House of Representatives
2 April 1902

1^st Parliament · 1^st Session

QUESTION
- SENTENCES OF AUSTRALIAN OFFICERS
QUESTION
- POST AND TELEGRAPH ACT
QUESTION
- CONSERVATION OFWATER
QUESTION
- REPORTED SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT
QUESTION
- DUTY ON ASPHALT
QUESTION
- DRAWBACK ALLOWANCES
QUESTION
- PATENTS AND TRADE MARKS
TARIFF

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

– There can be no official information in this matter so far as I can see, and for this reason: All these men were serving in an Imperial corps under the regulations of the British army, and as soldiers of that army. They were not in any sense employed by Australia, nor were they in a corps that was raised in Australia, or was distinctly Australian. They were liable to be treated according to the King’s regulations and the legislation governing these matters ; and it is clear, whatever opinion anybody may hold as to the justice of the case, that they were duly tried in the manner in which any other alleged offenders are. tried. There is one remaining fact to mention. Between their arrest and the passing of sentence the men were called on to serve, and did serve, in the defence of Pietersburg against Commandant Meyer. Those comprise all the facts which I can state with any pretence to authenticity, and of course I do not vouch for some of them, because they are still left in doubt. I am endeavouring to obtain information, but it rests entirely with the military authorities in South Africa as to the extent of the information which they will give, that being a matter for them exclusively to determine, having regard to the maintenance of discipline in the Army.

page 11251

QUESTION

POST AND TELEGRAPH ACT

Sir EDWARD BRADDON:
TASMANIA

page 11252

QUESTION

DUTY ON ASPHALT

Mr GLYNN:

asked the Minister for Trade and Customs, upon notice -

Whether he will allow asphalt in shapes, at present charged for by the Customs department at 15 per cent., ad valorem, as if asphalt tiles, to be admitted free as being the raw material asphalt ?

Mr KINGSTON:
Minister for Trade and Customs · SOUTH AUSTRALIA, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · Protectionist

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

Yes ; if simply the raw material : asphalt in shapes, and not asphalt tiles.

I may add that if asphalt is really the manufactured article we shall charge duty upon it, but if it is merely raw material in shapes convenient for importation no duty will be levied.

page 11252

QUESTION

DRAWBACK ALLOWANCES

Mr S SMITH:
MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT

asked the Minister for Trade and Customs - upon notice -

Is drawback being refused on the export of goods on which the duties first levied by the Tariff have been paid, if such duties have since been reduced or abolished ?
If so, what reason is there for thus handicapping the export trade of the Commonwealth ?
What greater difficulty is there in distinguishing the duty paid in such cases, and in identifying the goods, than there is in distinguishing and identifying in the case of goods duty paid before and exported after, the imposition of the Tariff?

Mr KINGSTON:
Protectionist

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

Drawback is not allowed at a greater rate than the duty in force at the time of export, as provided for in the Customs regulations.
The risk of loss to the revenue.
In the case of goods on which duty was paid prior to the new Tariff, drawback is only given in accordance with the rule mentioned in answer No. 1 above.

page 11252

QUESTION

PATENTS AND TRADE MARKS

Sir LANGDON BONYTHON:
South Australia

– I move -

That a return be laid on the table of this House showing the number of applications for Letters Patent, Provisional Protection, and Trade Marks. &c, up to the end of 1901, in the following form: - Name of State; No. of applications for Letters Patent or Provisional Protection ; No. of applications for Trade Marks; expenses of department; revenue ofdepartment; profit of department.

The return will cost little and will furnish valuable information.

Mr Watson:

– What period will it cover ?

Sir LANGDON BONYTHON:

-From the beginning.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 11252

TARIFF

In Committee of Ways and Means. - (Recommittal.)

Mr Kingston:

– Does the honorable member mean since the introduction of this Tariff?

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

– I mean under the old Tariffs. For these reasons I move -

That the words “ with an allowance for underproof up to 16.5” be added to the duty “ Spirits, per gallon, 14s.”

Mr KINGSTON:
South AustraliaMinister for Trade and Customs · Protectionist

– The Government ask the forbearance of honorable members generally with regard to the recommitted items - either not to proceed with proposals where there is no chance of carrying them, or, if there is such a chance, to curtail their remarks as much as possible. We have discussed this matter previously for two days, and arrived at a conclusion against the proposal of the honorable member for South Australia, Mr. V. L. Solomon, by 34 votes to 16. I have heard no reason given why the committee should reverse its previous decision. There was practically a concensus of opinion that we should be doing all that was necessary if in this connexion we adopted the practice of four of the States rather than that of two, even though one of the two should be my own State. Provision has, however, been made for an allowance to be made on under-proof spirits which had been shipped prior to the introduction of the Tariff, or which were in bond. A very important reason that was given against the honorable member’s proposal was that it was a desirable thing that we should have the important industry of bottling spirits conducted within the Commonwealth.I am credibly informed, on the best authority, that the two great firms of Burke and Walker are at the present moment making arrangements for the bottling of their spirits in Australia. Why should they not do so ? Let us have the benefit of this trade. Our contention in favour of retaining the provision of the Tariff as it stands is supported by what has happened since, and I do not think the committee is in the humour to effect the change proposed.

Mr CONROY:
Werriwa

– Possibly there may be a reason in favour of the amendment which has escaped the notice of the Minister for Trade and Customs. If honorable members will turn to section 40 of the Distillation Act they will find that it provides as follows : -

No entry authorizing the removal of spirits shall be passed in respect of spirits of a lower strength than 25 per centum under proof, nor in respect of a smaller quantity than 10 gallons.

On turning to thepart of the Tariff dealing with excise, it will be found that the excise on spirits distilled wholly from barley malt, molasses, or maize is 12s. 6d. Supposing that the spirit bottled from the colonial distilleries is sent out - as it generally is - at about 16.5 underproof, this means that we are giving the local distillers a protection of 4s. 8d. per dozen. This is rather an important point, as it gives an undue preference to the local distillers which I do not think it was intended to give. We have already given a preference of1s. 6d. per gallon of proof spirit, and in cases where the spirit is made from wine the preference to the local distiller is 3s. per gallon. But it was certainly never intended, so faras I am aware, from reading and hearing the discussion, that on every dozen bottles of spirit sent out we should give an additional advantage to the local distiller of 4s.8d. per dozen, or 2s. 4d. a gallon. Is the Minister aware of that? If not, it is a very good reason for making an alteration. It is evident that a large amount of revenue may be sacrificed in thisway, and in view of the fact that the Treasurer has complained of the way the committee has cut down his revenue, I urge that, as we allow spirit 25 per cent. under proof to go out of the local distilleries, there is no good reason why we should not make the same allowance in regard to imported spirit.

Mr WATSON:
Bland

– The amendment of the honorable member for South Australia, Mr. V. L. Solomon, would have the effect of slightly diminishing the revenue. There are a certain number of brands of spirits that would be imported in bottle in any case, and would pay the higher duty. I happen to know that that is so from friends of my own in the wine and spirit trade. I also know that in Sydney two firms have been taking premises with a view of bottling reputable and well - known brands locally. That is in course of arrangement, and I think that the revenue aspect will not be materially altered one way or the other; although the revenue will be slightly greater under the proposal in the Tariff. The honorable member for South Australia, Mr. Solomon, has made one of those extravagant statements which simply defeat their object. He spoke about the inferior class of spirit which he alleges comes into New South Wales and other States in bulk. It must, however, be apparent to the meanest comprehension that where there are publicans of reputable character it pays them, as an absolute matter of business, to buy bulk whisky of greater maturity than that to which ordinary bottled whisky can pretend, and to give it to the customers at the same price as the latter. By taking bulk whisky, which is bought on bond certificates, the publicans save the cost of capsules, labels, corks, bottles, straws, and cases, the last of which can only realize a small amount as second-hand goods in the city, and, possibly nothing at all in the country districts. All this money is saved in addition to the cost of advertising, which is so largely resorted to in the case of bottled whisky. For that reason a very large portion, if not the greatest portion of the bulk whisky sold in New South Wales, at any rate for years past, has been equal to, if not superior, to the case whisky. I am excluding a very superior case whisky which is guaranteed to be ten or twelve years old. Taking the ordinary bottled spirit sold in a vast majority of hotels, and even in the best of hotels, it is not so good as the bulk whisky, as may be gathered from the fact that when a publican wants to treat his friends he always advises the latter. I do not think the committee have been given any reason for reversing their previous decision. The honorable and learned member for Werriwa slightly misconstrued the position so far as concerns the comparison between the 25 per cent. under proof allowed in respect of spirits going out of any Commonwealth distillery, and the charge which is made on imported proof spirit. There is no protection at all so far as that aspect is concerned. Spirit which is brought in in bulk can be broken down to any degree.

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

– Then there will be no advantage in importing proof spirit if the duty be the same on under proof as on proof.

Mr WATSON:

– I admit that; and I understand that the only reason 25 per cent. is allowed in the case of local distilleries is to provide for gin, which is sold at a strength much below that of brandy and whisky.

Question - That the words “with an allowance for under proof up to 16.5 “ be added to the duty, “spirits, per gallon, 14s.” - put. The committee divided -

Ayes……… 16

Noes……… 35

Majority…… 19

Question so resolved in the negative.

Amendment negatived.

Item agreed to.

Item 3. - Wine, fermented, viz. : . . . Containing more than 35 per cent. of proof spirit, per gallon, 14s.

Mr KINGSTON:
Protectionist

– I move-

That the words “ per gallon, 14s.” be omitted, with a view to insert in lieu thereof the following words: - “ For each 1 per cent. of proof spirit over 35 per cent., up to and including 38 per cent., additional, per gallon, 6d. ; containing more than 38 per cent. of proof spirit, per gallon, 14s,”

Mr Isaacs:

– Do not let us throw mud atour own Act.

Mr GLYNN:

– I have no desire to do that, but surely if it is proposed to legislate beyond the limits of the Constitution, honorable members should be cautioned not to pass provisions that may afterwards be proved invalid.

Mr Watson:

– Once an Act is passed weassume that it is valid.

Mr GLYNN:

– But those who hold the opinion that such an Act ought not to have been passed should not be debarred from expressing that view. Personally I should have no hesitation in challenging any such provision in a court of justice, and it is only the etiquette- of Parliament that prevents’ our here impugning our own enactments.. Still, it is the dirty of those who think so to point out that the legislation passed is, in their opinion, ultra vires of our powers. I think the opinion expressed by -‘ the honorable member for North Sydney is the right one, and that as far as we attempt to do anything more than impose certain restrictions for the purpose of rebate,, our acts will be ultra vires. The South Australian Vine-growers’ Association have requested that the limit should be fixed at 42 per cent., and a very good case has been advanced for adopting a similar standard with regard to imported wines. In twenty countries, including the United States, I cannot find any limit as low as 35 per cent., except in South Australia, and in New Zealand with regard to Australian wines - the limit in New Zealand for other wines is 42 per cent. I therefore move -

That the amendment be amended by the omission of the figures “ 38,” with a view to insert in . lien thereof the figures “42.”

Even then, the rate of 6d. will be too high, the rate recommended by the wine-growers being 3d.

