House of Representatives
8 October 1901

1^st Parliament · 1^st Session

PETITIONS
BUDGET
PACIFIC ISLANDS LABOURERS BILL
QUESTION
- ALIENATION OF CROWN LANDS IN QUEENSLAND
QUESTION
- OLD-AGE PENSIONS
QUESTION
- FIFTH VICTORIAN CONTINGENT
ESTIMATES OF EXPENDITURE,
SUPPLY
- Referred to Committee of Supply
ASSENT TO BILLS
IMMIGRATION RESTRICTION BILL
- Third Reading
BUDGET
- In Committee of Ways and Means
ADJOURNMENT
- Inter-State Commission Bill - Tariff
- Recommendations of Chamber of Manufactures

Mr. Speaker took the chair at 2.30 p.m., and read prayers.

page 5668

PETITIONS

Mr. CHANTER presented a petition from Philip Shore and other residents of the Commonwealth, praying that provision might be made for a federal scheme for improving the navigability, and conserving the water of the rivers Murray and Darling.

Petition received, and read.

Mr. CHANTER presented a similar petition from James Wilkinson and other residents of the Commonwealth.

Petition received.

page 5669

BUDGET

Mr REID:
EAST SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I wish to ask the Prime Minister whether the usual course in connexion with the approaching financial statement is to be adopted, that is, its delivery by the Treasurer, or whether it is intended that upon this occasion the duty shall be divided ? If the duty is to be shared by the Treasurer and the Minister for Trade and Customs, will the two speeches be delivered in the same committee? Obviously it would be wrong to split the debate into two, and I am sure that is not contemplated by the Ministry.

Mr BARTON:
Minister for External Affairs · HUNTER, NEW SOUTH WALES · Protectionist

– There is no intention to split the debate into two, and honorable members will have the ordinary opportunity to discuss the whole statement. Obviously, with the work in hand, it would be a severe task for any one man to deliver both the Budget speech and the explanation of the Tariff, and it has been arranged between my right honorable friends the Treasurer and the Minister for Trade and Customs, with my entire approbation, that the Treasurer shall deliver the financial statement, and that, afterwards, the Tariff shall be explained by the Minister of Trade and Customs. These steps may not be taken in the same committee, but I will see that every ordinary opportunity is given for discussing matters of principle, either by continuing the debate in the Committee of Ways and Means, after the explanation of the Tariff, or by reverting, if necessary, to Committee of Supply.

Mr REID:

– I do not wish to say anything at this stage, but I hope the Prime Minister will take this into consideration, that if the financial speech is divided - practically divided - into two, unless the two speeches are delivered in the same committee, members referring to the explanation of the Tariff will have to refer to it in the committee in which that subject was introduced, and will not be able to speak of it in the committee in which the other matter was dealt with. Therefore, the discussion will practically have to- be cut in two. Probably the most important part of the discussion will centre round the Tariff, but at the same time the Tariff and the financial statement are inseparable, and I hope the Prime Minister will realize the inconvenience of speaking in the committee in which the Tariff is explained regarding that matter, and speaking in another committee in reference to the financial statement. 16t

The SPEAKER:

– I would remind the right honorable and learned member that the matter cannot be debated.

Mr BARTON:

– As a matter of explanation - which I think my right honorable friend is justified in seeking - I might inform the committee that the difficulty which has presented itself to the mind of my right honorable friend will not arise. In the State from which both he and I come, it has been a not infrequent thing for the financial statement, including both the Budget and taxation proposals, to be delivered in Committee of Supply. A Tariff statement, of course, properly belongs to Committee of Ways and Means, but such a statement, including the resolution which has to be passed in Committee of Wa3’s and Means, has, as often as not,, been brought clown in Committee of Supply, . and the discussion has gone on on that basis. Although technically it may not be regular to do this, usage has sanctioned . the irregularity, in so far as it relates to the discussion of questions connected with, the financial statement.

Mr Reid:

– Yes ; but the whole state- ment relating to both the finances and the Tariff has been delivered in the one committee.

M!r. BARTON.- That may be so and, . without having had any consultation with the Speaker or the Chairman, I have not the . slightest doubt that the same latitude will be allowed in this case. If the Chairman should give any ruling that might prevent the . discussion proceeding with the utmost freedom, I will take the necessary steps tosecure honorable members every opportunity for dealing with both statements.

Mr SPEAKER:

– In order to save timeI may inform the House that in the British Parliament the practice is, on such occasions, for reference to be allowed in Committee of Supply to any parallel debate in Committee of Ways and Means, and viae versd.

page 5669

PACIFIC ISLANDS LABOURERS BILL

Mr MCDONALD:
KENNEDY, QUEENSLAND

– I desire to ask the Prime Minister whether he has received any protest from the Queensland Government regarding the Pacific Islands Labourers Bill, and if so, if he has any objection to lay it on the table of the House 1

Mr BARTON:
Protectionist

– Last week I received a protest by telegraph from the Premier of

Queensland, which was duly published, but I do not think that is what the honorable member is referring to. To-day I read in the newspapers that the Premier of Queensland has sent me a letter, a summary of which occupies something more than half a column of one of the daily newspapers. I beg to say that I have not received that letter, and that the honorable gentleman referred to appears to have given his letter to the press before it could reach its intended recipient. As I have been made the victim of complaints of discourtesy from this source - the source of the Queensland Government - I beg to express my admiration of the tolerant spirit of courtesy which enabled this gentleman to give his letter to the press before it could reach the recipient.

page 5670

QUESTION

ALIENATION OF CROWN LANDS IN QUEENSLAND

Mr MCDONALD:
for Mr. Page

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice -

Whether in view of the possibility of the Commonwealth taking over at a comparatively early date, the whole railway systems of the several States, he will vigorously protest against the wholesale alienation of Crown lands along existing and proposed railway routes, in the States of Queensland, such alienation being, it is alleged, calculated to seriously interfere with the future revenues of the said railways ?

Mr BARTON:
Protectionist

– I am sorry that I cannot undertake to make a protest of this character. It would seem too much like interfering with the business of another State, and interfering in a quarter from which we have had very strong protests against interfering with our own business.

page 5670

QUESTION

OLD-AGE PENSIONS

Mr O’MALLEY:
TASMANIA, TASMANIA

asked the Prime Minister, upon, notice -

Whether he will set apart one day this week for the discussion of a motion with reference to the national system of old-age pensions ?

Mr BARTON:
Protectionist

– I am unable to make any promise in regard to this matter in the present stage of public business.

page 5670

QUESTION

FIFTH VICTORIAN CONTINGENT

Mr CROUCH:
CORIO, VICTORIA

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice -

Whether his attention has been drawn to the statement in the Age newspaper on the 3rd October, that Major McKnight, of the Fifth Victorian Contingent, had cabled to the Victorian

Government asking it to demand an inquiry into the language and conduct of Colonel Beatson towards the Contingent ?

Whether the Defence department knows of such cablegram, and has the Minister any objection to state its contents to the House?

