours the following particulars : -

On the outside of one end of the cask the name of the distiller or of the distillery, and the place where the distillery is situated.

On the other end of the cask its consecutive number and weight, and when filled with spirits its gross and net weight, the number of gallons it contains, and when rates of duty differ according to the material from which the spirits are made a letter denoting the material from which the spirits are made.

The gross weight of a cask necessarily alters at certain periods, and I think that this rule might be brought into accordance with the Victorian Act which provides for the number and the tare being shown on the cask. I move -

That the words “its gross and net weight” after the word “spirit,” line 3, be omitted.

Mr Kingston:

– I do not mind those words being struck out.

Mr. V. L. SOLOMON (South Australia). - I would ask the honorable member to withdraw his amendment temporarily to permitme to move that the words “ and weight “ be struck out of the first line. I do not see the object of giving the weight of the cask at all. It is not necessary according to present practice, and I see no good object to be gained by providing for it here.

Mr KINGSTON:

– It is useful to ascertain the tare of a cask in order that the spirit contents may be more readily computed. AVe are not proposing any departure from the ordinary practice.

Mr V L SOLOMON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · FT

– If the words “ and weight “ in the ninth line are necessary, the words which the honorable member for Melbourne proposes to strike out are equally required.

Sir MALCOLM McEACHARN:

– I do not profess to know a great deal about this matter, but the amendment is in accordance with the views of those who understand the business. They point out that it is not necessary to provide for the gross and the net weight of the cask being given, because the weight is a varying quantity.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. POYNTON (South Australia).Rule 59 reads as follows : -

Every case must have branded or painted thereon the name of the distiller, or the name of the distillery, and the place where the spirits were distilled, and any number or letter which the collector shall direct.

I move -

That the words “and the place where the spirits were distilled” be omitted with a view to insert in lieu thereof the words “ or the name of the purchaser or exporter.”

It is represented to me that it is not necessary to mention the name of the place where the spirits are distilled, but that the words suggested will meet the case.

The provision hereis simply that when these operations are carried on in the spirit store, in the course of the removal of the goods to the warehouse, which is the next place to which they go, these marks shall appear for the purposes I have mentioned.

Mr V L SOLOMON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · FT

– I do not know that there is any greater virtue in having the marks of the distiller placed upon the cases than there is in having the number or letter which the collector may direct placed upon them. The object of the amendment is to avoid hampering the distiller in selling his spirits. If a distiller sells twenty quarter casks of spirits to a retailer, who in the course of his trade also desires to send out brandy or whisky distilled in a certain distillery, why should we prevent him from having his own name placed upon the bottles or cases ? The proposal of the honorable member is that every case shall have branded or painted upon it the name of the distiller or the name of the distillery or the name of the purchaser or exporter. The purchaser for convenience sake prefers to have these spirits bottled in the warehouse before he takes them away. The adoption of the amendment would not interfere with the concluding words of the rule which are the safeguard of the Customs, and which read - “And any number or letter which the collector shall direct.” What more of a safeguard is required ? Why should we force a distiller to clear his spirits in quarter disks or hogsheads, and why should we compel the purchaser to take them away so that they can be mixed with inferior spirits if he so pleases, and then sent out broadcast to other places? The proposal of the honorable member for South Australia, Mr. Poynton, is a much better safeguard. All he asks is that the man who purchases and distributes the spirits shall be able to have his name and brand put on the cases, in addition to the distinctive number and mark by the collector. If the amendment be not made, the man who is going to bottle the spirits will be able to blend them as he pleases. This is not an amendment of much moment, except that it facilitates the operations of the wine maker and the retailer or spirit merchant.

Mr THOMSON:
North Sydney

– I think there is something in the arguments which have been advanced in favor of the amendment. There is no intention on the part of the Customs authorities to follow spirit in its distribution, and see that it carries the name of the distiller or distillery, because, under the circumstances, if the spirit is cleared in casks it can be repacked in any way it is thought fit. In rules 59 and 58 power is taken to interfere quite unnecessarily with the method of packing and distributing spirits, though I would not object to that if it meant that the public would be secured good spirits, but there is no such security.