Mr WATSON:
Bland

– I trust the Minister for Trade and Customs will be in a position to declare the attitude of the Government in respect to the section of the Distillation Act that has been referred to. I shall nob vote for any alteration such as that now proposed, unless there is a probability of a similar alteration being made in the Distillation Act. It would be most unfair to allow highly fortified sweet wines to be imported from abroad, and at the - same time prevent our local growers from fortifying their wines up to a similar strength. I am inclined to think that the contention of the honorable member for North Sydney is correct, and it may be, as stated by the honorable and learned member for South Australia, Mr. Glynn, that the provisions of the Distillation Act relating to the limit of strength are ultra vires. On the other hand, neither of these contentions may be correct, and our local producers may be placed at a disadvantage of 3 per cent, as compared with the importers of wines. If the Distillation Act is valid, as we have to assume for the time being, we shall, by imposing a lower import duty, encourage the introduction of wines containing more than 35 per cent, of proof spirit. When the Distillation Act was under discussion, I was under the impression that a strength of 35 per cent, of alcohol was provided for, instead of 35 per cent, of proof spirit, which would be roughly about half the strength of absolute alcohol. A vast area of country is now devoted to the production of dry wines which could be more suitably used for the production of sweet wines. The incomes of wine-growers would be doubled if they were able to produce sweet wines, but unless they are permitted to fortify their wines up to at least 38 per cent, of proof spirit they cannot with safety send them away to the markets of the world. In isolated cases they may be able to do so, but not generally. Having been convinced of the necessity of raising the limit in the interests of those who export wine to the Commonwealth, I hope Ministers will be prepared to amend the Distillation Act and place our local producers upon the same level as wine-growers abroad. If this is not done I think it would be improper to make any alteration.

Mr. ISAACS (Indi).- Some honorable members have referred to some expression of opinion on my part as to the constitutionality of section 59 of the Distillation Act. My recollection is that when I moved the amendment which now finds a place in the section, prohibiting the fortification of Australian wines with any other than wine spirit up to a strength of 35 per cent, of proof spirit, I proposed it as an addendum to the section, because if any question were raised as to the constitutionality of my amendment the same objection would arise as to the validity of the section to which I proposed to add it. I did not express an opinion as to the constitutionality of the section. I do not think that at this stage we should raise any doubt as to the validity of the provision. It is one thing to raise a question of that sort when a matter is being discussed, but when an Act has once been passed we should never cast any doubt upon the efficacy of our own enactment. The suggestion that the Minister for Trade and Customs should give a distinct assurance that steps will be taken to increase the limit of fortification, under the Distillation Act, from 35 per cent, to 38 per cent, is, of course, a matter for the Minister to consider. I am not prepared, however, to support this proposal, even though such an assurance is given, because we do not know whether it will be carried out. The proper course would be to defer the present suggestion until both matters can be dealt with at the same time. We ought not to place this burden upon the Australian producer, on the off chance of our being able to bring him up to the same level hereafter.

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

– I have an amendment to propose which would take priority of that moved by the honorable and learned member for South Australia, Mr. Glynn, and he has agreed to temporarily withdraw in older to enable me to move that the figures “ 35 “ be struck out with a view to inserting ^’‘40.”

Mr Isaacs:

– That would be worse still.

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

– It would be better still according to the opinions of those who have been importing the better classes of port wine. They hold that it is absolutely necessary that the limit of strength should be increased to 40 per cent.

Sir George Turner:

– That would relieve them from the payment of any extra duty, or would take away five times 6d. at any rate.

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

– Does the Treasurer consider that the duties that have been in vogue in the various States have been so ridicuously low that it is necessary to increase them enormously t Do not the Treasurer and other honorable members recognise that a duty of 6s. per gallon on port wine and sherry imported in bulk, and 8s. per gallon on case wine, is a sufficient protection for the colonial vigneron, especially considering that the local wine pays no excise, whilst there is an excise on colonial beer 1 In South Australia we lost revenue by making the limit 35 per cent. New South Wales has, roughly speaking, a little over three times the population of South Australia. Yet New South Wales, with a limit of 40 per cent, in strength, had a revenue of £15,900 from imported wines; whilst South Australia, with a limit of 35 per cent., which was virtually prohibitive, had a revenue of only £1,501. So that, although having a third of the population of New South Wales, South Australia only derived about one-tenth of the revenue from this source.

Mr Watson:

– A splendid testimony to the value of South Australian wines.

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

– Victoria, with a limit of 40 per cent., had a revenue of £8,000 ; Queensland, with a limit of 43 per cent., had a revenue of £11,600 ; Tasmania, with a limit of 40 per cent., with a smaller population, and of course a smaller production of wine, had a revenue of over £5,000. In four States of the group they had a limit of 40 pei’ cent., in another 43 per cent. In the four States there has never been any complaint on the part of the wine-growers as to that limit of strength. But in framing this new Tariff we have it constantly impressed upon us that it is necessary to lower the strength at which we will permit the importation of port wine and sherry to be introduced to 35 per cent.

Mr Isaacs:

– That is because we have prohibited our own vignerons from going higher.

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

– Because we made a blunder - that was pointed out at the time by experts in the wine trade - we are, ergo, to repeat it by making another ! Australia is now producing very good port wine, and the local wine is fairly well protected. The strength that has obtained in the past in the various States, and about which there has been no complaint whatever, is a fair standard upon which to act now. If it is necessary to alter the Distillation Act in this respect it will be easy enough to do so. The Government, with an absolute majority behind “them, could pass a Bill through all its stages within a very short time for that purpose. But because an error of judgment has been made in that respect we should not attempt to rectify it by putting an embargo upon the import trade. The importers claim that the better classes of sherry and port cannot be imported under the strength of from 37 to 39 per cent. Those are figures given by the leading experts in Victoria and South Australia.

Mr Kingston:

– Then 38 is the medium?

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

– But the Government seek to make it 35.

Sir George Turner:

– We let it come in up to 38, but impose a little extra duty ; and that is what is being fought against.

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

– If the Government permit the importation of sherries and ports at anything like the strength that has obtained in the past, why should they seek to reduce the strength at which these wines are imported ? Have the Government any information to show that under the old rule which obtained in four of the leading States - which adopted 40 per cent, and over as a minimum - any harm was done 1 If it is merely a question of squeezing out another ls. 6d. or 2s. duty, let the Governsay so, and not shelter themselves behind the statement that because we have put 35 per cent, in the Distillation Act it is necessary to do the same here. Why not provide as a compromise that 3S should be the percentage, that being the medium between 37 and 39, at which most of these superior wines are imported 1 That would be an easy way out of the difficulty, and the Government could then allow the other wines to go up to 40 or 42 per cent, by payment of something additional. I understand from experts that some of the finest wines are imported into New South Wales up to a strength of 42 per cent.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

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

That the figures “35” be omitted, with a view to insert in lieu thereof the figures “3S.”

Mr McCay:

– This amendment opens up a rather important matter. The amendment, though certainly germane to the subject under discussion, is by no means the amendment for the consideration of which this item was recommitted, nor is it in any sense an amendment of the amendment. The whole question of the duties is practically raised again. I, for instance, am of opinion that in fixing the difference between the excise and the import duties in regard to some intoxicants, the committee acted very unfairly ; and I should like to know whether, if one honorable member is allowed to introduce a fresh question, other honorable members will be allowed the same privilege 1

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

– I submit that the amendment is perfectly relevant, dealing, as it does, entirely with the proposal under consideration. It is open to the committee to amend the item in any way thought desirable.

Mr Kingston:

– The Government would be only too delighted to support a liberal construction of the position, so long as it fairly came within the meaning of the business before the committee. I would ask, however, whether, after having fixed the strength of 35 per cent., it is possible to go back and deal with a question which has already been settled at a previous stage. The Government have no desire to raise any technical objection to the amendment, but I think it is clear that we should be making a mistake in considering the proposal of the honorable member for South Australia, Mr. Solomon.

Mr Glynn:

– Even the amendment of the Minister for Trade and Customs seems to me irregular. Hitherto such amendments have been phrased “ that on and after” a certain date certain amendments shall be made. The Minister, however, has been collecting on the basis of 14s., and now wishes to amend that item retrospectively. In such a case we ought to have adhered to the form of amendment which has hitherto been observed.

Mr Kingston:

– Perhaps I may do that.

Mr Glynn:

– As a matter of fact, the committee are considering the whole of the sub-head of this item, and the Government suggest one particular method of dealing with it, while we suggest another.

The ACTING CHAIRMAN (Mr. Kirwan). - In my opinion, the proposal of the honorable member for South Australia, Mr. Solomon, is in order.

Mr KINGSTON:

– The Government think the principle right that as wine increases in strength, approximating to spirits, it should pay a greater duty. We think that a fair line to commence with is 35 per cent. proof spirit. Gradations, as we may call them, obtain in England, where wines not exceeding 30 degrees of proof spirit pay 3s. 9d. ; wines over 30 degrees and up to 40 degrees, 5s. 6d., and so on. with a greater rate per degree.

Sir Edward Braddon:

– The rate is different.

Mr KINGSTON:

– No doubt the rate is different, but I do not think that beyond elderberry and similar wines, much wine is produced in England, whereas in this case we have to consider both revenue and protection. We propose to commence at 35 per cent., with a duty of 6d. for each degree above, stopping at 40. In doing this we consider that we shall be making ample provision. Our want of local knowledge has been supplemented by information, and I have here a communication from the Commercial Association of Oporto, the members of which would, of course, like the duty to be as low as possible. In this communication, which has been transmitted through the proper channels, I find the following : -

Now the wine of Oporto usually shipped to that country requires to have an alcoholic strength not below 38 degrees Sikes, a limit which, until the passing of the recent legislation alluded to above, was well within the Australian fiscal regulations.

There were a variety of duties in the States. In South Australia there was a duty of 12s. per gallon, and in Victoria a duty of 8s. per gallon ; but we propose to commence lower down. The communication from the Commercial Association of Oporto, in dealing with the question of what is a fair strength, proceeds -

We therefore beg your Excellency, in the name of those important interests, to be good enough to take such steps as you consider adequate to enable these wines to be admitted into Australia at the minimum duty up to 40 degrees, or at least 38 degrees Sikes.

– Does the Minister undertake to bring in a Bill to place the local vignerons on the same footing ?

Mr KINGSTON:

– I will bring in a Bill with that object in view, unless a little further experience of the working of the

Act convinces me to the contrary. At the present time I am strongly of opinion that it should be done. I think it would be almost the corollary of what we are proposing now. The more I think that we can interfere wisely for the sake of the reputation of one of our great staples, the more I think that in a matter of this kind there is a good deal to be said in favour of allowing the wine-grower to do what he thinks well, knowing that the profit will be his. If my mind remains as it is to-day, and the simple object of an amendment of the Distillation Act is to deal fairly with the local producer as compared with the foreign importer, we shall do what is suggested, subject, of course, to the possibilities of riper experience.

Mr MACDONALD-PATERSON:
Brisbane

– I am exceedingly pleased with the statement which has just been made by the Minister for Trade and Customs. I had intended to suggest that the limit should be increased from 35 to 40 per cent., but the Government proposal that an increased duty of 6d. per gallon per degree shall be charged in respect of all wines containing more than 35 per cent., and up to 40 per cent. of proof spirit, meets my wishes. Those who require wine containing 40 per cent. of proof spirit will be prepared to pay the additional duty.