Sir JOHN FORREST:
Minister for Defence · SWAN, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · Protectionist

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

Yes.
No such telegram has been received by either the Commonwealth or the State Government.

page 5670

ESTIMATES OF EXPENDITURE,

Mr. SPEAKER reported the receipt of a message from His Excellency the GovernorGeneral transmitting to the House of Representatives the accompanying Estimates of Revenue and Expenditure for the year ending 30th June, 1902, together with Estimates of Expenditure for arrears for the period ended 30th June, 1901, and recommending an appropriation of the Consolidated Revenue Fund accordingly.

Third Reading

Mr. BARTON (Hunter - Minister for

External Affairs). - I am quite sure that, considering the task which my right honorable friend, the Treasurer, has before him, honorable members will excuse me for bringing on the third reading of the Immigration Restriction Bill, which, I take it, is practically a formal matter. I accordingly move -

That Orders of the Day, Nos. 1 and 2, be postponed until after order No. 3.

– Perhaps the honorable member will move the adjournment of the debate 1

Mr WILKS:

– At the suggestion of the Prime Minister I move -

That the debute be now adjourned.

The SPEAKER:

– It is not quite regular for an honorable member to move the adjournment of a debate after having commenced his speech, but under the circumstances probably the House will excuse the irregularity.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Mr BARTON:
Minister for External Affairs · Hunter · Protectionist

.. - In moving the third reading of the Bill, I supposed honorable members would deal with the matter as one involving no prolonged debate after the long discussion that had already taken place upon it.

page 5673

BUDGET

In Committee of Ways and Means

Sir GEORGE TURNER:
Treasurer · BalaclavaTreasurer · Protectionist

– Mr. Chairman, I desire to thank honorable members for their kind, encouraging cheer. I can assure them that I feel to-day in a greater difficulty than, I think, any Treasurer has ever felt - certainly in a far greater difficulty than I have ever felt when introducing a Budget into the State Parliament. I feel that the work on which we shall be engaged for some little time is of the utmost importance to all the people of our Commonwealth - not alone to those who are here now, but to those who will be here when we have passed away. The difficulties surrounding the task which has had to be carried out by myself, so far as the financial portion of our proposals is concerned, have, indeed, been very great. When you are dealing with one State, you can obtain your information with some ease ; but when you come to deal with six States, some of them far away from the seat of Government, it is very hard, indeed, to get the information you require to place financial proposals before a committee in such a form that they will be clearly understood, and the position of the Treasury, and also that of the State Treasurers fully disclosed. I have, unfortunately, suffered from the absence of my right hand man : my secretary has been laid up for the last five weeks; therefore a very large portion of the work which would have been done by him has fallen on my shoulders. I feel that in dealing with the finances we all fully realize the great responsibility which rests upon our shoulders, and I am certain that, whatever our opinions on the fiscal question may be, we shall give each other credit for being animated by but one desire - to do that which is best for Australia, and fair, just, and equitable to all the States, and to all classes and sections of our community. Another grave responsibility which rests upon us at this particular time is to take the utmost care that there shall be no extravagant expenditure. While we should spend all .that is reasonably necessary for the purpose of defending and developing our country we must see, at all events in the early stages of our career, that there is no extravagance, because the money we spend is money which comes from the States, and if we do anything which may put them into a difficult position they will feel in’clined to curse rather than to bless federation. Under these circumstances - seeing that we have a large surplus to dispose of - we must be more than usually careful. When a Treasurer is in the position of not having money to spend, it is not very hard, although it is not popular, to say “No”; but when he has a large surplus to dispose of, there is always a temptation to be lavish, and to obtain kudos by expending money. But if we act in that way, we shall force the States into a position where they will have to either impose heavy direct taxation, or resort to drastic retrenchment. Those things are both very good in their way. If you mention direct taxation or retrenchment you will find people in favour of both, but when you try to put your policy into operation, it is a very different thing. The cry then is - “ Tax the other man,” or “ Retrench some one else.” I have had experience of not having much to spend, and therefore I assure honorable members that my sympathies are entirely with the State Treasurers, and anything I can do to relieve their necessities will undoubtedly be done. We have no revenue of our own to dispose of. Whatever money we spend has to come out of the State coffers, though apparently some of the States, and many of the public, think that the Commonwealth has a revenue of its own with which it can dp just as it likes Another grave responsibility resting upon us is with regard to the mode in which we frame our Tariff. We are bound to try to, as far as practicable, give back to each State about as much as it would have received if federation had not taken place, and in addition there is the responsibility of providing for the expenditure of the Commonwealth. Whatever Tariff we may in our wisdom pass may not realize our expectations, and therefore, whatever views we may hold, we must be extremely cautious and careful not to do anything to endanger the solvency of any of the States, because the solvency of the Commonwealth depends upon the solvency of the States. In the Customs duties we have taken from the States their most elastic and most important source of revenue, and therefore it is our bounden duty to do everything we” can to preserve their solvency, and prevent them from being placed in a dangerous position. To expound the financial proposals of a Government is not at any time an easy task, and, as honorable members will realize, although formerly Treasurers have had to deal with one State only, to-day it is my duty to deal with the affairs not of one, but of six States. It is necessary that we should place on record, for the information of the States, and also in order that the position we take up may be fairly challenged, some explanation of the Budget proposals, so that those who desire to know may have the fullest information given to them. Now, I intend today to make a plain, simple statement with regard to our financial position. I do not myself claim to be an accountant, and I want to see the accounts of the Treasury kept in such a simple manner that any honorable member requiring information may always be able to get it without difficulty. I will place in the hands of honorable members all the information within my knowledge, whether it be in favour of or against any proposal I may bring forward. We have had to get this information under very difficult circumstances ; but, while there may be a few slight mistakes in some of the figures placed before honorable mem-bers, I believe that, on the whole, they are correct. There have been some questions with regard to the delay in bringing forward these proposals, but I desire to impress upon honorable members the fact that there has been no unnecessary delay. We have been anxious to get on with our Tariff proposals as quickly as possible. As soon as we came into office, Ave desired that certain statistical information should be obtained, and that occupied many months - any one who has anything to do with the statistics of the different States will very soon find out how immensely difficult it is to obtain any reliable information. The whole of the statistics appear to be kept according to different methods in the various States, and matters are so mixed up that even now some very important information that I had wished to place before honorable members I have not been able to bring forward, because I could not satisfy myself of its correctness. In April last, the Minister of Trade and Customs and I started to deal with the draft Tariff, and we obtained all the information and returns we could. That Tariff has been framed for some little time. The Minister of Trade and Customs and myself worked night and day upon it, and the Cabinet had to ask the House to allow us an extra day, in order that each item might be fully debated, and so that all members of the Cabinet might know exactly what the proposals were. Frequently, when alterations were made in the various items, or further information came to our hands, we had to alter our calculations. We had the difficult task of carrying out the pledge we had given, to frame a Tariff which would give us the necessary amount of revenue, and yet be protective to our existing industries. We have closely studied all the figures, and I cannot pass away from this portion of my speech, without giving every credit to the collectors of the different States, who have been working out this problem with us, and I also desire to mention the name of Mr. Smart, one of the chief officers in the Victorian Customs department. I am certain that my right honorable friend, the Minister of Trade and Customs, will freely indorse anything I may say with regard to the labours of these officers, because they have taken a deep interest in their work, and have done everything they possibly could to assist us in the difficult and arduous task we have had to perform. AVe have heard a great deal about the extravagance of the Commonwealth, and of the immense amount of money we were going to expend after taking it out of the pockets of the taxpayers. I desire to direct the attention of honorable members to a few facts in connexion with the expenditure of the past. In 1895-96 the Customs expenditure amounted to£246,579, in 1900-01 the expenditure was £260,972, and at the date of transfer £259,387. The proposals we bring forward provide for an expenditure of £259,763. Of course it is not fair to compare our estimates with the actual expenditure of last year, and I will give many reasons for that afterwards. All we are responsible for is the state of affairs that wc found when we took possession. Therefore, in our comparisons we have taken the expenditure as at the date of transfer, and contrasted it with the amount we propose to spend. The expenditure at the date of transfer was arrived at by taking the salaries then paid, the allowances at the amount then being paid, and the contingencies at the amount which was expended during that particular year. On these items honorable members will see that there had been increases up to the date of transfer of £12,808, but our increases as against those up to the date of transfer amount to £376. We, of course, have to add to that the new expenditure occasioned by the Minister’s office, amounting to £3,15 . That is a very small department, and the expenditure is not large, but in pointing this out I have an object in view, which honorable members . will afterwards see. The Post-office expenditure in 1895-96 - and I take that year because it is the year referred to in the papers which were dealt with at Adelaide - was £2,035,497 ; in 1901 it had increased to £2,305,000, and at the date of transfer it was at the rate of £2,331,939. We propose an expenditure of £2,342,423. Our proposal, therefore, is for an increase in the expenditure of that department of £11,000. The increase from 1895-96, to the time of transfer, amounted to no less than £306,926. The cost of the Minister’s office is £4,690. But when we turn to the Defence department we find figures which, I think, will startle honorable members and many people outside of this House. The expenditure in that department in 1895-96 was £522,448 ; in 1901 it had reached £811,010, and at the date of transfer it was £895,434. Our proposals contemplate an expenditure of £884,429.