Mr Kingston:

– It will at least give information outside.

Mr THOMSON:

– No, because the spirit can be cleared in casks, and bottled in any way the bottler chooses. If the spirits are going to be duty paid from the spirit store, I do not see why the distiller should be compelled to go to the expense of cases to contain the bottles, as he must do according to rule 58. It would be quite sufficient to have the spirits in bottles delivered loose, if so thought fit, seeing that they might have to be taken just across the road. By rule 59, unless the Minister has some reason beyond that he has stated, we are making provision that has no effect, as regards security to the public, but which will have a very detrimental effect on the distillers and those who purchase from them.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. McCOLL (Echuca). - I move -

That the following words be added to the rule - “ also the materials of which the spirits have been made.”

The object of the rule is to give people the truth and the spirits are in a place where there will be nodifficulty in placing this information on the cases.

Mr KINGSTON:

– The question of placarding the particular materials from which the spirits are made is one which had better be left to State regulation. I have indicated the Government’s intentions and I hope the Commonwealth will support me.

Question - That the words proposed to be added be so added - put. The committee divided -

Ayes … … … 26

Noes … … … 19

Majority … … 7

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Amendment agreed to.

Rule 60-

No label shall be affixed by a distiller to any bottles containing spirits, unless the collector has given his permission in writing to the affixing of such labels.

Amendment (by Mr. McColl) proposed -

That the following words be added to the rule - “ and each label shall state the materials of which the contents are made.”

Mr KINGSTON:
Protectionist

– I would suggest to honorable members generally that this will afford us an opportunity of reconsidering our position to some extent, or at least of refraining from going to lengths which it is almost impossible to defend. There are numbers of articles which enter into daily consumption, the contents of which we do not know. We can make a general declaration as to the articles from which spirit may be distilled, but it does seem to me that whilst we can do this, that, and the other for the protection of the revenue in a distillery, to go a long way beyond that, as we propose now, and practically to say that every bottle which goes out of a distillery is to bear on it a declaration as to the material of which the contents are composed, is going to a length to which I should be sorry to think the committee is prepared at present to agree.

Mr Cameron:

– It is perfectly ridiculous.

Mr KINGSTON:

– I know there is sometimes an inclination to vote in a way which upon reflection we can hardly sustain, and I venture to say that an example of that was afforded to some extent in connexion with the last vote. Of course I respect the decision of the committee and bow to it, but I ask honorable members to consider whether it is desirable to make a provision of the character now proposed, and which seems to me to be altogether unusual.

Mr Cameron:

– Is it done anywhere else?

Mr KINGSTON:

– I have never heard of it. It seems to me that it goes beyond the limits of our jurisdiction in dealing with matters of private enterprise, and generally trespasses on State rights.

Mr Poynton:

– Even theFood and Drugs Act does not go so far as that.

Mr KINGSTON:

– The Commonwealth Constitution did not intend to give us this power. Let us do what is a fair thing in connexion with excise. The States to whose jurisdiction this question of health legislalation properly belongs would have a right to complain if we pushed the matter further than we have done already. Under all these circumstances I beg honorable members to consider whether it is desirable to go further ; whether it would not be well to hold our hands, and even, if necessary, to reconsider at an early opportunity the decision which we have just come to.

Mr ISAACS:
Indi

– I think the Minister in charge of the Bill has pressed his argument a great deal too far. In the first place, the vote we carried a moment or two ago was the main one, and this is only consequential upon it. The vote we carried was that if spirits were bottled and then placed in a case the case should bear this information. It is quite evident that without this provision when the bottles are taken out of the case the benefit sought to be derived might be lost. Unfortunately, however, the regulation does not go the length that the Minister supposes. I wish that it did. Even the addition proposed by the honorable member for Echuca will not make it compulsory to put such a label on every bottle. The rule in its unamended form provides that -

No label shall be affixed by a distiller to any bottles containing spirits, unless the collector has given his permission in writing to the affixing of such labels.