Mr A McLEAN:
GIPPSLAND, VICTORIA · PROT

– I think the Minister should give us more than the qualified promise made by him to amend the Distillation Act, provided that we agree to this amendment in the Tariff. It must be seen that unless the Distillation. Act is. amended, this proposal will be extremely unfair to the local producer of wine. Under the Act we prohibit him from producing, under any circumstances, wine containing more than 35 degrees of proof spirit ; but we are now proposing to allow an importer to bring in wine containing up to 40 per cent. of proof spirit on payment of a small additional duty. There may be a very large demand for wine of that class, and I fail to see why we should shut out the local producer from supplying that demand when we concede the privilege to the importer. The matter is of so much importance that the Minister should promise to bring in a Bill to amend the Distillation Act, so as to place the local article on an equal footing with imported wine.

Mr KINGSTON:

– One is tempted to give a promise exactly as it is desired, but would the honorable member pledge himself to do anything six months hence when he might change his mind in the meantime ?

Mr A McLEAN:
GIPPSLAND, VICTORIA · PROT

– But the Government are proposing to allow wine containing more than 35 per cent, of proof spirit to be imported. If it is right in the one case it cannot be wrong in the other.

Mr KINGSTON:

– That is the view I take now, and it would require a great deal to lead me to alter my opinion on the subject. “When I say that “ if I am of the same mind sis I am now” I will bring in a Bill to amend the Distillation Act, I am simply availing myself of a saving clause. I cannot promise to do anything, but that is our present inclination.

Mr. GLYNN (South Australia).- Would it not be better to provide that wine containing up to 40 per cent, of proof spirit should be liable to the one duty without any gradation from 35 per cent upwards ? If the item were amended in that way it would obviate the necessity for a great deal of examination at the Customhouse.

Mr Kingston:

– Not a bit of it.

Mr. ISAACS (Indi). - It seems to me to be beyond all question that colonial and imported wines should be placed on the same footing. I cannot see why there should be any doubt on the point.

Mr Kingston:

– Nor can I.

Mr ISAACS:

– Then will the Minister agree to provide, in relation to this item, that it shall take effect as from and after the date when Australian wines may be fortified to the same extent ? That would ensure that our own producers should not be placed in an inferior position, and would give the Minister an additional inducement to bring forward his amending Bill at an early date. Until the Distillation Act is amended local producers of wine will be placed at a great disadvantage.

Mr KINGSTON:

– I think that such a provision in the Tariff as that suggested by the honorable and learned member for Indi would make the item rather cumbrous. I acknowledge the little difficulty for the time, but I take it that in view of the expression of the Government we may provide as now suggested. Instead of introducing the provision suggested by the honorable and learned member in the Tariff, we should introduce a Bill containing a clause-

Mr A McLEAN:
GIPPSLAND, VICTORIA · PROT

– Then the Minister will introduce an amending Bill ?

Mr KINGSTON:

– We should provide by legislation for an amendment of the Distillation Act.

Sir EDWARD BRADDON (Tasmania). - The insertion of such a provision as that suggested by the honorable and learned member for Indi would be unique.

Mr Isaacs:

– We have a similar provision in Division VIa. of the Tariff.

Sir EDWARD BRADDON:

– I should be very glad if the Minister would go one step further, and allow this matter to be settled at once. Although it would possibly involve some slight loss of revenue, that loss would be amply compensated for by the simplicity of administration which would result if we provided for one rate of duty on all wines containing up to 40 per cent, of proof spirit. I make the suggestion in a perfectly friendly spirit, and I hope that the Minister will consider it.

Mr. V. L. SOLOMON (South Australia). - I understand that the Government are prepared to extend the strength of wine which may be imported up to 40 per cent 1

Sir George Turner:

– Yes ; to make the limit 40 per cent, instead of 38 per cent.

Mr.’V. L. SOLOMON.- But the Government will not give way on the question of whether the one duty should not be imposed in respect of all wines containing up to 38 per cent, instead of 35 per cent, of proof spirit. The extra 6d. per gallon for every additional degree above 35 per cent, is a very heavy impost, and altogether out of proper proportion to the duty imposed on proof spirits. To make it proportionate, the additional duty per gallon should be something like Hd. per degree instead of 6d. I would suggest to the Minister that a compromise might be arrived at by providing that the increased duty per gallon should be 3d., instead of 6d., for every additional degree between 35 and 40 per cent. I shall endeavour to test the opinion of the committee on this point at a later stage.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment (by Mr. Glynn) proposed -

That the amendment be amended by the omission of the figures “38,” line 4, with the view to insert in lieu thereof the figures “ 40.”

Mr. THOMSON (North Sydney).- Presuming that the Government proposal of a 40 per cent, limit is accepted, and that we have to accept the decision that they will not allow the one duty to apply up to 40 per cent. what is the best way to accomplish a distinction ? I would suggest that instead of going up 6d. every point, the Minister should make wine up to 38 per cent. subject to an extra1s. duty, and wine from 38 per cent. up to 40 per cent, subject to another1s. There would be only two points in dispute there, that is as to 38 per cent. and. 40 per cent. wine. But as it is there are five points of dispute with the importer, and very fine points too -as to whether the 1 per cent. has been reached or not. Every degree is a point of dispute. Limit that either by making the five degrees subject to one rate, or by making two rates for the five degrees. If that course is adopted, there will be only one or two points of dispute between the importers and the department. The officers will be saved a great deal of trouble, and greater satisfaction will be given in the administration of the Act.

Mr KINGSTON:

– The honorable member for North Sydney is suggesting that for 36 per cent., 37 per cent., and 38 per cent. wine, we should charge an extra1s., and for 39 per cent. and 40 per cent., an extra 2s.

Mr Thomson:

– If it is wished to make a second stage.

Mr KINGSTON:

– There is something to be said in favour of that. There might be something to be said in favour of making a medium rate for the whole lot. There is not very much difficulty in determining the strength of the wine. I have various instances worked out in decimals. Although I acknowledge that there is something to be said in favour of the honorable member’s suggestion on the score of convenience of administration at the same time I prefer to have the amendment as it stands.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. V. L. SOLOMON (South Australia). - I move -

That the amendment be amended by the omission of the figure “6” with a view to insert in lieu thereof the figure “3.”

Threepence would be double the proportionate rate upon spirits. According to the duty on spirits it would be about l½d. for each point above 35 to 40 per cent. At 6d. per gallon it is three or four times the proportionate rate of duty. Even at 3d. per gallon ordinary imported port wines and sherries which come in at from 39 to 40 per cent. would pay at the rate of 7s. 6d. per gallon.

That I think is a very fair duty, and undoubtedly a very fair protection to Australian vignerons.

Question - That the figure “ 6 “ proposed to be omitted stand part of the proposed amendment - put. The committee divided -

Ayes … … … 33

Noes … … … 22

Majority … … 11

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Amendment negatived.

Amendment (by Mr. Kingston) agreed to -

That the amendment be amended by the omission of the figures “ 38,” line 5, with a view to insert in lieu thereof the figures “40.”

Amendment, as amended, agreed to.

Item, as amended, agreed to.

Item 5 - Tobacco, viz. : - …. Cigars, including the weight oE bands and other attachments, per lb., Os. 3d. and 15 per cent, ad valorem.

Mr GLYNN:
South Australia

– On behalf of the honorable member for Wentworth I move -

That the words “and on and after Srd April, 1902, 6s. Gd.” be added.

This will have the effect of increasing the present fixed duty from fis. 3d- to 6s. 6d., and of abolishing the ad valorem duty of 15 per cent. Taking the average of the cigars imported into Victoria in 1S97-98 and 1899 the price was 7s. 7d. per lb. A ID per cent, ad valorem duty upon this would represent ls. 3d. per lb., and a fixed duty of 6s. 3d. added would bring the total duty to 7s. 6d. per lb. The excise duty is ls. 6d. per lb., and the duty upon imported leaf is ls. 6d. per lb., or a total of 3s. Therefore, the protection under a duty of 7s. 6d. per lb. amounts to 4-s. 6d. per lb., which, I need scarcely say, is a very high figure. The weight of ordinary cigars is about 12 lbs. per 1000, whilst heavy-weights run to 15 lbs. per 1000. A protection of 4s’. 6d. per lb. averages on ordinary cigars £2 14s. per 1000, and on heavy-weights £3 7s. 6d. per 1000. As the Treasurer has already conceded a reduction of this duty, I think he might go to the further reasonable length now suggested. According to the information contained in the report of the chief inspector of factories in Victoria for 1900 as to wages in the cigar trade, the protection now afforded amounts to 143 per cent, on the wages paid.

Sir GEORGE TURNER:
Protectionist

– I trust that the committee will not make any alteration in the duty. We fought this matter out very fully when it was first before us. It was then proposed that a duty of Ss. 6d. should be imposed upon Havanna cigars, and 6s. 6d. upon other cigars, it being admitted that the better class of goods should contribute more to the revenue. Now we are asked to consent to a duty of 6s. 6d. per lb. all round, but as the committee, by 35 to 22 votes, refused to adopt the other proposal, I feel certain that they will not agree to make the duty uniform at lis. Gd. per lb. As this matter has been very fully debated we might come to a division at once.

Mr THOMSON:
North Sydney

– I would remind the Treasurer that the circumstances are entirely different from those obtaining when we were dealing with this matter before. We then had a whole series of composite duties still to deal with, but these have since one by one disappeared. The Treasurer has time and again recognised that the feeling of the committee was against these composite duties, and has abandoned them.

Mr Watson:

– A number of honorable members favour a composite duty as applied to cigars, but would not adopt the same principle in regard to other articles.

Mr THOMSON:

– There was just as good reason for the adoption of composite duties in regard to other items as in the case of cigars. As a matter of fact, the composite duty is more objectionable as applied to cigars than to any other line in the Tariff. No drawback is allowed upon cigars, which are usually sold in bond, as importers ‘will not hold large, duty-paid stocks if they cannot get drawback upon re-export. When a man buys in bond, hemust, under the composite duty, obtain from the vendor before he purchases particulars as to the duty that will have to be paid. He cannot know the cost of what he is buying unless he ascertains this from the vendor before purchasing.- Consequently, the cost of the cigars has to be disclosed. It is not right to expect traders in cigars to declare the cost before a sale is made. Business would be impossible under these conditions. The Minister gave as a reason for composite duties that, whilst protecting the local maker of low-grade articles, they would make the users of the higher-grade goods pay something more to the revenue. If the ad valorem principle is a good one to apply in order to make the consumer pay something more to the revenue, that something should be entirely in proportion to the value, but under the system of composite duties only a portion of the duty is being collected on the tic? valorem principle. Cigars which cost ls. pay only 15 per cent, upon that shilling. Surely if there were ever a reason for applying this principle it was to be found in the case of boots, and yet in that instance Ministers abandoned the composite duties. If the Treasurer desires to make a distinction between the .high-grade and the low-grade goods, he can do so by imposing a higher rate of duty upon the better class of cigars. The protection now afforded to the. local manufacturer is 4s. 6d. per lb., as against 2s. 6d. per lb. previously in New South Wales, 4s. 3d. in Victoria, 2s. 6d. in Queensland, 4s. 7½d. in South Australia, 2s. in Tasmania, and 4s.1½d. in WesternAustralia. The proposal of the honorable and learned member for South Australia gets over any difficulty with regard to labour, because it is shown that the duty represents nearly double the whole cost of the labour involved in the manufacture of Australian-made cigars. What is now proposed as import duty is more than theduty charged in any State previously, except Tasmania, where the duty was 6d. more. I quite anticipated that the Treasurer or the Minister for Trade and Customs would accept the previous decision of the committee in connexion with composite duties. I urge them to do so. This is the last duty of that sort, and it is the most deleterious in its effects. If they abandon it they complete the symmetry of the Tariff, inasmuch as all of these duties which they looked upon with favour - and for which I am willing to admit there was on the surface something to be said - have been abandoned with this exception. As to the 6s. 6d. duty proposed by the honorable member for South Australia, it is the same duty as has been put on cigarettes. A lesser margin has been allowed on cigarettes, but this is the same import duty, so that we unify the Tariff in this respect by adopting the amendment. Of course a further proposition can be made, which personally I should agree to, that an extra 2s. be put upon Havanna cigars, which are of a higher grade.