Mr Watson:

– Is that independent of the cost of the contingents %

Sir GEORGE TURNER:

– We have nothing to do with the contingents. We did not take them into consideration at all. We are, therefore, proposing a decrease in the expenditure of the Defence department of £11,005. The cost of the new offices amounts to £8,975. The increased cost incurred by the States, prior to the transfer of the department to the Commonwealth, amounted to £372,986. It may seem that a large increase is involved in the amount set down in our proposal as compared with the expenditure for 1901, but there are certain facts which explain that, and which I will place before honorable members in a minute or two. These great increases in the expenditure in connexion with the Defence department took place within the last couple of years. I fund that in New South Wales the increase was £90,000, hi “Victoria it was £120,000, in Queensland £90,000, in South Australia £36,000, in Western Australia £15,000, and in Tasmania £20,000.

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

– Was not that occasioned to some extent by the contingents?

Sir GEORGE TURNER:

– No ; in this comparison I have left out all consideration of the contingents absolutely, .and I simply compare the like figures with the like figures. I may mention in regard to these particular figures that I have been trying for months to get possession of a return showing each year’s increased expenditure. Up to the present, however, I have not been able to get one which is satisfactory, but I am determined to do so in order that honorable members may have the fullest opportunity of checking these quotations. Whilst, therefore, we have not made any very large savings in the Defence department, I think honorable members will admit that we have stopped the heavy expenditure which has been going on for some time. There are one or two very peculiar items of expenditure. The total number of rounds fired came to some 13,000,000, out of which Victoria had 7,300,000, leaving 5,700,000 for the rest of the States. This year we are providing £91,740 for ammunition. Last year the amount expended was£71,589, but the Minister for Defence fortunately ascertained where a considerable quantity of good ammunition could be obtained at a large discount, and that meant a saving to us of £16,550; otherwise the increase on last year would have been £36,701. The quality of this ammunition is quite as good, and the bargain is really a very advantageous one for the Commonwealth. The great expenditure in Victoria has been in connexion with rifle clubs. In 1899-1 900 there was expended in that State £1,072, and in 1900-1901 £22,868, and this year we have to provide £35,638. Honorable members will, therefore, see that the expense ‘in this particular department has gone up by leaps and bounds. While I freely admit that we ought to see that our armaments are of the best, and that our men have a fair amount of training and drilling, still I think the time has come when we have to seriously consider whether the Commonwealth can bear the great strain which has been put on us with regard to expenditure in the-Defence department. I know that when I had to administer the Defence department in Victoria, I frequently received memoranda from the military authorities insisting on certain expenditure ; but we were in the position that we simply had not the money. If I had given way to the demands which were made by the military authorities, the new estimate would have been very much larger than that we have thought fit to propose to the House. The defence expenditure in Victoria is principally on rifle clubs, which have gone ahead a great deal during the last year or two. These clubs may or may not continue. They no doubt deserve encouragement, but, at the same time, we must take the whole circumstances of the department into consideration, and see whether savings cannot be made in some other direction, which will make up, or assist to make up, this very heavy extra expenditure. Of course, we can reduce the establishment and the number of our forces. We can have less drills, which will mean less pay ; and we can supply less ammunition free, or at a cheap rate, or we can do something else. We can make very large savings in the item of allowances which are paid to the various military officers. I have had a return prepared - these allowances appear to be so numerous and so large, that in several departments, especially that of defence, I have been almost afraid to add them up to ascertain how much they come to. They have not been added up yet-I have not had sufficient time - but I have no doubt from my past experience of the Defence department that enormous allowances are made, and that a great saving can be made in cutting down some of them. If we were to follow out the report lately placed before us, instead of cutting down, we should have to very largely increase the expenditure. So that honorable members will see that we have not been extravagant in our expenditure upon the transferred departments. In the Customs department we propose to spend £376 more, but honorable members must recollect that in regard to this department there will, in consequence of the new Tariff, be a great deal more work to do than has been done. On the New South Wales Estimates a sum of £10,000 was provided ‘“for additional assistance ; but, on talking over the matter with my colleague, the Minister of Customs, having had some experience in that particular department myself, I was able to show him where we could dispense with that item altogether by transferring a number of officers from Melbourne and other places to Sydney. That has consequently been done, with the result that that particular item of .£10,000 has been omitted from the Estimates. Then also in the Defence department we have made a saving of £11,005, whilst in the Post-office we have provided for an increased expenditure of £10,484. Any honorable member who realizes how this department is increasing, and the large amounts that have necessarily to be spent, will see that the Post-office is a department in which we cannot very well cut down the expenditure too low. On the whole we have made a reduction of £145 on the total amount of votes for the three departments, as compared with the expenditure at the time of transfer. In addition to that we have had to provide £3,150 for new expenditure on account of the Customs. That is accounted for by the establishment of the Minister’s office. We have also had to provide £9,475 in respect of new expenditure in the Defence department, and £4,690 in connexion with the Post-office. It seems to me that shortly before the transfer of these departments to the Commonwealth the States showed a great anxiety to act liberally in many directions - “Victoria not being behindhand > so that when we come to compare the expenditure which we propose with the actual expenditure of last year, there are just a few circumstances which I have to ask honorable members to bear in mind. In some of the States there has been a very large increase in the number of the forces. But some of the States forgot to make any provision for the payment of the extra forces, or for their equipment. In some cases volunteers have been turned into partially-paid corps. The reclassification of the public service in Victoria and New South Wales also means an enormous extra expenditure. I am told that in New South Wales it comes to no less than £40,000. The amount for Victoria I have not been able to ascertain, but I think we may safely calculate it at something like £20,000.