The honorable member for Echuca proposes to add words providing merely that ifa label is put on a bottle - it not being compulsory to put it on - that label shall contain this information. Therefore, the Minister is pressing his objection to the amendment much too far. Another argument put by the Minister was - “ Why should we go out of our way to insist on the material being mentioned?” We should do so, because the Bill now provides for two classes of spirit-makers’ licences, one to enable a man to make spirits from wine products alone, and the other to make spirits from any material. It is most essential, it seems to me, that when spirits are made the Customs department should know what are the materials used, for the protection of our revenue and in order to see that the spirit-makers, or at all events some of them, are not evading their just obligations. Thus, from a Customs standpoint alone, the Minister ought to welcome the proposed addition to the rule.

Mr WATSON:
Bland

– It seems to me that the amendment proposed by the honorable member for Echuca does not go any great distance further than clause 75 as passed. In that clause the right honorable gentleman has laid down that “ no person “ - I presume that includes publicans, retailers, and others - shall

Sell spirits of a less strength than 25 degrees underproof.

Then it goes on to enumerate quite a number of matters. It provides that no person shall -

Sell any Australian wine containing more than 25 per cent, of proof spirit, or add any wines to spirits for the purpose of breaking down or reducing the strength of the spirits. do not see that the amendment now proposed is inconsistent with the spirit or intention of clause 75. We are not going one iota further, so far as the general effect is concerned, while so far as the consumption of spirits is concerned I think we are taking a very proper precaution.

Mr Cameron:

– Is it done in any place in the world where spirits are produced 1

Mr WATSON:

– What objection is there to be urged to the present, proposal that could not be urged with equal justice against clause 75 1

Mr V L SOLOMON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · FT

– The honorable member for Bland has just called attention to a clause in which we have evidently made a very serious slip. He points to that clause as a reason why we should go further, and pass the amendment proposed by the honorable member for Echuca. If the use of the word “ person,” in clause 75, is going to cover hotel-keepers who are at the present time under different laws in each State, it seems to me that it is going a little beyond the Constitution ; that it is trenching very much on State rights.

Mr Watson:

– What about the provision in regard to “exhausted tea” in the Customs Bill ? It is on the same line.

Mr V L SOLOMON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · FT

– I do not know whether tea is to be dealt with in that Bill as it is in all the States. I think it is dealt with in the different States in the same way, and that the power to legislate in regard to it has been handed over to us. The provision that no person shall break down spirits by the introduction of wine, &c, will undoubtedly interfere with licensed victuallei’s, who in all the States are subject already to special legislation. We have special legislation in South Australia dealing with the bottling of wines and spirits, which specifies that imported spirits or imported wines bottled in that State must bear a certain label stating clearly that they are imported, and bottled in South Australia, and giving the name of the person bottling them. Nothing whatever is said about the materials from which they are made. As far as I know the only case in which that requirement is imposed is in regard to poisons under the Poods and Drugs Act. I am pointing out these aspects of the question in order that the Minister may look back, as he said just now, at certain portions of the Bill and see how far we are going. It is useless to pass an Act which trenches on the rights of the States and upon their existing legislation, and which is not well within the limitations of an ordinary Customs Bill or Distillation Act.

Mr Higgins:

– We have the same law in Victoria as to the contents of certain medicines.

Mr V L SOLOMON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · FT

– Exactly. The South Australian measure does not stipulate what the honorable member for Echuca proposes, that the label shall show what the spirits are made from. I quite agree with the honorable member’s desire that something of the kind should be done, but I do not think this is the place to do it. It can be better dealt with, and should be dealt with, in a separate measure on the same terms as those relating to the labelling and retailing of imported bottled spirits, but it should not be introduced into this measure.

Mr HARPER:
Mernda

– There is one objection I see to this proposal, as well as to the amendment we have just carried, and that is that we are applying to spirits bottled in Australia a different rule from that which will prevail in regard to imported spirits.

There is no provision of this kind in the Customs Bill, so that potato or any other land of spirit may come into this country, whilst our own distillers will be debarred from making any such products.

Mr McColl:

– We will stop that under the Tariff.