Question - That the words “ and on and after the 3rd April, 1902, per lb. 6s. 6d.,” proposed to be added, be so added - put. The committee divided -

Ayes……… 20

Noes … … … 33

Majority…… 13

Question so resolved in the negative.

Item agreed to.

Item 7. - Sugar

Amendment (by Mr. Kennedy) negatived -

That the following words be added to the duty: - “A rebate of 3s. percwt. shall be allowed to manufacturers on all sugar used in the manufacture of cordials, syrups, jams, jellies, preserves, and confectionery ; such rebate shall bo allowed to only licensed or registered manufacturers under regulations approved by the Governor-General in Council.”

Item 8. - Animals…… Special exemptions. Cattle, sheep, pigs, and poultry for the improvement of breeds subject to departmental by-laws.

Mr KINGSTON:
Protectionist

– I move-

That the exemptions be omitted.

The duty on animals has been struck out, and, therefore, it is no longer necessary that these special exemptions shall appear.

Motion agreed to : exemptions omitted.

Item 17. - Coffee and Chicory, viz., raw . . . per lb. 3d.

Mr THOMSON:
North Sydney

Mr Harper:

– That is absurd !

Mr BAMFORD:

– I do not pose as an expert, but I am told that there is the same risk in regard to coffee beans as to grain, cigars, and other goods if they come in an uncovered state. I hope the Minister will not be influenced by the pleading of the honorable member for North Sydney.

Mr HARPER:
Mernda

– I hope that the Minister for Trade and Customs will adopt the suggestion thrown out by the honorable member for North Sydney. The practice of cleaning under supervision in the Customs has been in existence for the last 25 years ; in fact, ever since coffee was produced in the islands. If better authority be required for the statement I have made honorable members may refer to the Imperial Tariff, 1902, paragraph 167 of which provides -

Coffee in the husk, which has been delivered out of warehouse under bond for the removal of the husks, will be charged with duty on all loss exceeding that due to the removal of the husks only. The estimate for the proportion of the husks is to be made on the results of actual experiments by the officers, or samples taken by them for the purpose.

Sir George Turner:

– That would not include the parchment.

Mr HARPER:

– Yes; there are two kinds of husks. The coffee berry is like a cherry, and that is why it is called “ cherry.” There is an outer skin which contains two berries, which are encased in the silver skin. The one is the cherry, and the other is the parchment, but both are husks or refuse, which are equally valueless. They have to be removed before the article becomes the coffee of commerce. If duty is charged on the husks, then it will be levied on something which is not coffee. If the Minister refers to page 401 of the Imperial

Tariff, 1902, he will see that paragraph 475 states -

Coffee imported in the husk may be delivered from the warehouse for the purpose of having the husk removed, upon bond being entered into, in the penalty of double the duty payable on the goods, for the return of the coffee to the warehouse after the operation has been completed.

That is when it is done out of bond. Security is given that the coffee will be returned in due course. The paragraph continues -

Prior to the removal of the goods such samples are to be taken as may enable the officers in the warehouse to estimate the proportion of husks, and on the return of the goods duty is to be paid on any loss in excess of such proportion.

That fairly lays down the practice in Great Britain, and the honorable member for Herberthas been misled if he has been told that the coffee is sent in the form referred to by him in order to prevent it from becoming wormy. I understand that most of the coffee goes from the Islands to Sydney, and it will be seen at once that, if the husk is taken off at the Islands, the coffee comes in at 3d. per lb. Therefore it is evidently a mistake to charge anything on the husks, which are not coffee in any shape or form.

Mr SYDNEY SMITH:
MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT

– I hope that the Minister will agreeto the suggestion made by the honorable member for North Sydney. Most of the coffee grown in the Islands is imported into New South Wales ; very little comes into Victoria. In this State they have always paid the duty on coffee itself, and not on coffee in the husks. If the coffee had been brought into Victoria in the same condition as that in which it is introduced in New South Wales, I am sure that those concerned in the industry would have broughtthe matter under the notice of the Government.

Mr Thomson:

– They are charged here only on the coffee.

Mr SYDNEY SMITH:
MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT

– That is so. In no case has the duty been levied in the way now adopted by the Commonwealth Government.

Mr EWING:
Richmond

– I desire to ascertain what it costs to clean a pound of coffee. We are told that the Island coffee is imported into New South Wales in cherries. It is not sold in that form, and I wish to ascertain what it costs to place it in the condition in which it is retailed.

Mr Thomson:

– About £1 or £2 per ton.

Mr. HARPER (Mernda). - I wish to call the attention of the Minister for Trade and Customs to the fact that the words “ kiln dried “ which appear in this item should be transferred from the third to the second line, so that it would read -

Coffee and chicory, viz. : - Raw and kiln dried, per lb., 3d.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Such an alteration cannot be made without a further reference to the committee.

Mr HARPER:

– A complaint has been made to me from another State that ordinary raw coffee is being stopped, on the ground that the importer must prove that it has- not been “ kiln dried.” I think that the origin of what I conceive to be a mistake in the item is that the Government, in drawing up the Tariff, have had.recourse to the Imperial Customs Tariff, and have adopted the term “kiln dried” which is used there without regard to the fact that in the Imperial Tariff coffee is treated separately from chicory. They have lumped the two together, with the result that a duty of 5d. per lb. is being charged on ordinary raw coffee, on the ground that it is “kiln dried.” The intention of the committee was that the duty on ordinary raw coffee should be 3d. per lb., and I. consider that when we are reviewing the coffee duty, I am within my rights in calling attention to what I conceive- to bea mistake in the item.

Sir EDWARD BRADDON:
Tasmania

– I hope that the Minister for Trade and Customs will accede to the request made by the honorable member for North Sydney. At the present time a duty of 3d. per lb. is being collected, not only on coffee, but on the absolutely useless husks. I have a sample cherry here which contains no coffee. The whole cherry would be an absolute waste, and yet it would be liable to duty. We do not wish to obtain revenue unfairly by collecting it on coffee husks, under the plea that we are collecting it on coffee. The suggestion made by the honorable member for Mernda should be adopted.

Sir George Turner:

– Coffee is not “ kiln dried ; “ that term applies to chicory.

Mr KINGSTON:

– Some honorable members whose duty it is to be astonished say that it is an extraordinary thing that the same rate should be charged for coffee taken out of the shell as for coffee that remains in the parchment, or in the cherry, as it is called. The sample which was produced just now was cherry coffee, but surely it might be referred to as coffee 1 Do honorable members think that an allowance is claimed or allowed in respect of the shells or husks of almonds and nuts of various descriptions ? Nothing of the sort. Are almonds almonds 1 Is an orange an orange ? Would honorable members claim that an. allowance should be made in respect of the skin if oranges were subject to a duty 1

Mr Brown:

– But what have the Government done in the case of rice ?

Mr KINGSTON:

-We have made an express provision.

Mr Brown:

– Then why not do the same in this case 1

Mr KINGSTON:

– I am speaking of the form in which the Tariff has been passed so far. The practice as regards almonds and nuts is to charge by weight. No difference is made between the bulled- and the- unhulled It is not as if we had not adopted the same principle- in the case of coffee. What we say to the importers is - “ Bring your coffee unhulled if you like. We are not making an exception to your detriment, if you choose to bring it in in that shape.” It may not be in accord with our .’policy generally as regards the encouragement of industry, but I desire a clear appreciation of, the position on both sides. The Government are prepared to give effect to the evident wish of the- committee. Coffee-making is a. considerable Australian industry. It is an industry in which Queensland is very greatly interested:

Mr Harper:

– - And which has- a protection of 3d. per lb.

Mr KINGSTON:

– The people of Queensland do not consider that a very considerable protection. At this time it is not necessary to reopen a settled question. We have our doubts whether the duty is sufficient. And we doubt whether it should be relaxed in favour of those whose industry we have not endeavoured specially to encourage during this session on account of the nature of the competition to which it subjects our white workers. But under Jill the circumstances I am willing to give an assurance to the honorable member for North Sydney, that we shall prepare a regulation which will have, the effect of enabling coffee to be dealt with in the parchment or cherry under Customs super vision. I think it must be done in bond, and duty paid on the net result. As regards the question of “ kiln dried,” I understood the Chairman to say he was not prepared to allow that question to be dealt with, but I am obliged to the honorable member for Mernda for his remarks on the subject. It is evident that the words “ kiln dried “ are intended to apply more particularly to chicory. And we shall do what we can to give an intelligent construction to them.

Mr. HARPER (Mernda). - I did not understand the Chairman to rule as now suggested. The term “ kiln-dried “ distinctly affects coffee, and it ought to be made clear. . I do not wish to strike it out. We. could transpose the words.

Sir George Turner:

– That line is not recommitted. It is only “ coffee raw “ which is recommitted.

Mr HARPER:

– On the Minister’s assurance, I shall leave the matter alone.

Mr. BAMFORD (Herbert). - I have been informed by Mr. Newport, coffee expert to the Queensland Government, that coffee is kiln dried, and that the most inferior kind imported is that which is kiln dried. That information was given to me by Mr. Newport in the precincts of this chamber. I should like the Minister to give particular attention to the matter before being influenced by the arguments of the honorable member for Mernda.

Mr. THOMSON (North Sydney).- I object to what I must describe if it really represents the feeling of Queensland as the insatiable greed of that State. I do not believe it does, because I do not think for a moment that Queensland is a greedy State. Here is an honorable member who has a protection of 3d. per lb. - 50 per cent. - urging the Ministry to secure some better results by round-about methods of administration. Surely it is a round-about method to apply the words “ kiln dried” to coffee. Coffee is not kiln dried - except in some case where the sun may not be sufficiently strong and artificial heat may be applied simply for drying it to the ordinary condition at which it is dutiable at 3d. per lb., and is called raw coffee. I am very glad that the Minister is going to make the regulation he has promised. He said that it was giving an assistance to that black labour which we did not desire to encourage. It is doing nothing of the sort, because the cleaned coffee grown by black labor in Java and other places is allowed to come in at a duty of 3d. per lb.

Mr Kingston:

– The South Sea coffee comes in under the same condition.

