House of Representatives
15 August 1906

2^nd Parliament · 3^rd Session

QUESTION
- IMPERIAL DEFENCE COMMITTEE’S REPORT
PAPER
QUESTION
- ADMINISTRATION OF PAPUA
QUESTION
- OBSOLETE WAR VESSELS
QUESTION
- PREROGATIVE OF PARDON
DUTY ON HARVESTERS
QUESTION
- ROBE- MOUNT GAMBIER TELEPHONE
QUESTION
- WHITE WORKERS: SUGAR’ INDUSTRY
QUESTION
- CLERKS : GENERAL POST OFFICE, SYDNEY
QUESTION
- HAWKER BOARD VOUCHERS
QUESTION
- TELEGRAPH MESSENGERS’ DUTIES
QUESTION
- IPSWICH DEFENCE FORCES
QUESTION
- PENNY POSTAGE
QUESTION
- TARIFF
ADJOURNMENT
- Election Funds

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

page 2832

QUESTION

IMPERIAL DEFENCE COMMITTEE’S REPORT

Mr KELLY:
WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I desire to ask the Prime Minister, without notice, if it is correct, as stated in the press, that the Imperial Defence Committee has no objection to the publication of its report?Ifso, will the Government make the report available to honorable members before the Defence Estimates come up for discussion.

Mr DEAKIN:
Minister for External Affairs · BALLAARAT, VICTORIA · Protectionist

– The statement is correct.

Mr KELLY:

– I desire to ask the Prime Minister whether it is the intention of the

Government to proceed to act this session on the recommendations of the Imperial Defence Committee - recommendations which they themselves sought at considerable expense to the Commonwealth ?

Mr DEAKIN:

– Some of the recommendations are now in course of being acted upon.With regard to other recommendations, reports are being prepared by the officers of the Department as to the extent to which it will be desirable to introduce them during the current year.

page 2832

PAPER

Mr. DEAKIN laid upon the table the following paper -

Report of the Imperial Defence Committee upon a general scheme of defence for Australia.

page 2833

DUTY ON HARVESTERS

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

– I wish to know from the Prime Minister whether it was with his knowledge and consent that, in an action against the Commonwealth, concerning the duty on harvesters, application to the Court for a Commission to inquire in Canada into the actual cost of harvesters there was opposed on behalf of the Govern ment.

Mr DEAKIN:
Protectionist

– This is apparently a personal question.

Mr.BRUCE Smith. - I addressed it to the honorable and learned member as Prime Minister.

Mr DEAKIN:

– It would not be necessary to refer such a matter to me, and so far as I recollect, no such reference was made.

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

– Then I wish to ask the Attorney-General whether he was aware of, and approved, the opposition to the application for a Commission to inquire in Canada as to the real value of the harvesters.

Mr ISAACS:
Attorney-General · INDI, VICTORIA · Protectionist

– The question affects to some extent an action now pending in the Courts. Speaking from recollection -I may have to correctmy statements after reference to the papers: in the case - the matter was brought under my notice only prior to the appeal being heard by the Full Court of Victoria. I think that that is the case to which the honorable and learned member is referring.

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

– I am speaking of a new action, in which a Commission was asked to inquire into the cost of harvesters in Canada.

Sir John Quick:

– It is an old action. Mr. ISAACS.- Ifthe honorable and learned member is not’ referring to something which has been done in an action in the Supreme Court of Victoria, I know nothing about the matter.

Sir John Quick:

– The honorable and learned member is referring to the action in the Supreme Court of Victoria-

Mr ISAACS:

– An appeal was proceeded with, with my sanction, and I can give the honorable and learned member the reason for the action which has been taken. I think that it would be an unnecessary and great waste of money to have the Commission, because the defence raised upon the pleadings is that, exercising his powers under the Customs Act, the Minister of Trade and Customs has fixed the value on. which dutyis to be paid at , £65. My desire was to have the point of law thus raised decided before the enormous expense of the Commission is entered upon. If the point of law were determined in favour of the Commonwealth - as, according to my reading of the Act it should be - it would be unnecessary for either party to go to the expense of having a Commission appointed. On the other hand, if thepoint of law were determined against theCommonwealth, the Commission could proceed. It was with the desire to save unnecessary expense, not to shut out facts, that the appeal was proceeded with.

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

– Is the honorable and learned gentleman aware that the Minister of Trade and Customs gave it as his reason for raising the valuation of the harvesters that their cost in Canada had been misrepresented to him?