Mr HARPER:

– It may not be possible to do so, and we must be careful not to place our own distillers under any disability as compared with those beyond the Commonwealth.

Mr SALMON:
Laanecoorie

– I quite agree with the honorable member for Bland, that in another case we have already gone as far as the amendment now proposes to go. We have protected the consumer against exhausted tea, and we are protecting the public against wines and spirits of bad quality, and surely we are entitled to go to the length now proposed. All matters relating to distillation have been handed over to us as a Commonwealth, and it becomes our duty to do everything we can to protect the consumer as well as to study the revenue. If any proposal in this direction were brought forward in any of the State Parliaments, its sponsor would be at once met by the objection that any attempt to deal with the matter would be an intrusion upon the realm of the Commonwealth. No arguments can be used against such an amendment as the honorable member has proposed, except those which might be brought forward in the interests of a dishonest distiller. The man who uses proper materials will have nothing to fear from any such restriction.

Mr Conroy:

– What are proper materials ?

Mr SALMON:

– I can tell the honorable member what are improper materials ; potatoes, for instance.

Mr Conroy:

– Potatoes are notimproper materials.

Mr Harper:

– Can the honorable member chemically distinguish one spirit from the other?

Mr SALMON:

– Potato spirit can easily be distinguished from corn spirit, and even the man in the street who does not know anything about the chemical constituents of potato or corn spirit would be able to immediately tell the difference between the two by the effects produced upon the human system. The proposal of the honorable member for Echuca does not trench in any way upon the rights of the States, but this is the proper place, and now is the proper time, for us to make the provision necessary to protect the consumer against bad spirits. We have something more than the collection of revenue to look after, and that is shown by the instance referred to by the honorable member for Bland.’ The statement that no similar provision has been made in any other country in the world surely ought not to weigh with us, seeing that we hope shortly to pass legislation dealing with aliens such as has not been passed in any other country. I hope we shall agree to the amendment, in order that we may lay it down as a principle that it is our duty to protect the consumer as well as the Government.

Mr CONROY:
Werriwa

– If the honorable member for Laanecoorie will look up Fownes’ Chemistry, he will see that the interjection I made was perfectly correct, and that, whether alcohol is distilled from potatoes or grain, under certain conditions, there is absolutely no difference whatever. When certain lower oils are left in the spirit no doubt there is a difference ; but when it comes to a question of pure alcohol, apartf rom the flavourings which are used to make the different spirits which pass into the market for human consumption, there is practically no difference between potato and grain spirit. We ought to be guided by chemists in this matter, and the whole question should be reconsidered with a view to the recognition of the fact that, so far as the public are concerned, alcohol, if it may be considered wholesome at all, is just as wholesome if distilled from one thing as from another. If there is any prejudice in the minds of the people with regard to the source from which the spirits come, we are likely, by passing the amendment, to strengthen that prejudice against our own distillers. It is very questionable whether any such provision as that now proposed could be enforced, and it is also a question whether, by passing the amendment, we shall not be overstepping the limits of the Constitution.

Mr THOMSON:
North Sydney

– When I listened to the Minister’s very earnest words, requesting the committee to go back on what they had already done, and not to do what they proposed to do, I was reminded that equally earnest words were addressed to him by various honorable members when the Customs Bill was before us. Then the Minister found a hundred reasons why we should provide for the purity of imported goods. It has been pointed out that, if we deal with this matter as proposed, we shall be treating our own productions differently from imported goods under the Customs Bill. In that Bill we actually, under the pressure of the Ministry, passed a clause which stated that an article which was allowed to be manufactured in this country would not be allowed to be imported into the Commonwealth, and on the 59th rule in this Bill, where the objection was raised that the Minister’s proposal would have the effect of hampering trade, he insisted upon its being passed. Under that rule it will be necessary, in the case of spirits bottled within the Commonwealth, for the name of the distillery and the place where the spirits were distilled to appear on the casks and cases, although no such provision is made regarding imported spirits under the Customs Bill. The Minister refused to listen to the representations that trade would be unnecessarily hampered, or that we might be exceeding our powers under the Constitution. It was shown that all restrictions could be escaped by the payment of duty upon the spirits, and by then dealing with them in a free store, just as the provision now sought to be made can be escaped, because spirits can be taken into a free store and dealt with without any of the labelling that the honorable member for Echuca contemplates.