Mr THOMSON:

– It does not when the Minister tries to charge duty on the husks.

He states that the Government should not be asked to make an exception, but this system has been carried on for years, and should not be departed from unless good reason can be shown. No good reason has yet been shown for this departure. The Minister pleaded that Queensland might need more than the protection she will get. That State cannot get one penny more protection if husks are charged duty. She gets a protection on the raw coffee, and if this coffee in the husk is shut out, it does not prohibit competition with Central American and Javan coffee, which pays duty on the clean weight. I do not think it should have been necessary to bring this matter before the committee. The Minister could have done what is necessary by administration. I was requested to bring it before the committee, because he would not administer the law as he now agrees to do.

Mr CONROY:
Werriwa

– As one who does not believe in discouraging the use of temperance drinks, I think that a duty of 3d. per lb. on coffee is extremely high. Considering that tea is placed on the free list, we ought to lower the rate of duty on coffee. I should like to move that the duty be lowered, but as the whole item is not recommitted I can do no more than record my protest.

Item agreed to.

Mr R EDWARDS:
OXLEY, QUEENSLAND · PROT; FT from 1913; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910

– I move-

That the following new item be inserted : -

“Fish, fresh, viz., oysters, on and after 3rd April, 1902, per cwt. 2s.”

This will restore the item practically in its original form. When it first came under the notice of the committee the honorable member for Wentworth raised some slight objection to a duty upon oysters, and the Prime Minister who happened to be in a particularly generous frame of mind withdrew the proposal, which was dropped without further discussion. For some years past oyster beds have been cultivated in Queensland, and considerable expense has been incurred in carrying on the industry. This has been essential to the maintenance of an abundant supply of oysters, because the natural beds are being rapidly depleted. The report of the inspector of fisheries in Queensland to the 30th June, 1901, shows that during the twelve months then ending the exports of oysters from Queensland amounted to 11,747 bags valued at £15,288. This quantity represents about four-fifths of the total output of that State. The revenue received by the department for the same period amounted to £5,703. It follows, therefore, that 7s. 7d. was paid to the Fisheries department upon each bag of oysters. The New Zealand Government does not tax the oystermen in that colony, beyond charging them a small working licence of 2s. 6d. per man, whereas in Queensland £5 per annum is charged upon every bank; £1 or more for each boat, and 10s. for each man’s working licence. Therefore, New Zealand oysters can be placed upon our markets more cheaply than can those locally grown. Our oystermen are, I think, entitled to moderate protection, and I hope that the committee will accede to the prayer of the large number of petitions which have been presented to this House from the oyster cultivators of Queensland.

Mr FISHER:
Wide Bay

– I think this duty would have remained on the Tariff but for an accident which occurred during one of our all-night sittings. The duty will not injure any interest or individual, but on the other hand will assist an important industry in Queensland. I trust that the committee will agree to the proposal, and thus do justice to a large number of persons in Queensland who minister to the needs of the people of all the States.

Mr. CONROY (Werriwa). - I am surprised that any honorable member should ask for this duty. The only oysters imported into the Commonwealth come from New Zealand, and it seems absurd to put this matter forward as one of national importance. It is reducing our legislative proceedings to a farce. Practically no revenue is expected from this duty. Moreover I do not think that any private member should be permitted to make a proposal for the imposition of a duty. I know that a ruling contrary to that view has been given, but honorable members should not take advantage of it because it is opposed to the practice of the House of Commons, and will certainly not be indorsed when outstanding orders are finally adopted.I hope the proposal will not be seriously entertained.

Mr. WINTER COOKE (Wannon).Here is an item which, before the Tariff was introduced, was free all over Australia, except in Western Australia. Now, because the States are united, we are asked to protect the great State of Queensland, not from the cheap labour of other countries, but from people who live under like conditions to ourselves. Surely there is no need for Victoria and New South Wales to protect themselves from oysters! Victoria before federation was not afraid of oysters, but apparently federated Australia is supposed to be afraid of the little oysters that are sent over by our fellow countrymen in New Zealand! The amendment ought to be rejected on the voices.

Sir EDWARD BRADDON (Tasmania). - I had hoped that Ministers would defend a position which is uncomfortable for them in this instance. I should have thought that they would not submit to an alteration in their own proposals.

Mr Mauger:

– They proposed this duty originally.

Sir EDWARD BRADDON:

– But they abandoned it without any pressure from any quarter. The appeal of the honorable member who has just resumed his seat ought to settle the question. We are asked for the first time in any State except Western Australia to impose a tax upon an article which enters very little into competition with anything produced in the Commonwealth, and to which no one can take any exception. It is absolutely unreasonable and unfair that the Government, because one of their supporters has suggested this duty, should, at the eleventh hour, go back upon themselves, and calmly submit to this alteration.

Mr. SYDNEY SMITH (Macquarie).This matter was discussed on a previous occasion when the Prime Minister agreed to to abandon the proposed duty. It was then pointed out by the honorable member for Wentworth that the total amount of duty which the Government expected to receive from oysters was about £270, and that previously there had been no duty in Tasmania, Queensland, New South Wales, South Australia, and Victoria. The Government are playing fast and loose with the committee. We desire to facilitate the despatch of business, but that object will not be attained if the Government, at the instance of one of their supporters, seek to impose a tax upon an article which the Prime Minister had previously agreed should be free of duty.

Mr. MACDONALD-PATERSON (Brisbane). The honorable member for Macquarie has referred to the fact that in several States in the past there was no duty on oysters. There was no need for a duty in Queensland, because she is well supplied with oysters, as also is New South Wales. But one of the first principles of federation was that there should he Inter-State free-trade with protection against the world. Tens of thousands of people voted for federation on that account. New Zealand is not part of Australia. Only the other day a gentleman who is a native of New South Wales told me that there are thousands of acres of oyster beds in that State which only require a little cultivation to enable them to feed the whole Commonwealth, with oysters. I find that oysters are now four times the price that they were some years ago, and that monopolies have entered into the trade because of the absence of facilities for the encouragement of oyster culture. The protection asked for is not for Queensland alone. On the broad principle of enabling oyster culture to be encouraged and to be successful in all parts of our coast we should have a moderate duty. The oyster has been such a trivial article in the eyes of State Treasurers that they have never thought of a duty upon it, but so many duties have been knocked off in the Commonwealth that we have to be careful. If it is necessary to impose a tax upon New Zealand timber, we should also tax New Zealand oysters. In that country they have a better climate for oyster production. The New Zealand oyster is larger than the Australian, but not more wholesome. It is a very coarse article of diet. The Prime Minister agreed to strike oysters off the Tariff without consulting other honorable members or the Minister in charge, and it was understood that the question would be revived at a later stage. I am sorry that it should be discussed at all. I do not think it is worth discussing. The proposition should commend itself to every honorable member, and I trust it will be agreed to by a good majority.

Mr. CONROY (Werriwa).- I wonder that honorable members opposite do not claim that a duty on oysters is important for the sake of encouraging the manufacture of wire netting because wire netting if of sufficiently small mesh would keep off the fish that prey upon the oysters’ spawn ! It is ludicrous that we should be asked to retrace our steps on a matter of this sort. If Ministers intend to conduct the business in this fashion, I may as well inform them that I am going to remain here for the rest of the year.

I am inclined to think that the Opposition have been too peaceful altogether. When I look back upon our lost opportunities, I realize that it is simply and solely because we had not wearied out the Government supporters that they are behaving as they are now doing. When we were discussing coffee berries we learned from the honorable member for Mernda that the duty was levied on the berry with the skin on, and he pointed out ‘how absurd it was to do that, because people do not consume the skins. But we are now asked to levy a duty of 2s. per cwt. on oysters in the shell. I do not know precisely what is the weight of the oyster apart from the shell. Probably there would be about 10 lbs. of oysters to every 100 lbs. of shell. The tax on the oysters, apart from the shells, would be something like 20s. on every cwt. of oysters eaten. Do the Government intend to allow a drawback on the shells 1 Probably if honorable members opposite advertised the fact that there is to be a duty of 2s. per cwt. on oysters, the New Zealand oysters will learn to grow with less shell ; though from the oyster’s point of view they should grow more shell, so as to have a better chance of not being exported and devoured. I have no doubt that at Stewart Island, whence the bulk of the oysters come, the decision of the Federal Parliament will be largely advertised, and that we shall have an oyster parliament passing a vote of thanks to this Chamber. The local oysters would of course view the matter differently, and point out how the duty will increase their chance of dying. I cannot but be surprised at the action of two or three representatives of Queensland in this matter. Sometimes honorable members think it proper to represent the views of their constituencies without pledging themselves to those views ; but if they do so, they should not call on honorable members on this side of the House to vote with them. There must have been a solemn Cabinet meeting since the item was struck out at the instance of the Prime Minister himself some months ago, and I should very much like to know the name of the wise Minister who suggested that this item should be reinstated with a view of preventing the eating of New Zealand oysters. Consider, too, what earnest debates must have taken place in order to overrule the original decision of the Prime Minister. How did the Cabinet divide? The poem of “The

Walrus and the Carpenter” must be entirely unknown to them. Such a proposal turns our proceedings into a farce, and one would have thought, even from the point of view of the Government, that the item would have been laughed out of the Chamber, seeing that it is proposed to impose only1d. per lb. on tinned fish, while about 2s. per lb. is imposed upon the raw material. For the sake of revenue to the amount of about £270 extra Customs officials will have to be engaged. I am sorry that honorable members who previously agreed to strike out this item should now, for party purposes, support the present proposal.

Question - That the following new item be inserted : - -“Fish, fresh, viz., oysters, per cwt., 2s.” - put.

The committee divided -

Ayes … … … 25

Noes … … 24

Majority … … 1

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Amendment agreed to.

Item 20. - Fruits and vegetables….. Bananas, per cental, is. on and after 28th November, 1901.”

Sir EDWARD BRADDON:
Tasmania

– I suppose it will be admitted that the trade of the islands of the Pacific is of some considerable importance to the Commonwealth of Australia. Those of us who look forward to the time when these islands will be part of the territory of the Commonwealth and under Australian control and domination, will certainly do all they can in the interim stage to protect that trade and reserve it for Australia. We have this evening done one thing in favour of the trade with the islands ; we have drawn the proper distinction between raw coffee unhusked and cleaned, and coffee in the husk. There are two other articles of commerce between the islands and Australia which are of very considerable importance. One of these is maize and the other is bananas. In proposing, on behalf of thehonorable member for Wentworth, that bananas shall be free, my only desire is that trade shall be encouraged in that way, not upon any new lines, but upon lines which prevail already in one of the most protectionist colonies in the southern hemisphere, New Zealand. Bananas have hitherto been free in New Zealand, as well as in New Caledonia, and inasmuch as, apart from the desirability of encouraging trade between the Common wealth and these islands, it is well that bananas should be largely introduced amongst our people as a wholesome article of food, I hope the committee will see fit to place them on the free list. I move -

That the words “and on and after 3rd April, 1902, free,” be added.

Mr KIRWAN:
Kalgoorlie

– I should like to have some statement from the Government setting forth their reasons for insisting upon this duty.

Sir George Turner:

– We fought it out in committee, and decided after three or four divisions that the duty should be1s. per cental.