Mr Watson:

– Is that all on account of the Defence department ?

Sir GEORGE TURNER:
BALACLAVA, VICTORIA · PROT

– No ; it mostly concerns the Post-office. There would not be a great increase in respect of extra payments to the men. The increases of which I speak relate to the whole service. Increases have been made in other States in other directions. We find that fresh arrangements for new services were entered into just before the transfer of the departments. New arrangements have also been made, by means of which payments to the Railways were considerably increased. In Victoria we were doubly hit. We suffered a loss of revenue in consequence of the establishment of penny postage, and at the same time we have to put on extra men to carry out the work. Further expenditure was incurred in that particular department in other directions. With regard to the defence forces the equipment had run very low, and our ammunition supplies were really in a dangerous position. The result has been that we have had to order several million rounds of ammunition this year for the purpose of having a reasonable reserve. We have not gone to the full length that weshould have gone, but we hope to have a sufficient reserve this year, and next year we hope to be able to increase it so that we may have in store the full amount of ammunition recommended. Some of the States have made increases in other directions just prior to the commencement of the Federation, and held back works and maintenance, apparently thinking that the Commonwealth had some means of dealing with these amounts without affecting the States. Some’ of this extra expenditure was not provided for last year, and some of it was provided for only six months. The result is that this year we have a burden imposed upon the Commonwealth which makes a considerable difference in the amount of our expenditure. But, of course, honorable members will realize that in connexion with the Post-office we have to make provision for increased expenditure in connexion with improvements and extensions of the ‘ telegraph .and telephone S3fstems, and that we have .also to provide for central offices for the new departments. Comparing the expenditure which we propose with the actual expenditure last year - which I have pointed out is hardly fair - and taking the extreme case, I find that in 1900-1 £250,539 was expended in connexion with the Customs. That sum we have increased to £253,010. In the Defence department the actual expenditure last year was £782,968, and we have increased it to £S50,075. In connexion -with the Post-office, the amount of £2,264,187 has been increased to £2,301,623. In the Customs, then, we have an increase of £2,471 ; in the Defence