Mr ISAACS:

– I am afraid, that that question travels beyond the pleadings, and is irrelevant to the point first raised by the honorable and learned member. The reason that actuated me in assenting to the appeal advised by learned counsel was that which I have just given.

Mr.JOSEPH COOK.- Is the AttorneyGeneral aware that the Minister of Trade and Customs told the House and the country that he would facilitate in every way the action of the Massey-Harris Company in seeking to prove the Canadian price of their harvesters? If the Government regard the appointment of a Commission to take evidence in Canada on the subject as a waste of money, because the Minister has the absolute right to impose what duty he pleases, and take action accordingly,’ they will do so in total contradiction to the Minister’s statement.

Mr ISAACS:

– Isawsome statement in regard to the matter in to-day’s newspapers, but I deprecate the course of conduct which is now being pursued. Nothing could be more calculated to prejudice the fair trial of actions which are pending, and I must therefore decline to answer further questions on the subject.

page 2834

QUESTION

ROBE- MOUNT GAMBIER TELEPHONE

Sir LANGDON BONYTHON:

asked the Postmaster-General, upon notice -

When will telephonic communication be provided between Robe and Mount Gambier?’

Mr AUSTIN CHAPMAN:
Postmaster-General · EDEN-MONARO, NEW SOUTH WALES · Protectionist

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

The Deputy Postmaster-General, Adelaide, advises that telephonic communication between Robe and Mount Gambier will be completed during this week.

page 2834

QUESTION

WHITE WORKERS: SUGAR’ INDUSTRY

Mr MAHON:
COOLGARDIE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister of External Affairs,uponnotice -

Has his attention been drawn to the uncontradicted evidence on oath of Mr. F. Courtice, a sugar planter’s employe, before the Sugar Industry Commission (Queensland) on 4th April, 1906, to the following effect : -

That white workers employed by Buss Bros., atBonna, work 64 hours weekly for 18s. per week and food ; that employes of Young Bros., of Fairy mead and Avondale, receive for 58 hours’ work 20s. weekly and rations ; that the rule on these plantations is that if, owing to wet weather, the employes work less than a quarter of a day they receive no payment at all for their labour on that day ; that “ instead of the worker getting the benefit of the bounty the grower is putting a big percentage into his own pocket “ ; that “ the conditions existing on the plantations are such that noself-respecting man would stop there “ ; and that the planters in the Bundaberg district “ take advantage of the glut in the market in the off season, and they give us just sufficient to live on in the crushing season. We cannot get married, because we know we cannot live with any reasonable amount of comfort on wages like they give now. The planters are running the sugar industry as a single man industry, as no married man can work under such conditions “ ?

Also to the following telegrams from Childers, which appears in the Age on 13th instant : - “ A serious strike has occurred among Young Bros..’ cane-cutters. A considerable number of men were not cutting 2 tons a day, and the manager said they were not earning 30s. a week. The Lynwood men struck work and went to Hapsburg, where they called all the men out. All work is at a standstill, and the cane trains have stopped running.”?

Have the complaints made on oath to the Commission respecting the treatment of white labourers, of which the following are samples, been brought under his notice : - . “ The sanitary conditions were abominable, closets being placed in the vicinity of sleepingrooms.” - G. P. Barber, M.L.A.
1. The workers “ are not treated as white men. The farmers do not give them proper tucker. I have seen plenty of them provided with food cooked by an aboriginal gin, and that is not fair to white men.” - A. Auzolin, cane farmer, Ingham.
2. The work is done by “ white men, but under black men’s conditions.” - F. Courtice, Bundaberg.

Payment for “ wet weather was stopped out of my wages. . . No white man with any independence would put up with the treatment I met with at the Mulgrave.” - D. Lyon, general labourer, Cairns ?

Are Buss Bros, and Young Bros, owners of “ white plantations,” within the meaning of the Sugar Bounty Act of 1905 ; and, if so, does he propose to withhold from them the bounty payable to growers of sugar by white labour, which the Minister is empowered to do by section 9 of the Act referred to?
What was the average rate of wages paid to white workers in the sugar industry in Queensland and New South Wales before the legalization of the sugar bounty, in 1901. Have the average wages of such workers been increased since; and, if so, when and by how much per week? .