Mr KIRWAN:

– I think there are very good reasons why the committee should reconsider this duty. In addition to the fact that bananas are a food of the people, the question is one that affects the relationship of theCommonwealth to the islands of the Pacific. There are two aspects,as we know, from which we can regard that matter. It is very important that we should stimulate and encourage trade between the Commonwealth and the islands, of which at present the French are very desirous of obtaining possession. In addition to that, there is the proposal which has emanated from New Zealand for a federation which would include Fiji and various other islands in the southern Pacific. I sincerely trust that the committee will not regard this question from the free-trade versus protectionist aspect alone, but will consider the interests of the Commonwealth generally, and see that it is desirable to encourage the trade and the friendly relationship which should exist between the Commonwealth and these islands of the Pacific.

Sir GEORGE TURNER:
Protectionist

– I think it is useless to re-discuss matters that we have already debated very fully. There was a long and acrimonious debate on this item. If I recollect rightly, I offered to reduce the duty from 2s. to ls. per cental in order to settle the matter. That offer was not accepted, and we went to a division on an amendment by the honorable member for Wentworth that bananas should be free. The whole question of the island trade was then discussed, but the committee negatived that proposal by 23 votes to 14. That was a fairly substantial majority, having regard to divisions on some other items which have been passed, and for that reason I propose simply to take the vote of the committee without occupying any time in discussing this ‘matter. There are other parts of the Commonwealth which must be considered, although I think that the question >n of encouraging trade with the islands will have to be dealt with generally when we come to take their colonization into consideration. It may be proposed that the Commonwealth shall take over the islands, or assume some protection over them, and we could then settle terms under which we would deal fairly with them and with the Commonwealth as a whole. Meantime, I think that the duty imposed on bananas is a very legitimate one.

Mr HENRY WILLIS:
Robertson

– The statement made by the Treasurer is unsatisfactory. The original proposal of the Government was that a duty of 2s. per cental should be imposed on bananas. It was pointed out at the time that such a duty would injure the trade between Sydney and the islands, and it has been found by those who have large dealings in bananas that the present duty of ls. per cental has brought about that result. Trade with the islands has been injured very considerably in consequence of there being no back freight to Australia for vessels trading to the islands. The result of ‘the duty has been a loss of trade, not only in bananas, but in other produce. The trade has been diverted chiefly to New Caledonia and New Zealand, while so far as some of the islands are concerned, their trade will go to Honolulu and find an outlet thence in the direction of San Francisco. This duty is felt more by the merchants of Sydney than it is by those of Melbourne.. When we. find representatives of “Victoria urging the claims of this State-from time to time, I think it is rather ungracious for the Government to insist on this duty, with its consequent loss of trade to Sydney merchants. The item was discussed when there was not a full committee and in the absence of people from New South Wales, who had been waiting for days for the purpose of laying information before the committee so that the matter might be fairly and properly dealt with. I hope that the Government will not insist upon the duty.

Mr THOMSON:
North Sydney

– This matter is far more serious than the Government appear to consider. While on the one hand the Cabinet are expressing their desire to attract the islands to the Commonwealth* they are on the other hand doing everything to alienate the islands from it. The encouragement of trade with these islands - and especially when they can do so without injury to the Commonwealth - is an important part of the Government policy. What is the position t Under the Victorian State Tariff there was no duty on bananas, and the whole of the trade of this State in that article was done with Queensland. That condition of affairs would continue without any duty. The reason is obvious. The island steamers can bring bananas to Sydney without transhipment, but that process would be necessary if they desired to send them on to another State ; whilst steamers from Queensland can bring bananas from that State direct. The absence of the necessity for transhipment is a great advantage. In New South Wales before the imposition of the Federal Tariff half of the trade in bananas was done with Queensland, while the other half went to the islands of the Pacific. The object of this duty is to secure the whole of the trade to Queensland. When that is accomplished the back freight of the island steamers, in the shape of the carriage of bananas to New South Wales, which constitutes a very large item in their earnings, is destroyed. These steamers are experiencing the greatest difficulty in competing with foreign vessels in the island trade. They cannot compete in the trade itself without a loss. I ani not speaking without authority on this subject, because I “had a great deal to do with the matter as a director of the Australian New Hebrides Company while it existed. That company endeavoured to compete with the French companies. In the first instance, it received a mail subsidy of £1,200 a year from New South Wales, and £1,200 - which was reduced subsequently to £800 - a year from Victoria. All credit to Victoria for giving that subsidy when she was not so directly interested in the matter as was New South Wales. It was given in order to maintain communication between Australia and the islands, for it was felt that those islands would be lost to us unless that communication was retained. When the Government remove the natural freight back from the islands, they at once tend to destroy the natural stream of trade. Surely, when Queensland gets half the New South Wales trade, and all the Victorian trade, it is not worth while to impose the duty. The very effect which was anticipated is occurring. *

Mr SYDNEY SMITH:
MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT

– The Government have deplored any discussion on the recommitted items. In dealing with the Tariff we discussed many items, and if the same course is to be pursued as was pursued a few moments ago, it will become necessary to rediscuss them. We have no desire to unnecessarily discuss any items, but we are in this position, that if we allow a silent vote to be taken, the Government will muster all their forces and’ try to undo that which was deliberately done with the concurrence of the Prime Minister. With the view of settling the question, as we thought for all time to come, the Government deliberately agreed to the proposal made by the honorable member for Wentworth .to admit oysters duty free, but they have gone back on that agreement. I wish to prevent the possibility of anything of that kind occurring again. It is only with a view to facilitate the transaction of business that I utter this note of warning. If we are treated in a similar way in regard to other items, I fear it will be some time before the consideration of the Tariff is completed.

Mr CONROY:
Werriwa

– There is one argument in support of a duty on bananas which has not been advanced by the other side. In order to carry out the idea in its entirety we ought to allow the raw material to come in duty free. By that means a large employment might be given to children in skinning bananas, and we should have it put forth that under the benign regis of protection a new industry had sprung up. I throw out the suggestion for what it is worth. I feel quite sure that honorable members on the other side, after their brilliant remarks in favour of taxing oysters, will readily consent to allow the raw banana to come in free so that it may be peeled here. There is an argument which should appeal to honorable members on this side, and to sensible men, no matter where they are. When the duty was last considered it was pointed out that the effect” of imposing a duty would be to lessen a trade which was being carried on at a considerable disadvantage. I refer to the trade of New South Wales with the islands. Sufficient time has elapsed since the introduction of the Tariff to show that that will actually happen. That fact should weigh with the committee. I remember a speech in which the honorable and learned member for Corio pointed out that Australia ought to take possession of all these islands, lt is perfectly clear that if we do take possession of them the trade of the islands will be carried on with Australia. It has been shown that, slight as this duty is, it does affect to a certain extent the island trade which is already on the balance. It is not argued that any man in Queensland or elsewhere derives any considerable benefit from the imposition of the duty. I did not anticipate that it would endanger the trade with the islands, but I am assured by commercial men and others who deal with the islands that it is diminishing the trade, and may help to do away with the line of communication which the individual States did so much to build up. Under these circumstances I trust that the committee will accept the amendment.

Sir EDWARD BRADDON (Tasmania). - In my former speech I suggested, but only very delicately, what strikes me as being the position to which we should give our thoughts. In the islands of the

Pacific we have a great rival who is by statesmanlike legislation proceeding in a direction which will secure the trade of the islands. In New Zealand bananas are duty free, and here the Government are trying to drive away that particular part of the trade by imposing a duty. I hope that honorable members will take the view which should be taken by statesmen, that they will look ahead and recognise that it should be the aim of the Australian Parliament to secure the great command of the islands of the Pacific.

Question - That the words “and on and after 3rd April, 1902, free,” be added - put. The committee divided -

Ayes … … … 22

Noes … … … 26

Majority … … 4

Question so resolved in the negative.

Amendment negatived.

Sir EDWARD BRADDON:
Tasmania

– I move -

That the words “ on and after 3rd April. 1902, per cental 6d.” be added.

The CHAIRMAN:

– I am afraid I cannot accept that amendment, because the instruction to the committee is to deal with the proposal -

That bananas be exempted from duty. and that question has now been disposed of.

Ways and Means. - The House, according to order, resolved itself into Committee of Ways and Means.

Then it goes on to state what occurred prior to the proposal to recommit, and says -

Sir George Turner moved that the resolutions be now recommitted to the Committee of Ways and Means for the reconsideration of certain specified items.

– I am not personally concerned with regard to the question of bananas, because I know that the Government can win on the alternative proposition. Therefore I am not worried about that. But there are a number of items coming on which the ruling of the Chairman will affect, and that is not a good thing. I point out, to make the matter clear, that in the first place there is no record for the guidance of the committee upon our Votes and Proceedings, nor is there any such record in Ilansard, so far as I have been able to -find out, and that the document which the Chairman relies upon - no doubt with a full desire to do the right thing - is not an official document, and bears no signature of any responsible authority, but is merely a circular to give publicity to the intentions of certain honorable members. I therefore reluctantly move -

That the ruling of the Chairman be dissented from.

Mr Barton:

– The honorable member for Bland having moved that the ruling of the Chairman be dissented from, I beg leave to make a few remarks on the subject. It is urged that the document which is before the- committee is not an official document. If it is not an official document there is no official document. If there is no official document, then the conclusion must be that the whole Tariff has been recommitted for discussion. The debate cannot be limited except at the instance of a ruling which says that the desire of the House was that the items to be reconsidered were such as are shown by the document upon the table. If it were not done in that way there is no document which shows what the desire of the House was. Therefore the contention of the honorable member cannot be good unless he contends that every item of the Tariff was recommitted. To show how baseless that contention is - if I may say so in all courtesy - the record says that the motion passed was -

That the resolutions be now recommitted to the Committee qf Ways and Means for the reconsideration of certain specified items.

That destroys the contention that the whole Tariff was recommitted.

Mr Watson:

– I never said it was.