– We have also had to provide for certain slight increases in other departments. We have had to provide for the Audit-office, and for the officers necessary in connexion with the High Court if it be established during this year. I have cut my own department down as finely as possible. I have a very small staff who have been working night and day for the last four weeks. After the 1st of January we shall have thrown on us the work which is now performed by the States, and it will be necessary then to make some slight increase in the number of the officers employed. We have £89,381 in our Trust Funds, and I think it will be the desire of the committee that these moneys should be absolutely safeguarded, and should not be expended for any but the Trust purposes. There will be very little temptation to the Treasurer in the Commonwealth to do otherwise because, as a rule, he will always have sufficient money with which to deal. So much as to what we propose to expend during the year. Perhaps the more important question, or as important a question, is how much money we are to raise, and how we propose to raise it. I do not intend to deal, with the details of the Tariff or the justification of it. That task will be undertaken by the Minister in charge of the department. But it is my duty to point out how our estimate of revenue has been arrived at, and how it affects the various States. We have based our comparisons on the figures for 1S99, not for 1900, and for this reason - that we had all the statistics prepared with regard to the former, and it would have been impossible to get them for the latter. But we had a stronger and a better reason for our action. We found this extraordinary state of affairs, that whereas the imports oversea in 1899 came to £34,000,000, in 1900 they came to £41,000,000, being an increase of £7,000,000. Honorable members know that that could not be a normal increase ; it would be absolutely impossible. Therefore any attempt to base our estimated receipts on the figures for 1900 would be absurd. The figures for that year were abnormal in many respects. A million and a half’s worth of goods extra was imported into Western Australia, although the returns in 1899 were comparatively low. The real reason for this great expansion was the fact that the prices of export goods in Great Britain had largely increased. They increased in 1900 to an extent of 14£ per cent. We do not take the full amount, but we take 10 per cent, as a fair amount to charge against 1900 as the increase in value, especially, as with ad valorem duties, you may get a largely increased revenue and not have any increase in your imports. The prices, as shown by the Economist, have gone back to those for 1899. Moreover, the process of stocking up had commenced in 1900, although, perhaps, not to such a large extent as it was carried on for a few months after the 1st January. There is no doubt that a considerable quantity of goods was imported in the expectation that the Government might by some means or other bring in a Tariff immediately after the 1st of January. The total imports for 189!) amounted to £63,570,000, and of that Inter-State trade represented £.29,500,000, leaving £34,000,000 of foreign trade. Those figures have been very carefully checked, and I think are reliable. We find that in .1900 there was an importation of £69,000,000, and that the Inter-State trade amounted to £28,000,000, leaving the foreign imports at £41,000,000. We take £4,000,000 from that amount to allow for the inflation of values, and £2,500,000 for the “ loading up “ which has occurred. I I think that both amounts are fair and reasonable to deduct. We therefore expect that in a normal year our imports from oversea would amount to £34,500,000. We estimate that the effect of the Tariff will be to reduce our imports by about £5,000,000, there being a decrease of manufactured articles and an increase of raw material, and therefore we expect the taxable oversea imports to amount to about £29,500,000. AVe propose to leave free gold and specie, for which we allow £1,000,000, and Government goods, for which we also allow £1,000,000, while on the free list there will be other goods amounting to £6,500,000, further reducing the taxable amount to £21,000,000. From all the information we can gain we consider that that is about the amount upon which we shall be able to levy taxes in a normal year. I do not say that this year will be a normal year, but probably next year or the year following the taxable amount will come to about the sum I have mentioned. While we make our calculations upon the figures for 1899 we realize that we must give back to the States as much as they got in 1 900 on their larger imports for that year, because they are expecting it, and many of them have increased their expenditure upon that expectation. Honorable members can realize that that fact has made our task far and away more difficult than it would have been if we had had to provide only for the amount received in 1899. To show the difficulty of framing the financial part of the Tariff, I would ask honorable members to turn to page 8a of the papers which have been distributed, where they will find that to frame a Tariff which would suit New South Wales and give her all she requires, would mean duties returning £4,973,615, while South Australia would require a Tariff producing £6,642,567 ; Victoria one producing £7,349,712; Tasmania, £10,684,623; Queensland, £11,846,2.27; and Western Australia £19,499,881. Of course, any attempt to raise a sufficient amount to suffice the last three States would be absolutely futile, and, therefore, we have not endeavoured to provide so large a sura. Another difficulty is created, as honorable members will see by referring to page 9 of the same papers, by the variation of the customs and excise percentage of the various States to their total sources of revenue. The percentages are based on the figures for the year 1899-00. In New South Wales the percentage was 17-40, in Victoria 30-43, in Queensland 34-90, in South Australia 22-54, in Tasmania 47-47, and in Western Australia 32-47, the average being 26-59. Honorable members are entitled to know how we have arrived at the figures which I propose to quote in a minute. We have dealt with the matter on the basis of the figures for a normal year. Every line in the Tariff has been based on the expected imports, and the amount of duty that would be derived therefrom. There has been no guess-work. The officers have gone through every detail, and have ascertained so far as it is possible to estimate what would be received from each particular item. I am going to deal first with a normal year, and then I shall deal with this particular year, in order to show the State Treasurers what they may expect to get back. Here again we have been faced with a great difficulty with regard to statistics. Rarely could we trace a line of the ad valorems through all the different States. Items would be mixed up in other items, and it has been a work of great labour to attempt to pick them out. There has been no uniformity in the statistics of the States, and the sooner we have a statistical branch of our own, and uniform statistics the better it will be for us, and the easier for us to know exactly what the States are severally producing. We read all manner of reports as to what is done in one State and in another State, but, as they are based on different foundations, they are not in any shape or form reliable. We have taken into consideration how the revenue is likely to be affected by the increase or reduction of rates of duty, by the increase or reduction in the consumption of home-made goods instead of imported goods, by the importation of raw materials in place of manufactured articles, and by the displacing of the imported article by the locallymanufactured article. As to goods upon which excise duties are imposed - spirits, beer, and colonial wines - we hope that the local product will, to a great extent, take the place of goods that are now imported. With regard to wine, I think that we one and all sincerely hope that the local article will be consumed to an extent which will reduce the consumption of ardent spirits. Prom a Treasurer’s point of view do not like it ; but in the interests of the Commonwealth I think’ it will be better for us to consume our own colonial wines, which we can get pure, than to consume imported wines or spirits. We know, too, that there will be great Inter-State competition between various manufacturers, and that is shown by what is now going on in the various States. I have no doubt that the manufacturers in the various States will fight each other, and endeavour to do the largest amount of business they can. We have taken into consideration the past experience of the States with regard to production and manufacture, and also with regard to importations. We have also dealt with the consuming power of each State, although that must not be taken as a guide to any great extent. It is not the wealth of a State or its consuming power that means revenue from the Customs : it is the necessity it is under to import dutiable goods. That fact we have also taken into consideration. We believe also that by the larger amount of manufacture which will take place here, a greater amount of employment will be given to our people, who will therefore have more money to spend within our boundaries, and that money will be spent to a large extent upon goods made dutiable for revenue purposes. We must also not forget that the climate, the age and sex of the people have a great bearing upon this calculation, and we have also to allow for the natural increase in our population, though we cannot in any way provide for sudden changes of population from one State to another. We consider that under our Tariff proposals Western Australia, with the power she has to impose additional taxation, will be amply provided for, but we have not been able to deal fully with Tasmania and Queensland, although in order to help those States we have on many of our purely revenue items put a heavier burden than we should otherwise have felt inclined to impose. W e felt inclined to give as much revenue to those States as we could. New South Wal es is a State deeply i nterested , because she will have a very large increase in her revenue, and let us all hope ‘ and trust that she will be able to put it to a very good use. If we had to deal only with the aggregate, there would not be much difficulty ; but we have to deal, not only with the aggregate amount, but also to provide an amount which will enable as many of the States as possible to be kept in a perfectly solvent condition. Honorable members who have had anything to do with State Budgets will know how difficult it is for a Treasurer to calculate in a State where he knows pretty well all about the customs transactions, about the amount that will be received from certain duties. I want here to ask honorable members not to be led away by calculations which have been made from time to time, by various Government statisticians, by taking a certain number of items such as spirits, wine, and beer, and concluding that because certain quantities of these commodities were consumed, the same proportionate quantity would be consumed under a uniform Tariff, and basing their calculations of the total revenue upon those particular lines. As a matter of fact the consumption of these particular items varies in the States a good deal, because there are varying rates of duty. Take Western Australia for instance, which has sugar absolutely free of duty, and Queensland. No doubt both these States consume more than the others, but the statistical tables, so far as I. have been able to investigate them, are absolutely unreliable. I would not be guided by them, but I insisted on every article being worked out. Still, if you get half-a-dozen men to work out these tables, they will bring out half-a-dozen different results. Take the case of Queensland, for instance. I believe they arrived at the sugar consuming power of Queeusland by taking the amount supposed to be produced and the amount exported, and assuming that the whole of the balance was consumed. That brought out a result of 129 lbs. per head consumed in Queensland, as against about 90 lbs. per head consumed in Victoria. That, I think, is absolutely and utterly impossible, and I, therefore, place no reliance upon these calculations. Another great difficulty that was presented to us was the necessity of levelling up New South Wales. If New South Wales had had duties imposed, and yielding her a higher revenue, there would have been very little difficulty in making the tariffs of the various States agree, but in the first instance we had to provide a large sum for the purpose of giving New South Wales the proportion of revenue she would be entitled to get under a uniform Tariff. As honorable members are aware, for the first five years of the Commonwealth, the money collected from Excise and Customs is to be credited to the States in which the goods are consumed, and therefore New South Wales would, under any Tariff we could possibly prepare, receive a very large increase. Then again we are confronted with the question of the intercolonial duties. That is a very difficult subject to work out, but the figures have been supplied to me for the year 1899. From these I find New South AVales collected from intercolonial duties £141,061, Victoria £358,659, Queensland £144,009, South Australia £89,679, Tasmania £76,S29, and Western Australia £2.56,060, makinga total of, say, £1,066,297. The total amount derived from goods imported from abroad was £5,456,035, the gross revenue received in that year being £6,522,332. Now honorable members will realize that the loss of these intercolonial duties increases our difficulty in raising the necessary amount of money. The whole of our revenue from Customs has to be raised now from a far more restricted source than in the past, and that of course has given us great difficulty, because in addition to the loss of the intercolonial duties we know full well that a considerable loss will take place in consequence of the consumption of home-made goods instead of those imported, as in the past. Now, we regard the position in connexion with the Inter-State duties in this way : that the amount of money they represent is saved to the people. In connexion with oversea imports, the question always arises as to who pays - whether it is the consumer or the manufacturer who has to pay. That is always a moot point, and I have my own views in regard to it, but with respect to Inter-State duties there can be no question whatever, but that the Australians pay because they are both exporters and importers. Now they will have the money represented by the Inter-State duties in their pockets, and they are so much the better off ; but it is a very difficult thing to get at it. We talked a lot about federation and the benefits that would accrue from it, but have the sacrifices that the people would have to make been sufficiently considered?