Mr A PATERSON:
Capricornia

– I do not take much interest in spirits, so far as their manufacture is concerned, but I take some interest in truth, and I would like the committee to consider the enormous amount of lying that will probably be indulged in in connexion with the declarations that it is proposed to require from those who are dealing with these spirits. There will be a good deal of lying in connexion with the declarations on the cases, and there will be twelve times as much lying in connexion with the labels on the bottles.I shall oppose the amendment altogether.

Mr McCOLL:
Echuca

– I do not see howit can be contended that we are encroaching on State rights, because everything relating to distillation comes within our purview, and we have a perfect right to place whatever restrictions we think necessary upon the distillation of spirits. If we pass this legislation the States will no doubt take the matter up at the point where we leave off, and will make regulations which will protect the public against the improper manipulation of spirits after they leave the distillery.From what I know of the various State legislators they are just as anxious to protect the public as we are.

Question - That the words proposed to be added be so added - put.

The committee divided -

Ayes … … … 27

Noes … … … 21

Majority … … 6

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. POYNTON (South Australia).Rule 6 1 says that -

A distiller may apply in writing to the collector to re-vat any spirits stored in his spirit warehouse, and the permission may be granted or refused.

I move -

That the word “apply” be omitted, with the view to insert in lieu thereof the word “notify” ; and to insert after the word “collector” the words “ his intention” ; also that the words “and the permission may be granted or refused” be omitted.

Those who are authorities upon this matter assert that they must have more latitude than is conferred by this rule. I ask the Minister if he cannot meet me upon this question ?

Mr KINGSTON:
Protectionist

– The position is that the spirit warehouse is a Customs bond, and the provision is to allow spirits to be taken out of the warehouse, where they areunder lock and key, back into the spirit store for the purpose of blending. I do not think that any objection can be offered to that, but I cannot agree that such action ought to be left entirely to the discretion of the distiller. It would be highly undesirable that spirits should be taken out at airy moment without any consideration as to the presence of an officer. If the honorable member for South Australia is willing to accept the rule in the following form, I am prepared to meet him : -

Spirits may be removed from the warehouse to the spirit store for re-vatting with the permission of the collector.

It is in the spirit store that the re-vatting and blending operations are carried out. Rule 41 says -

The spirit store is for the purpose of carrying on therein the flavouring, colouring, blending, and bottling of spirits, and the putting of the spirits into casks.

– Undoubtedly.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment (by Mr. Kingston) agreed to-

That all the words after “may” be omitted with a view to insert in lieu thereof the words “by authority re- vat in his spirit store any spirits stored in his spirit warehouse.

Sir MALCOLM McEACHARN:
Melbourne

– Rule 75 reads -

All casks, if not removed within three years, shall at the expiration of that time be examined by an officer, and the duty upon any difference or deficiency between the quantity ascertained on the spirits being first warehoused and the quantity found to exist at such examination, subject to the specified allowance or to such greater allowance as may be sanctioned by the collector, shallbe paid, and the quantity found in the casks shall either be re-warehoused by the surrender of the existing certificate and the issue of a new certificate, or the duty shall be paid thereon.

It is thought to be a great hardship that goods should have to be re-bonded every three years, and as this clause is only intended to operate where suspicious circumstances are likely to arise, the Minister might very well add something to leave it optional to the collector and not obligatory.

Mr KINGSTON:

– I am not sure that it is not a good thing to provide for the periodical overhauling of the contents of the warehouse, but, at the same time, there may be special cases which will render a little discretion necessary and proper. I move -

That after the word “time,” line 2, the following words be inserted - “or such further time if any as may be allowed by the collector.”

Mr McCOLL:
Echuca

– There are two amendments desired by the vignerons’ conference in rule 87, which provides that; -

Vignerons’ licences shall not be granted in respect of stills of a capacity of less than two hundred gallons, or which are not capable of exhausting fifty gallons of wine per hour.