Mr Barton:

– Very well ; if the whole Tariff was not recommitted, then it is true that “ certain specified items “ were recommitted ; and it is only a question of evidence what those items were. The only evidence is a document which has passed under the revision of Mr. Speaker, ‘ and which is upon the table. That document has been laid upon the tal .le. The committee declares itself to be a perfectly rudderless ship, and to have no guidance whatever, unless it accepts this document. I have in my hand the’ Treasurer’s notes which he took down at the time, and which include the item in question. His note is not in exactly the same words, but it contains the information that the proposal carried was for the recommittal of the matter in order to declare bananas to be free of duty. The Treasurer’s note says “ bananas to be free.” The document upon the table only puts that proposal in more formal words : “ That bananas be exempted from duty.” What is the difference between those two ‘ things? What is the difference between making bananas “ free “ and making them ‘ exempt from duty 1

Sir Edward Braddon:

– How is the honorable member for Wentworth responsible for that 1

Mr Barton:

– The Treasurer took a note of what the honorable member for Wentworth said. I do not say that the honorable member for Wentworth is responsible for what my right honorable friend took as a note ; but if the Treasurer took a note on which official action has been taken, and if the document in question is objected to because it is not been signed by Mr. Speaker, we are driven to one of two conclusions - r either that the whole Tariff was recommitted, which we know is not the fact ; or that certain specified items were recommitted. If we do not come to the latter conclusion, there is nothing to guide us. If the Chairman’s decision were to be dissented from, it would mean that it would open up the whole discussion that has been going on for the last six months ; because, once we admit that consideration is not limited to the items upon the paper, we admit the whole question. As to the point of the honorable member for Bland, that there is no official guide to the committee, my answer is that if this paper is not an official guide, certainly there is no official guide ; and if that is right, there being no official guide, the whole Tariff will be open to revision, whereas the resolution of the House itself says that the Tariff was recommitted “ for the reconsideration of certain specified items.” To hold that the whole Tariff is open to reconsideration would be a reversal of the resolution of the House itself as contained in the Votes and Proceedings. That seems to me, fairly speaking, to dispose of that point. The remaining point is as to whether the Chairman was right in deciding as he did that, the motion “ that bananas be exempted from duty” being disposed of, the consideration of the question ended there and then. As to that I will admit this : That if you, sir, could have decided that the whole item was open so that the committee, at this stage, could take any action it chose in any direction I should have been much the better pleased. But J. have got to take things as I find them. It is our duty to take things just as we find them. The motion was that the Tariff be recommitted for a certain purpose. We have to read into that motion a recommittal with regard to the things mentioned in this paper. The Tariff was recommitted for the purpose of moving, amongst other things, “that bananas be exempted from duty.” How can it be contended after the decision on that amendment that another proposal can be made ? I would even go so far as to say this : That if upon the motion that bananas be exempt from duty some honorable member had moved a relevant amendment, the Chairman would have been bound to rule against that amendment. If, instead of saying “exempted from duty,” the motion had been that the duty be so and so, it would have been open for the committee to consider such an amendment. But the opportunity for that has gone by. The whole motion for the recommittal in this respect was that bananas be free of duty, and once that was decided the matter was over. I am not now speaking from a Government point of view. I am speaking from a considerable experience in parliamentary affairs, more especially from the experience gained during my occupancy of the chair in another State. I am bound to say, although I would rather it were the other way, that I cannot see how we can question your ruling, that there can be no further motion on the matter. On the question as to what was recommitted, we cannot have any other guide than the printed document we see before you.

Mr Glynn:

– I shall have to refer to one or two of the standing orders in support of what I take to be the practice in connexion with recommittals. I think the true practice in respect to resolutions is that we can, as with a Bill, recommit the whole of a particular resolution arrived at by the committee. When a Bill is being reported we can ask for a recommittal of the whole of the Bill or a particular clause, but not a portion of a clause. There is no necessity for prescribing by the motion that the clause shall be recommitted for the particular purpose which the honorable member may have in view. As a matter of fact we only mention the purpose in an endeavour to get the support of honorable members, or to disarm opposition - it is purely a matter of courtesy. The true position is that any honorable member can ask for the recommittal of a clause without stating a single reason, and the position of a resolution of a committee is exactly that of a clause of a Bill. Each particular item is like a clause, and we simply ask that it shall be recommitted, and after it gets back into the hands of the committee the members of the committee “can do as they please. As regards the question of instructions these only apply where a particular clause, had it been as it originally was before the committee, could not have dealt with it in a certain way. In the case of a Bill leave to recommit does not authorize an addition to a particular clause, and, therefore, we have to ask for the instructions of the House to do something which in an ordinary way we could not do in committee ; and it is the same way with resolutions. If we ask that instructions be given to the committee we simply ask for power to do something we could not have done when the resolution was first considered ; and that view is laid down clearly by May. An instruction can be given in relation to a resolution, not to enable the committee to do something which it could have done previously when the resolution was before the committee for the first time, but to enable it to do something further - to make a particular addition to the resolution, which addition in an ordinary way could not have been made. “When asking for a recommittal honorable members give information to enable the Government to decide whether they will support the motion or not, but the standing orders require no particulars. Standing Order 181 says -

On the motion for the adoption of the report the Bill may, on motion, be recommitted, either in whole or in part; in which case, if amendments are made and the Bill be reported, a subsequent day shall be fixed for taking the report into, consideration.

There is not a word there about stating reasons for asking for a recommital, or about instructions being given to the committee to do certain things. Standing Order 246 provides -

Resolutions of the Committees of Supply and Ways and Means reported to the House are read a first and second time, and agreed to ; or may be amended, postponed, recommitted, or disagreed to.

We are now dealing with Ways and Means, and there is not a word in that standing order setting forth that we must explain whya recommittal is asked for, or that we are to be pinned down by our expressions as to the object we have in. view. On the question of instructions, Standing Order 248 says -

An instruction empowers a committee to consider matters not otherwise referred to it.

– The only official information which the committee has is the Votes and Proceedings of the House of Representatives, which are signed by the Clerk. In those Votes and Proceedings it is stated that the motion was -

That the resolutions be now recommitted to the Committee of Ways and Means for the reconsideration of certain specified items.

When we come to look at the notice-paper we find under orders of the day -

Ways and Means. - Further consideration in committee (The Tariff - Recommitted Items).

Mr THOMSON:
North Sydney

– The committee imposed a duty of 2d. per lb. on currants and a duty of 3d. per lb. on other dried fruits including raisins. Dates, which had been duty free in New South Wales, are therefore subject to a duty of 3d. per lb. The date is a valuable fruit. The stones constitute a large proportion of the weight, consequently on the quantity of fruit a much larger duty is paid than is paid in the case of other fruits. The value of dates is very much lower than that of currants or raisins. Dates are worth from 10s. to 12s. 6d., sometimes 15s. per cwt. One penny farthing per lb. may be considered as the general value. In the streets of Sydney dates used sometimes to be sold at l½d. per lb. They are largely used by the poorer classes when other fruits are not on the market. The duty of 3d. per lb. practically means the exclusion of dates from the Commonwealth. A duty of1d. per lb. is equal to from 75 to 80 or 90 per cent. according to the price of dates. The duty on currants is fixed at nearly 100 per cent., and in the case of raisins the duty on the cheaper sorts is fixed at nearly 100 per cent., and on the dearer sorts at from 25 to 40 per cent. If we impose a duty of1d. per lb. on dates it will interfere with no production of the Commonwealth that I know of. I ask the Government to agree to a duty of1d. per lb., which would be proportionate to the duty imposed on currants and raisins.

Sir George Turner:

– Make it 1½d. per lb.

Mr THOMSON:

– If I cannot get a duty of1d. per lb. I shall accept a duty of. 1½d. per lb., though I think that the former would be quite sufficient on a wholesome article which is used largely by the poorer classes.

Sir EDWARD BRADDON (Tasmania). - I hope that the Minister will accept the suggestion. Threepence per lb. is a tremendous duty to impose on dates. Surely the Minister for Trade and Customs will not pretend that there is any protective policy involved in the imposition of the duty. We do not grow dates, though some people may manufacture them.

Mr KINGSTON:
Protectionist

– The honorable member for North Sydney submits his proposal in a very amusing way. In regard to coffee he urged that the shell ought to be allowed for, because the people did not eat it, but now he asks for a similar allowance to be made for the stone. So long as they get a rebate of 50 per cent. he is perfectly content. The right honorable member for Tasmania suggests that there is no protection involved in this duty, as we do not grow dates. In South Australia we have some magnificent date plantations. Taking into consideration the soil which is suitable, and the artesian bores, which are close handy, the possibility of the extension of the date industry in what was considered one of the most God-forsaken parts of Australiadry and miserable - should encourage us to give a little protection. I can assure honorable members that there are most excellent prospects in connexion with the industry. For some years these plantations have been established, and they are being continually added to. The time is not very far distant when Australia may be able to supply itself with dates. Under all the circumstances I am willing to reduce the duty from 3d. to l½d. per lb. We want protection, and we also desire a reasonable amount of revenue. The honorable member for North Sydney may for similar reasons propose to cut down the currant industry.

Mr Thomson:

– No ; we are putting the duty on dates on the same level as the duty on currants.

Mr SYDNEY SMITH:
MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT

– Let it go, and save time.

Mr KINGSTON:

– As it seems to be the general desire of the committee we shall take a duty of1d. per lb.

Amendment (by Mr. Thomson) agreed to.

That the words “Dates, on and after 3rd April, 1902, per lb.1d.,” be inserted.

Item, as amended, agreed to.

Item 22. Grain and pulse, or * * * groats, per lb.,1d.

Sir EDWARD BRADDON (Tasmania). - I move

That the words ‘ ‘ and on and after 3rd April, 1902,½d.,” be added.

Groats are consumed very largely by the poorer classes and by invalids.

Mr Kingston:

– Invalids’ food, as such, is free.

Sir EDWARD BRADDON:

– Groats are used for that purpose, and although the Minister is very far removed from that stage of life when gruel was his proper food, I hope that he will have some sort of feeling for the children of Australia.

Mr. SYDNEY SMITH (Macquarie;.A dutyof½d. per lb. is imposed on oatmeal, rolled oats, wheatmeal, pearl barley, Scotch barley, maizena, and cornflour, and I see no reason why a difference should be made in the case of groats, which are used for making children’s food. I trust that the Minister will not make the Tariff more inconsistent than it is in many cases. It will save time if he will agree to’ the amendment.

Sir GEORGE TURNER:
Protectionist

– When the committee dealt with the item of grain and pulse it was felt that some of the articles under that head, not being very valuable, would be fairly treated if subjected to a duty of½d. per lb.; but groats were looked upon as a much more valuable article than the others. I think the price averages 5d. per lb.; sometimes it runs up to 8d. per lb. The committee decided to leave the duty at 1d. per lb. The honorable member for West Sydney proposed that it should be reduced to½d. per lb., but he did not proceed with his proposal. My honorable colleague has since looked into the matter and has come to the conclusion that, having regard to their value, groats may very fairly bear the impost of1d. per lb. If the article were used exclusively for the purpose of making infants’ and invalids’ food it would be duty free, but as I understand that it is not used for that purpose only, we must object to a reduction of the duty to½d. per lb.

Sir EDWARD BRADDON (Tasmania). - I venture to say that the great bulk of groats consumed throughout the Commonwealth will be consumed as invalids’ and infants’ food. We must give babies that which is best for them, and this is an article which happens to be best for them. There is scarcely any gruel used anywhere which is not made out of groats. So far as I know that is its particular purpose. One does not feed horses or animals on imported groats, but on crushed oats. I. hope that theMinister will be humane and accept a duty of½d per lb., which, after all, is a very sufficient ad valorem duty.

Question - That the words “ and on and after 3rd April, 1902,½d.” be added- put. The committee divided.

AYES: 23

NOES: 22

Majority … … 1

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Amendment agreed to.

Item, as amended, agreed to.

Item35.-Meats, fish, poultry and game, viz. : - ……. sausage casings, per lb. 2d.

Sir JOHN QUICK:
Bendigo

– On behalf of the honorable member for Melbourne, who has left for China and Japan, I move -

That the words “and on and after 3rd April, 1902, free” be added.