Honorable Members. - Hear, hear.

Sir GEORGE TURNER:

– When we do away with the Inter-State duties we leave ourselves £1,000,000 short and we can only raise that sum from oversea imports.

If on some of the items - not the protective items, but the revenue items only - the people of the Commonwealth find that they have to pay a little more than they did before, they must recollect that they have to set off against this the £1,000,000 which they are actually saving. That is one of the reasons why in some of the revenue producing items we have - contrary to what we would have liked to do - had to make some increases in the amounts. I find that the total customs and excise revenue for 1899 was £7,437,596, while in 1900 the revenue was £7,762,653, a considerable increase. In 1900-1 the revenue rose to £8,152,623 - that showed that there was a large stocking of goods - while for the six months ending 30th June, 1901, we find that the customs and excise revenue amounted to £4,151,628. These figures are altogether abnormal, and we must not be guided either by the receipts of 1900, or by the figures for the first half of the present financial year. Our merchants are undoubtedly going to do a little gambling. What honorable members will be anxious to know is what amount of revenue we are expecting to derive. In a normal year we hope to get from Customs £7,388,056, and from excise £1,554,345, making a total of £8,942,401.

Mr Watson:

– That is for the full year?

Sir GEORGE TURNER:

– That is for a normal year. If honorable members will turn to page 10 of the printed figures, they will find that in New South Wales the estimated Customs revenue is £2,679,917, whilst the receipts from excise are expected to amount to £549,531, making a total of £3,229,448. I have endeavoured to give in one of the schedules figures which will enable honorable members to check the statements we put forward. That will be an average of £2 7s. 9d. per head of the population, and the percentage will be 36.11, whereas in 1900 the amount per head was £1 6s.11d., and the percentage 23.01. In 1899, the collections were £1,667,704, and in 1900, £1,785,781, so that we expect an increase in a normal year of £1,443,667. Of course the years 1889 and 1900 included the Inter-State duties, whereas our estimate does not.

Mr Reid:

– Is the honorable gentleman taking a normal year?

Sir GEORGE TURNER:
BALACLAVA, VICTORIA · PROT

– My calculation is on the basis of a normal year. The Victorian Customs are estimated to bring in £2,112,819, and £500,547 is expected from excise, making a total of £2,613,366, against £2,245,389 in 1889 and £2,342,485 in 1900, both years including the InterState trade. The contribution per head for Victoria will be £2 3s. 6¼d., and towards the whole of the Customs and Excise Revenue that State will contribute in the proportion of 29-22, as against £1 19s. lOd. in 1900, with a proportional contribution of 30-18, an increase of £270,881. The Customs revenue in Queensland will realize £1,134,383 and excise £219,664, or a total of £1,354,047, against £1,563,972 in 1899 and £1,561,486 in 1900. The estimated contribution is at the rate of £2 14s, 6-Jrd. per head, as compared with £3 4s. 2d. formerly, and the proportionate contribution is 15’14 of the total as compared with 20-ll formerly. There will be a loss to that State of £207,439. In South Australia we expect to get from Customs £569,223, and from excise £114,870, making a total of £684,093 against £641,181 in 1899, and £639,004 in 1900. That will be equivalent to £1 17s. 8jd. per head, as against £1 16s. formerly, and the proportionate contribution is 7-65 against 8-23 previously. In Tasmania the estimated revenue from Customs is £295,433, and from Excise £58,006, or a total of £353,439 as against £447,036 and £489,151 in the previous years. This represents £2 ls. per head as against £2 17s. Hd., or 3*96 of the total as, against 6’30. In South Australia the gain is £45,089, and in Tasmania the loss is £135,712. We hope that in Western Australia the Customs will produce £596,281, and that Excise will yield £111,727, or a total of £708,008 as against £872,314 in 1899, and £944,746 in 1900, a loss of £236,738. This represents £3 17s. 7d. per head as against £5 7s. 7d. in 1900, and 7-92 of the total as against 12-17 of the total for the same year. Under our Tariff proposals the contribution per head throughout the whole of the Commonwealth in a normal year will t be £2 7s. 6d., as againt a present average per head of £2 8s. 5d., which latter rate would bring us in £9,126,541. Under those proposals New South Wales - and on page 10 of the Budget figures I have given the amounts which each State will gain or lose - will gain £1,443,667 ; Victoria; £270,881; South Australia, £45,089; whilst Queensland will lose £207,439 ;

Sir GEORGE TURNER:

Honorable Members. - Hear, hear.

Mr KINGSTON:

Mr Reid:

– If the fight honorable gentleman had he would make a better Tariff.

Mr Reid:

– Can the Minister give the total yield from stimulants and narcotics ?

Mr KINGSTON:

Mr KINGSTON:

– There are a good many honorable members here, some of whom were Members of Parliament in other States, whilst others were Ministers of the Crown. I have heard remarks from many whilst I have been speaking; but I say that if those who had the courage to put a duty upon printing paper were all to speak simultaneously, there would be an even greater silence than that which now prevails. As I have said before, our aim has been to frame a Tariff for the raising of revenue, and for the preservation of industries. Of course, we have put the highest duty upon the complete manufacturedproduct,and.haveimposeda lesser duty upon an article as it approached the raw material, so that when the raw material is produced here it is also protected, though at a less rate than is the complete manufactured article. When it cannot be produced locally it is admitted at a low rate, if not free, though revenue considerations have necessitated) the taxation of such raw material, when, if circumstances had permitted, it would have been free.

Mr.Higgins. - What is raw material ?

Mr KINGSTON:

– It depends on what one is usingit for. Yarn is rawmaterialfor the manufacture of cloth, just as cloth is raw material for the manufacture of apparel. In a matter of this sort, owing to the necessity for raising revenue, we have provided not only for the taxation of printing paper, but for the taxation of cotton goods which might otherwise be free, and for the taxation of kerosene, which we should also have liked to have avoided.