When that rule was drawn, the area was intended to be 10 acres, whereas now it has been reduced to 5. It is said, however, that a 200 gallon capacity would be large enough for 50 acres, and I move -

That the words “two hundred” be struck out with a view to insert in lieu thereof the word “fifty,” and that “ fifty “ be omitted with a view to insert “twenty” in lieu thereof.

Mr ISAACS:
Indi

– I hope the Minister will accept the amendment, because this is a matter which means the continuance or abandonment of these stills in the case of a number of vignerons.

Mr Kingston:

– I am making provision for existing stills.

Mr ISAACS:

– But we have to consider those persons who may want to come into the business afterwards. We must not forget that the industry, important as it is at present, is really in its infancy, and I hope that we shall, by reducing the capacity of the exhausting power of stills, place it within the reach of smaller growers in the future to be able to develop their own vineyards and produce their own wine.

Amendments agreed to.

Mr. McCOLL (Echuca).- Rule 88 provides that -

Before a vigneron’s licence shall be granted or renewed there must be erected upon the premises a spirit store which must -

Be a building of stone, brick, or concrete.

It is pointed out that in some parts it may be difficult to get either stone, brick, or concrete, and it is therefore desired to have inserted the words “ or other approved material.” I move -

That the words “ or other approved material” be added.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. McCOLL (Echuca). - An amendment is required in Rule 90, which is as follows : -

A feints receiver of not less than one hundred gallons capacity,and a spirit receiver of not less than two hundred gallons capacity, must be kept in the spirit store.

I move -

That the words “one hundred” be omitted, with a view to insert “thirty-five,” and that the words “ two hundred” be omitted, with a view to insert “sixty.”

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. McCOLL (Echuca). - A strong objection has been made to the seven days’ notice in Rule 93, which is as follows : -

Every vigneron shall give to the collector at least seven days’ notice of the day and hour when he intends to commence distilling.

It is felt that this is altogether too long, and that the circumstances of the operation would not permit seven days’ notice to be given. It should be three. I move -

That the word “seven “ be omitted, with a view to insert the word “three.”

Amendment agreed to.

Rule 97-

If the quantity of spirits produced is less than the quantity of spirits which should have been produced, the vigneron shall pay duty on the deficiency, unless such deficiency is explained to the satisfaction of the collector, and no distilling operations or mixing of spirits with wine shall be allowed until the duty demanded on any deficiency has been paid.

Mr McCOLL:
Echuca

– It is desired that some such words as “or until such deficiency shall be satisfactorily explained “ be inserted in this rule.

Amendment (by Mr. Kingston) agreed to-

That the following words be added : - “ or until such deficiency is accounted for to the satisfaction of the collector.”

Mr. McCOLL (Echuca). - It has been pointed out to me that under regulation 99 a vigneron ought to be required to give the collector only twelve hours’ notice of his intention to mix spirits with wine. I hope that the Minister will see his way to reduce the length of the notice from twenty-four hours to twelve hours.

Mr KINGSTON:
Protectionist

– I am afraid that twelve hours’ notice will be too little. We do not want to harass the vigneron ; but at the same time we cannot be always there, and if twelve hours’ notice only is to be required I am inclined to think that it will be difficult to exercise any supervision. Of course the circumstances are not the same as in Victoria at present. There are cases where distilleries are, or may be, situated in much more remote districts, and twelve hours’ notice I am sure would place difficulties in the way of the presence of an officer which might not be altogether desirable. I ask the honorable member not to press for an amendment. Surely 24 hours’ notice is not too stiff.

Mr McColl:

-I shall not press the matter.

Mr V L SOLOMON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · FT

– It would require an army of officers if we reduced the length of the notice.

Mr. McCOLL (Echuca). - Some consequential amendments ought to be made in regulations 100 to 104 inclusive. In the body of the Bill we struck out the references to the duty, and therefore the references to the duty ought to be omitted from these regulations.

Mr KINGSTON:

– -I am willing to amend these regulations so as to bring them into harmony with what we have done in the Bill.

Regulations amended accordingly.