I cannot profess to have a very special knowledge of this subject, but the case in favour of placing sausage casings on the free list has been very strongly set forth in a circular issued by the Master Butchers and Live Stock Buyers’ Association of “Victoria. The matter has also been brought under my attention by the Butchers’ Association in my own district. It may surprise honorable members to know that thousands of pounds worth of these casings are imported year by year from the United States. These are not what are known as sheep sausage casings, but pork sausage casings, and I am informed that 95 per cent. of the pork sausage casings used in Australia have been imported. They have been admitted free of duty into Victoria and New South Wales, and I have never heard of any demand for a duty. Large quantities of sheep sausage casings are produced locally, but the bulk of these are exported to America and Germany, where no duties are imposed. The butchering trade generally is interested in the free importation of pork sausage casings, because there is no large local production of the article. Pigs are grown and handled upon such a large scale in America that the sausage casings can be produced there and exportedto all parts of the world at a very low price.

Mr WILKS:
Dalley

– This is a most important item, and the circumstances connected with the discussion are especially noteworthy, inasmuch as, among other tilings, they mark thefalling from fiscal grace of two distinguished knights. The honorable member for Melbourne and the honorable and learned member for Bendigo have now departed from the protectionist principles to which they have so closely adhered during the last six or seven months, and I am glad to find that, even at this late stage, they have seen the error of their ways and have decided to support the free admission of sausage casings. The public of the Commonwealth will no doubt be extremely grateful to them ; although they may be far more concerned with the contents of the casings than with the casings themselves. In the interests of not only those who make the sausages, but also of those who consume them, I trust the Treasurer will agree to the amendment.

Mr A McLEAN:
GIPPSLAND, VICTORIA · PROT

– I think the Government might accept this amendment. We produce a large number of” sausage casings here, but they are mutton sausage skins. There is a considerable recriprocal trade with the United States.. They take our mutton sausage skins, and we take their pork sausage casings. We only produce about 5 per cent. of the pork sausage casings used here so that there is no question of protection at stake.

Mr KINGSTON:

– Since the Government proposed the duty in question we have obtained a little further information on the subject. We find that there are two sorts of sausage casings, one of which we export and the other which we import. The United States are able to dispose of their hogcasings at a price which suits us, and we import them, whilst we export our mutton sausage casings. The result is that from the United States, Victoria alone during the year 1900 imported 233,795 lbs. weight of sausage -casings, valued at £11,104. On the other hand; still taking Victoria as a type of the other States, she exported a total of 89,496 lbs. weight, of the value of £3,970. The imports are hog casings and the exports are sheep casings, which are sent to America and Germany, where they are admitted duty free. As it seems that we are not producing the more valuable of these casings in sufficient quantities for ourselves, and as we know that they enter into our local manufactures, we might fairly let this duty go, and we propose to do so.

Amendment agreed to.

Sir GEORGE TURNER:

– I move-

That the words “ Preserved fish in tins or other air-tight vessels, including the weight of liquids, on and after 3rd April, 1902, per lb.1d.,” be inserted.

The duty on preserved fish in tins under the Tariff as it stands would be2d. per lb. Honorable members will recollect that there was a considerable discussion with regard to the item, and I then said that the Government would endeavour to meet the wish of the committee by reducing the amount of the duty. Since that time the Tariff has. been reduced in other directions where I hoped it would not have been. Preserved fish seems to be used to a great extent in the far-off parts of the various States. It is a revenue rather than a protective duty, and though the amount in question - £30,000 - is considerable, the reasons for reducing the tax are very strong.

Sir EDWARD BRADDON (Tasmania). - I am glad that the Treasurer has made this proposal, because it will confer a considerable amount of relief to those who specially deserve it. People living in the far back parts of the Commonwealth necessarily use preserved fish as an article of diet to a considerable extent, if they are to be relieved from the obligation of living almost entirely on bacon. I thank the Treasurer for his liberality in making the proposal.

Amendment agreed to.

Item, as amended, agreed to.

Item 40. - Oilmen’s stores, n.e.i., including culinary essences non-spirituous, soap dyes, condition foods, and other preparations used in the household, whether otherwise exempted or not ad valorem 20 per cent.

Sir GEORGE TURNER:

– I move-

That the word “non-spirituous” be omitted.

There are two proposed amendments upon this item. One is a merely technical one, but the other is of some importance. When we were dealing with the item spirits many weeks ago it was pointed out that our proposals would impose the full 14s. per gallon duty on spirits or compounds containing spirits, although there mightbe only a small proportion of spirits in a particular article. It was pointed out that in New South Wales they had a sliding scale.It seemed to us at thetime that it was rather unfair wherethere was only 25 per cent. of spirits in an article to charge the full rate, and we adopted the sliding scale of 3s. 6d., 7s., 10s., and 14s., according to whether the amount of spirits contained was 25 per cent., 50 per cent., 75 per cent., or proof. At that time, it escaped the notice of the committee that we are in a position very different to that of New South Wales. New South Wales, while she had these revenue du ties, had noprotective duties. What we now propose is, to take out the word “ non-spirituous.” That means that oilmen’s stores, whether they contain the spirit, or whether they are nonspirituous, will be liable to 20 per cent. duty, unless they contain such a large proportion of spirits as would make them dutiable at the higher rate under the heading of spirits. We have done something similar to that in regard to medicines and opium. So far as we can see, if we omit the words “non -spirituous,” we shall make these various articles dutiable at 20 per cent., but if they contain 25 per cent., or more, of spirit they will be liable to pay a higher rate.

Mr SYDNEY SMITH:
MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT

– I am afraid there will be great difficulty about this matter. I was told by a person in the trade in Sydney the other day that the amount of labour involved in connexion with returns to the Custom-house to determine under which class duty should be paid on goods was such that it was almost impossible to carry on business. I believe there will be found in the Treasury a communication from a Sydney firm in connexion with the difficulty. It should convince the Government of the large amount that has to be paid by merchants to make up the returns required by the.’Customs authorities. The gentleman of whom I spoke told me that the matter in question only involved about 8s. 6d. upon the whole consignment, but that it took several clerks a considerable time to make out the calculations required by the Customs authorities. I want to have this matter fairly treated, and do not want to see the law taken advantage of, but at the same time it would be better if the Government had some fairer way of computing the duty instead of compelling merchants to make out returns which are very expensive. The Treasurer will recollect that I brought this subject under his notice, and I think he promised to make inquiries, but owing to the regrettable absence of the Minister for Trade and Customs, the matter was held in abeyance. I trust that the Treasurer will look into the case, and that if he finds that any wrong is likely to be done, he will recommit the item for reconsideration.

Mr Crouch:

– I should like to move that the words “and flavouring” be inserted after the word “ essences.”

The CHAIRMAN:

– The difficulty that presents itself to me is exactly the same as that on which I previously ruled. The recommittal in this case was to consider the insertion of certain words which were specified, and for no other purpose ; and, therefore, I am bound by my previous decision that I cannot accept proposals for either omissions or insertions beyond those for which items were recommitted.

Mr SYDNEY SMITH:
MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT

Mr SYDNEY SMITH:
MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT

– Under the ruling of theChairan amendment cannot be submitted.

Mr HARPER:

– There are first of all spirituous essences, non-spirituous essences, and medical essences, and, apart from the spirit duty, there should be a uniform impost on the articles. In order to attain that end we must adopt some such words as I have suggested.

Sir George Turner:

– We cannot deal with that proposal now.

Amendment agreed to.

Item, as amended, agreed to.

Motion (by Mr. Kingston) proposed -

That progress be reported.

Sir EDWARD BRADDON (Tasmania). - In justice to yourself, Mr. Chairman, as well as to the officials at the table, I desire to correct a statement which I made earlier in the evening. I made the mistake of -thinking that the two papers which I held in my hand were intended to be of the same character, although they were different in ‘effect. As a matter of fact, however, I find that one is dated the 25th of March, and contains the notices of motion of recommittals, while the other is a paper printed subsequently, and containing the list of motions moved. I moke this explanation, and trust that it will be clearly understood -that I lay no blame on any one but (myself.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Progress reported.

House adjourned at 10.48 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 2 April 1902, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1902/19020402_reps_1_9/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant

House of Representatives 2 April 1902

QUESTION

SENTENCES OF AUSTRALIAN OFFICERS

Mr ISAACS:INDI, VICTORIA

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

Mr McDonald:

Mr BARTON:

Mr Fowler:

Mr BARTON:

Mr Fisher:

Mr BARTON:

QUESTION

POST AND TELEGRAPH ACT

Sir EDWARD BRADDON:TASMANIA

Mr BARTON:Protectionist

Sir EDWARD BRADDON:

Mr BARTON:

QUESTION

CONSERVATION OFWATER

Mr GLYNN:SOUTH AUSTRALIA, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Mr BARTON:Protectionist

QUESTION

REPORTED SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT

Mr POYNTON:SOUTH AUSTRALIA, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Mr BARTON:Protectionist

QUESTION

DUTY ON ASPHALT

Mr GLYNN:

Mr KINGSTON:Minister for Trade and Customs · SOUTH AUSTRALIA, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · Protectionist

QUESTION

DRAWBACK ALLOWANCES

Mr S SMITH:MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT

Mr KINGSTON:Protectionist

QUESTION

PATENTS AND TRADE MARKS

Sir LANGDON BONYTHON:South Australia

Mr Watson:

Sir LANGDON BONYTHON:

TARIFF

In Committee of Ways and Means. - (Recommittal.)

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

Mr Watson:

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

Mr McCay:

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

Mr Watson:

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

Mr Watson:

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

Mr Watson:

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

Mr Watson:

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

Mr Fisher:

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

Mr Kingston:

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

Mr KINGSTON:South AustraliaMinister for Trade and Customs · Protectionist

Mr CONROY:Werriwa

Mr WATSON:Bland

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

Mr WATSON:

Ayes……… 16

Noes……… 35

Majority…… 19

Mr KINGSTON:Protectionist

Mr Isaacs:

Mr KINGSTON:

Mr Batchelor:

Mr KINGSTON:

Sir Edward Braddon:

Mr KINGSTON:

Mr Henry Willis:

Mr KINGSTON:

Mr Isaacs:

Mr KINGSTON:

Mr Watson:

Mr KINGSTON:

Mr Kingston:

Sir EDWARD BRADDON:

House of Representatives
2 April 1902

Mr ISAACS:
INDI, VICTORIA

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

Sir EDWARD BRADDON:
TASMANIA

Mr BARTON:
Protectionist

Mr GLYNN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Mr BARTON:
Protectionist

Mr POYNTON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Mr BARTON:
Protectionist

Mr KINGSTON:
Minister for Trade and Customs · SOUTH AUSTRALIA, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · Protectionist

Mr S SMITH:
MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT

Mr KINGSTON:
Protectionist

Sir LANGDON BONYTHON:
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 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 KINGSTON:
South AustraliaMinister for Trade and Customs · Protectionist

Mr CONROY:
Werriwa

Mr WATSON:
Bland

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

Mr KINGSTON:
Protectionist

Mr ISAACS:
Indi

Mr THOMSON:
North Sydney

Mr CONROY:
Werriwa

Mr BATCHELOR:
South Australia

Mr GLYNN:
South Australia

Mr WATSON:
Bland

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 V L SOLOMON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · FT

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

Mr MACDONALD-PATERSON:
Brisbane

Mr A McLEAN:
GIPPSLAND, VICTORIA · PROT

Mr A McLEAN:
GIPPSLAND, VICTORIA · PROT

Mr A McLEAN:
GIPPSLAND, VICTORIA · PROT