– On the other hand, imported manufactured leaf pays 3s. 6d. What more do the growersof tobacco want? Iventure to think that I could not have made the matter sufficiently plain to the honorable and learned member for Indi. No doubt the fault was with me. Stated again as plainly as can be, the duties are - 3s. 6d. on imported manufactured leaf; ls. 6d. on imported unmanufactured leaf; and on the local manufactured article, whether of local leaf or of imported leaf , ls. So that the result is that if a manufacturer takes imported leaf and manufactures it he has to pay 2s. 6d. altogether, as against 3s. 6d. that is paid on the manufactured importedleaf. If, on the other hand, he uses local leaf he only has to pay an excise of ls., as against 3s. 6d. on the imported article. I venture to think that now I have made myself plainly understood the honorable and learned member for Indi will be inclined to review the opinion he expressed by way of interjection just now. Cigars and cigarettes are intended to be similarly dealt with by way of an import duty of 6s. 6d., which we may calculate at an excise of ls. 6d. on cigars, and 2s. on cigarettes. This will give a preference to the local manufacturer of cigars of 3s. 6d. when using imported leaf, as against a present general average of 3s. 7d. in the six States ; or, in the case of cigarettes, a preference of 3s. as against a present general preference of 3s. 51/2d. in the States. As to cigars, their value variessomuch - from, say, five for ls. to1s. each - that we have detertermined to introduce in this connexion a composite rate, following the example of Canada. Accordingly, their taxation is provided for at the rate of 5s. 6d. per pound, and 15 per cent., which will give a fair return as regards the cheaper smoke, and will require alsoa fitting contribution to the revenue in the case of more delightful and luscious cigars. Now, sir, I come to a matter of very considerable interest and importance; as to which the Government have devoted considerable thought. That is, as to the question of whether or not there shall be an excise on sugar. Of course, if there were no excise, seeing that under present circumstances sugar contributes very largely to the public revenue, the exhaustion of this source of revenue would be very severely felt. It would add to the difficulty which the Government always have in providing the necessary funds when larger amounts are required than, before, and there is less for the purpose of taxing. Still at the same time we do not like the proposal to impose an excise duty to which Australia is not accustomed, which is a novelty, which is a tax upon an industry which has previously beenf ree f rom it,and whichind ustry is natural as to our soil and climate. But we have to contrive the means as best we may, and particularly having regard to the fact that in connexion with this excise on sugar we canemphasize our “ white Australia “policy, we have decided to impose an excise on Australian sugar. The amounts of duty weproposeare as follow : - As regards the import duty, £6 per ton ; as regards the excise duty £3per ton, but accompanied by a rebate to the grower of. white sugar..

– Eour shillings per ton. of. 10. per. cent, sugar cane,, equal to- £2. per ton. of. sugar, that is: to say £2 out. of: £3, the excise on black sugar, being £3,. and on white sugar, £1. I venture-to- consider that with these repeated assurances; which: we are giving in every possible way,, of” our views- in. connexion with this matter there can be no doubt as, to? what wevmean. We see the agitation commencing, elsewhere,, we see the strength being put.into.-tkis matter for. the purpose of; preventing, the “ white Australia” policy being, given: effect to. We Hear the appeals made for- time - to spare us. a little till we gp> hence:. Until when*?- For seven- years they say- now.

But that is the story they were preaching years, and. years ago: All they wanted wasa little time, but that time never comes, and it never will come, until Australia is firm and united, as it. ought to, be- in its action. lam proud indeed that. in connexion, with this Tariff we have again shown what we mean and what we intend to do. Let the struggle be as keen as- it may, Australia lias declared, for a “ white Australia,” and. we in. this- Parliament intend to endeavour to obtain it.

Mr Chapman:

– Put that performance against the professions- of honorable members opposite.

Mr SYDNEY SMITH:
MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT

– Why did not the right honorable gentleman vote straight: the other night?

Mr KINGSTON:

– I did vote straight, and: L spoke straight: I- am. doing my best to speak straight now, and I venture to say that there will, be no doubt as to what are my views, or the views of any member of the Government to which I have the honour to belong:

Mr Barton:

– Will the honorable member for Macquarie go straight upon this ?

Mr SYDNEY SMITH:
MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT

– He will go straight, as the right honorable gentleman, never did, or he would not be where he is to-day.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The honorable member for Macquarie has- made a remark which is offensive, and I ask tine honorable member to withdraw it.

Mr SYDNEY SMITH:
MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT

Mr KINGSTON:

– It is not intended to apply it until June next, because we can hardly ascertain the difference so far as the present season is concerned.

Mr BRUCE SMITH:
PARKES, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– But is it intended to apply it before the Pacific Islands Labourers Bill puts a stop to the importation of kanakas ?

Mr KINGSTON:

That duties of customs and duties of excise be imposed according to the following Tariff : -

16 y 2

16 z

Mr REID:
East Sydney

– I hope that in the flashlight photographs that have been taken to-night we have seen the last of a most irregular and, I think, most unseemly proceeding. This is no occasion for theatrical advertisements of enterprising photographers, and I beg to enter my personal protests against them. Since the matter had gone so far, and every arrangement had been made, I did not think it gracious to raise any objection before the photographs were taken; but now that the photographing is over, I beg, as an individual member, to express the hope that our proceedings will not be interfered with by any such exhibitions in the future. With reference to the course which the Government have adopted by dividing the addresses in reference to their financial proposals and the Tariff, I really feel that it would be unreasonable to complain, because there is no doubt that the task which was set to the Federal Treasurer in connexion with the present occasion was one almost too great for any single Minister to perform. At the same time, I wish candidly to say that in the interests of the committee and of the country, it amounts to a public calamity thai the Treasurer did not give us the benefit of his exposition of the Tariff, and of its bearing on the position of the country, because then we should have heard something about it. The Minister for Trade and Customs has left us absolutely in the dark as to what the Tariff is, which the Chairman has taken as read, and of which printed copies are now being distributed. It is a most extraordinary thing that on a matter of this sort, which was looked forward to throughout Australia, the Minister for Trade and Customs should have gone so largely into general observations, and so slightly into the real bearing and effect of these proposals of his upon the manufactures, trade, and industries of Australia. I am not paying compliments, but simply expressing my opinion when I say that if the Treasurer had performed the other “ part of the duty, we should have heard a great deal more about the Tariff and the nature of the proposals which the Government are making in the direction of taxation. The Treasurer gave us some tolerably clear idea of the general finances of the Commonwealth and of the nature of his estimates ; but we have been deprived, and the public have been deprived, of any proper exposition of the Tariff. It is evident that this Tariff did get out, because the Bendigo Advertiser, a newspaper published in Victoria, has wonderfully hit off a large number of the articles therein dealt with.

Mr McColl:

– The newspaper was very far out.

Mr REID:

– I see a particular item which enables me to identify the newspaper article as certainly having come from some information. I do not, of course, know how the information was obtained, but there is a singular item here, under the head of tobacco. The division of the Tariff into sixteen classes does not facilitate reference. However, there is an item here, under the heading of narcotics -

Tobacco, viz. : -

ADJOURNMENT

Inter-State Commission Bill - Tariff

Recommendations of Chamber of Manufactures

Mr BARTON:
Minister for External Affairs · Hunter · Protectionist

– I move -

That the House do now adjourn. I would like to intimate that although leave has been given to sit to-morrow, we do not intend to bring on the resumption of the debate until Tuesday next.

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

– Make it Wednesday.

Mr BARTON:

– I shall not make it Wednesday, because those who wish to see honest legislation accomplished before Christmas will certainly support us in trying to make the best use of our time. I am sure the honorable member for Macquariewill rejoice to hear that, subject to formal business, we propose to-morrow to go on with the third reading of the Immigration Restriction Bill, and after that, with the Pacific Islands Labourers Bill.

Mr BRUCE SMITH:
PARKES, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– I would like to ask the Prime Minister again when he intends to lay on the table of the House the proposed amendments in the Inter-State Commission Bill ? The Prime Minister told the House some time ago that as soon as the second reading of the Bill came before us we should have those amendments.