Mr ISAACS:
Indi

– I find that regulation 105 provides that -

Two or more vignerons having each a vigneron’s licence may, by permission, use a portable still, to be removed from time to time to the licensed premises where its use is required.

On the second reading of the Bill, or in committee on an earlier clause, I suggested that the Minister should agree to have a power enabling two or more vignerons to use one still, not portable, but remaining on the premises of one of them, where the same supervision could be exercised. Such on arrangement would bo better for the Customs department and for the vignerons themselves. I hope the Minister will see his way to permit that to be done. I move -

That the following words be added to the paragraph : - “ or a still situated on the premises of one of them.”

Mr KINGSTON:

– I think that is permitted already, and I do not think the amendment is wanted, because I have already agreed not to limit the vigneron to the distillation of spirits to fortify his own wines. That was struck out just now for the purpose of getting over the difficulty.

Mr ISAACS:
INDI, VICTORIA · PROT

-That will not meet the case at all. The Minister has struck out some words which restricted the use by a vigneron distiller of the spirits he distilled for his own wine, but he has not the power to sell the spirit ho distils, unless he gets special permission, and I do not know what use it is going to be to him to be told that he may make a present of it to somebody else. He has not the right of sale, but the spirits he distils may be used for some one else’s wine. Under regulation 105 two or more vignerons may have’ one still between them, provided they move it about, and all I want is to give them the power to use a still if they choose to keep it in one place. It will make no difference to the Customs department, as it will be subject to supervision. I only want to do away with the necessity for moving the still about, where that can be avoided.

Mr Kingston:

– I do not think the amendment is wanted, but as it is in compliance with our intention, I have no objection to it.

Mr. McCOLL (Echuca).- This is an amendment which I understood the Minister was strongly in favour of. The object of it is to have one still which may be used by two or more people, each of whom will have a licence.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments (by Mr. Kingston) agreed to-

That after regulation 105 the following regulations with respect to test stills be inserted - 105a. Applications for test still licences may be in Form J. 105b. Test still licences may be in Form E. 105c. The holder of a test still licence who does not renew his licence shall secure his still to the satisfaction of the collector.

That the following new form be inserted after form “ C “ in Schedule III : -

The Commonwealth of Australia.

The Distillation Act 1901.

This licence is issued under and subject to the provisions of the Distillation Act 1901, and the regulations thereunder to (name) (occupation) and authorizes him to distil spirits from grape products only upon his premises, situated at (street or road) (locality). This licence expires on the 31st day of December, 19 , and is renewable annually on payment of the annual licence-fee unlesssus- pended or cancelled in the meantime.

Mr MAHON:
Coolgardie

– In connectionwith form K I would ask the Minister whether it is intended to require all persons who are working salt water stills to take out a licence?

Mr KINGSTON:
Protectionist

– No. It is not intended to interfere with them at all. I move that the form be amended to read as follows : -

FORM K.

Commonwealth of Australia. - The Distillation Act 1901.

Test Still Licence.

This licence is issued subject to the Distillation Act 1901, and the regulations thereunder to (name) (occupation), and authorizes him to use upon his premises situated at (street or road) (locality) for the purpose of distilling. This licence expires on the 31st day of December, 19

Schedule agreed to.

Bill reported with amendments.

page 4754

ADJOURNMENT

Commandantof New South Wales Defence Force

Motion (by Mr. Kingston) proposed -

That the House do now adjourn.

Mr CONROY:
Werriwa

– I wish to ask the Minister for Defence whether it is true that a new Commandant of the New South Wales Defence forces has been appointed?

Sir JOHN FORREST:
Minister for Defence · Swan · Protectionist

– The commandantship of the State referred to is not yet vacant, and will not be vacant till the end of the year.

Mr Conroy:

– There is a rumour of that sort.

Sir JOHN FORREST:

– There is no foundation for any such rumour.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

House adjourned at 11.10 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 11 September 1901, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1901/19010911_reps_1_4/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant

House of Representatives11 September 1901

PETITIONS

HANSARD

Sir WILLIAM McMILLAN:Wentworth

Mr BARTON:Minister for External Affairs · Hunter · Protectionist

Sir William McMillan:

Mr SPEAKER:

Mr McDonald:

Mr SPEAKER:

Mr Barton:

QUESTION

DEPUTY POSTMASTER-GENERAL OUTTRIM

Mr O’MALLEY:TASMANIA, TASMANIA

Mr BARTON:Protectionist

Sir WILLIAM McMILLAN:

Mr BARTON:

Sir William McMillan:

Mr BARTON:

QUESTION

IMMIGRATION OF AFGHANS

Mr MCDONALD:

Mr BARTON:Protectionist

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

Mr GLYNN:South Australia

QUESTION

EXEMPT KANAKAS IN QUEENSLAND

Mr BAMFORD:HERBERT, QUEENSLAND

Mr BARTON:Protectionist

QUESTION

PUBLIC SERVANTS’ INCREMENTS

Mr JOSEPH COOK:PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr BARTON:Protectionist

QUESTION

TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY SURVEY

Mr KIRWAN:KALGOORLIE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Mr BARTON:Protectionist

QUESTION

TELEGRAPHIC COMMUNICATION WITH TARCOOLA

Sir LANGDON BONYTHON:SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Mr BARTON:Protectionist

PAPER

DISTILLATION BILL

Mr McCOLL:Echuca

Sir JOHN QUICK:Bendigo

Mr KINGSTON:Minister for Trade and Customs · South Australia Minister for Trade and Customs · Protectionist

Mr McColl:

Mr KINGSTON:

Sir John Quick:

Mr KINGSTON:

Sir William McMillan:

Mr KINGSTON:

Mr McCay:

Mr KINGSTON:

Mr Isaacs:

Mr KINGSTON:

Mr Watson:

Mr KINGSTON:

Mr McColl:

Mr KINGSTON:

Mr KINGSTON:

Mr MCCOLL:

Mr KINGSTON:

Mr ISAACS:Indi

Mr Kingston:

Mr ISAACS:

Mr Kingston:

Mr ISAACS:

Mr Kingston:

Mr ISAACS:

Mr KINGSTON:

Mr McColl:

Mr KINGSTON:

Mr KINGSTON:

Mr Isaacs:

Mr KINGSTON:

Mr KINGSTON:

Mr McColl:

Mr KINGSTON:

Mr KINGSTON:

Mr KINGSTON:

House of Representatives
11 September 1901

Sir WILLIAM McMILLAN:
Wentworth

Mr BARTON:
Minister for External Affairs · Hunter · Protectionist

Mr O’MALLEY:
TASMANIA, TASMANIA

Mr BARTON:
Protectionist

Mr BARTON:
Protectionist

Mr GLYNN:
South Australia

Mr BAMFORD:
HERBERT, QUEENSLAND

Mr BARTON:
Protectionist

Mr JOSEPH COOK:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr BARTON:
Protectionist

Mr KIRWAN:
KALGOORLIE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Mr BARTON:
Protectionist

Sir LANGDON BONYTHON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Mr BARTON:
Protectionist

Mr McCOLL:
Echuca

Sir JOHN QUICK:
Bendigo

Mr KINGSTON:
Minister for Trade and Customs · South Australia Minister for Trade and Customs · Protectionist

Mr ISAACS:
Indi

Mr MCDONALD:
Kennedy

Mr HARPER:
Mernda

Mr V L SOLOMON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · FT

Mr PAGE:
Maranoa

Mr V L SOLOMON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · FT

Mr V L SOLOMON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · FT

Mr V L SOLOMON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · FT

Mr V L SOLOMON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · FT

Mr V L SOLOMON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · FT

Mr V L SOLOMON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · FT

Mr GLYNN:
South Australia

Mr V L SOLOMON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · FT

Mr V L SOLOMON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · FT

Mr V L SOLOMON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · FT

Mr V L SOLOMON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · FT

Mr V L SOLOMON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · FT

Mr V L SOLOMON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · FT

Mr WATSON:
Bland

Mr POYNTON:
South Australia

Mr THOMSON:
North Sydney