Mr Barton:

-i did not say that.

Mr BRUCE SMITH:
PARKES, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– I understood the right honorable gentleman to say so. At all events I would point out that it is impossible for an honorable member to make a second reading speech unless he knows the ultimate form the Bill is going to take. It may be that a line of criticism would be completely avoided by our knowing that the objectionable features of the Bill are to be removed.

Mr Barton:

– I do not want to hold the amendments back unnecessarily.

Sir WILLIAM McMILLAN:
Wentworth

– I should like to indorse the remarks of the honorable and learned member for Parkes. If I mistake not, I moved the adjournment of the debate on the InterState Commission Bill, and it seems to me a perfect farce to prepare a speech on the second reading of a Bill when probably there will be drastic amendments which, if carried, will remove all ground of complaint.

Sir William Lyne:

– I shall try to let honorable members have the amendments to-morrow.

Mr WILKS:
Dalley

– I should like to draw the Prime Minister’s attention to a promise which was practicallymade some six weeks ago, that, when the papers dealing with the Tariff were laid on the table of the House, he would also lay on the table the recommendations of the Chamber of Manufactures which the Minister for Trade and Customs received some time back. These recommendations have been asked for several times, and it would be interesting to have them in addition to all the useful information we now have?

Mr. BARTON (Hunter- Minister for External Affairs). - With regard to the Inter-State Commission Bill, there is no desire to hold back any information, and I shall endeavour to have the amendments distributed amongst honorable members before the debate is resumed.

Mr BRUCE SMITH:
PARKES, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– To-morrow ?

Mr BARTON:

– Possibly to-morrow; it is only a question of whether the amendments are ready for distribution.

Mr BRUCE SMITH:
PARKES, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– Perhaps the Prime Minister would not mind giving some general intimation of the direction the amendments are going to take.

Mr BARTON:

– Honorable members will see the amendments to-morrow. They are, I think, in print, but a sufficient number will have to be prepared for distribution. As to laying on the table copies of amendments suggested by outside bodies, I am not disposed to accede to a request of the kind, because these are not public documents, and honorable members have the same opportunity of obtaining them as any one else. I understand, however, that something has taken place on the question in the other House, and before I make an answer, I shall confer with the honorable and learned senator who leads the business in the Senate.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

House adjourned at 10.23 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 8 October 1901, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1901/19011008_reps_1_5/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant

House of Representatives 8 October 1901

PETITIONS

BUDGET

Mr REID:EAST SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr BARTON:Minister for External Affairs · HUNTER, NEW SOUTH WALES · Protectionist

Mr REID:

The SPEAKER:

Mr BARTON:

Mr Reid:

Mr SPEAKER:

PACIFIC ISLANDS LABOURERS BILL

Mr MCDONALD:KENNEDY, QUEENSLAND

Mr BARTON:Protectionist

QUESTION

ALIENATION OF CROWN LANDS IN QUEENSLAND

Mr MCDONALD:for Mr. Page

Mr BARTON:Protectionist

QUESTION

OLD-AGE PENSIONS

Mr O’MALLEY:TASMANIA, TASMANIA

Mr BARTON:Protectionist

QUESTION

FIFTH VICTORIAN CONTINGENT

Mr CROUCH:CORIO, VICTORIA

Sir JOHN FORREST:Minister for Defence · SWAN, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · Protectionist

ESTIMATES OF EXPENDITURE,

SUPPLY

Referred to Committee of Supply

ASSENT TO BILLS

IMMIGRATION RESTRICTION BILL

Third Reading

Mr SYDNEY SMITH:MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT

Mr McCay:

Mr SYDNEY SMITH:MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT

Mr McCay:

Mr SYDNEY SMITH:MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT

Mr Barton:

Mr SYDNEY SMITH:MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT

Mr WILKS:Dalley

Mr Barton:

Mr WILKS:

Mr Barton:

Mr WILKS:

The SPEAKER:

Mr BARTON:Minister for External Affairs · Hunter · Protectionist

BUDGET

In Committee of Ways and Means

Sir GEORGE TURNER:Treasurer · BalaclavaTreasurer · Protectionist

Mr Watson:

Sir GEORGE TURNER:

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

Sir GEORGE TURNER:

Mr Watson:

Sir GEORGE TURNER:BALACLAVA, VICTORIA · PROT

Mr Knox:

Sir GEORGE TURNER:

Mr Macdonald-Paterson:

Sir GEORGE TURNER:

Sir Malcolm McEacharn:

Sir GEORGE TURNER:

Sir GEORGE TURNER:

Mr Watson:

Sir GEORGE TURNER:

Mr Reid:

Sir GEORGE TURNER:BALACLAVA, VICTORIA · PROT

Mr Wilks:

Sir GEORGE TURNER:

Mr Reid:

Sir GEORGE TURNER:

Mr BRUCE SMITH:PARKES, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Sir GEORGE TURNER:

Mr Watson:

Sir GEORGE TURNER:

Mr BRUCE SMITH:PARKES, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Sir GEORGE TURNER:

Sir GEORGE TURNER:

Mr Watson:

Sir GEORGE TURNER:

Mr Reid:

Sir GEORGE TURNER:

House of Representatives
8 October 1901

Mr REID:
EAST SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr BARTON:
Minister for External Affairs · HUNTER, NEW SOUTH WALES · Protectionist

Mr MCDONALD:
KENNEDY, QUEENSLAND

Mr BARTON:
Protectionist

Mr MCDONALD:
for Mr. Page

Mr BARTON:
Protectionist

Mr O’MALLEY:
TASMANIA, TASMANIA

Mr BARTON:
Protectionist

Mr CROUCH:
CORIO, VICTORIA

Sir JOHN FORREST:
Minister for Defence · SWAN, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · Protectionist

Mr SYDNEY SMITH:
MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT

Mr SYDNEY SMITH:
MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT

Mr SYDNEY SMITH:
MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT

Mr SYDNEY SMITH:
MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT

Mr WILKS:
Dalley

Mr BARTON:
Minister for External Affairs · Hunter · Protectionist

Sir GEORGE TURNER:
Treasurer · BalaclavaTreasurer · Protectionist

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

Sir GEORGE TURNER:
BALACLAVA, VICTORIA · PROT

Sir GEORGE TURNER:
BALACLAVA, VICTORIA · PROT

Mr BRUCE SMITH:
PARKES, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr BRUCE SMITH:
PARKES, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr BRUCE SMITH:
PARKES, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr BRUCE SMITH:
PARKES, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr BRUCE SMITH:
PARKES, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr BRUCE SMITH:
PARKES, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr BRUCE SMITH:
PARKES, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr BRUCE SMITH:
PARKES, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr BRUCE SMITH:
PARKES, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr BRUCE SMITH:
PARKES, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr BRUCE SMITH:
PARKES, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr BRUCE SMITH:
PARKES, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr BRUCE SMITH:
PARKES, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr BRUCE SMITH:
PARKES, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

Mr BRUCE SMITH:
PARKES, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917