Mr DEAKIN:
Protectionist

– The answers to the honorable member’s questions are as follow : - 1 and 2. The Commission’s report has been received, but the portions of evidence mentioned by the honorable member had not specially been brought under notice. 3 and 4. Inquiries are now being made.

page 2835

QUESTION

CLERKS : GENERAL POST OFFICE, SYDNEY

Mr HUGHES:

asked the PostmasterGeneral, upon notice -

What was the number of clerks in the General Post Office, Sydney, prior to the inauguration of the Commonwealth?
What is the present number?
How many clerical positions have been abolished since the transfer of this Department to the Commonwealth ?
How many positions are there on the clerical staff at present unfilled?
In view of the large increase in the clerical work in the General Post Office, Sydney, since Federation, does he consider that this reduction was justifiable?
Considering the amount of overtime which the clerks are compelled to work at the office mentioned, wild he take immediate steps to fill existing vacancies, and to augment the clerical staff, so that this overworking may cease?

Mr AUSTIN CHAPMAN:
Protectionist

– Inquiries are being made, and answers will be furnished as soon as possible.

Mr JOHNSON:
LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES

page 2836

QUESTION

TARIFF

In Committee of Ways and Means:

Import and Excise Duties on Spirits.

Consideration resumed from 14th August (vide page 2771), on motion by Sir William Lyne -

imposed by the Customs Tariff 1902, duties of Customs shall from the 2nd day of August, 1906, at 4.30 p.m. Victorian time, be imposed as follows : -

Excise Duties on Spirits.

That in lieu of the duties of Excise imposed by the Excise Tariff 1902 on Spirits, duties of Excise shall from the 2nd day of August, 1906, at 4.30 p.m. Victorian time, be imposed upon spirits as follows : -

Upon which Mr. Watson had moved ,by way of amendment -

That after the word “ proof,” line 16, the following words be inserted : - “ and when more than two years shall have elapsed either from the date of their first shipment or from the date of their distillation “ be inserted.

Mr FOWLER:
Perth

– I regret that I am compelled to return to the discussion of the matter now before the Committee, after having taken up some little time last night. But it is the duty of the members of the Tariff Commission to meet the criticisms that have been levelled against their recommendations, more especially when certain members are under a total misapprehension as to their effect. I listened yesterday to some very elaborate, if not instructive, disquisitions upon the constituents and qualities of alcoholic liquors, and I feel called upon to reply to some of the remarks made by honorable members, because, in my opinion, they are very misleading. The trouble has arisen through a misunderstanding of the terms used by chemists in dealing with questions of this kind. We hear the word “impurities” used in a sense that is entirely misleading as applied to alcoholic spirits. There is no doubt that alcohol, by a very exhaustive process, can be made absolutely pure, and this purity is what chemists aim at securing when they wish to obtain alcohol for laboratory purposes. The alcoholic liquors of commerce, however, are distilled in such a way that they retain certain impurities - as chemists would call them - which give them their distinctive qualities, and, to a large extent, their wholesome properties. In this connexion, I may also remark that the best chemists admit th’at chemistry is, to a large extent, at fault in dealing with the analysis of alcoholic liquors. The science of chemistry has not yet reached such a stage that chemists can definitely tell us the effects of the various constituents of alcohol. They can discover these constituents, but they have ultimately to fall back upon the older experience of those who have adopted practically a rule of thumb to decide what is good and bad in alco- holic liquors. Fortunately, we are able to conclude, with a fair amount of certainty, that experience forms a safe guide in connexion with these matters. There is no doubt as to what brandy ‘and whisky were originally. Whisky was a preparation of malt spirit, distilled by pot stills, and brandy was a preparation of spirit distilled from wine by the same process. But the introduction of the patent still Kas brought about a considerable mystification, both in alcoholic liquors and in the minds of the public. I wish to refer specifically to the statements made by certain honorable members with regard to tEe manufacture of brandy. I said fast night, and I repeat, that I question whether a single gallon of brandy is made in Australia bv the methods employed in the production of the finer qualities of French brandies. I hold in mv hand a pamphlet issued as the result of an inquiry- into the distillation of brandy, and the constituents of that spirit by a Commission brought into existence in England a few years ago, at the instance of that well-known medical journal, the Lancet. This pamphlet represents the most advanced and complete views on the question. It contains distinct information as to the methods necessary to be adopted to produce the higher qualities of brandy. To begin with, it is stated -

The peculiar pleasing characteristics of genuine old Cognac brandy must be referred, not to alcohol at all, but what the French call the “impuretes” of brandy, that is to say, to the secondary products of distillation.

In another part of the pamphlet we are told how this process of distillation is conducted. The wine is, of course, heated in the usual way. The first portion that goes through the still is put aside. The central portion is also put aside, and then the third portion is silimarly dealt with. The central portion is again distilled, and the central portion of that distillation is what’ is known as brandy of the highest quality. I very much doubt whether that method of distillation has ever been practised in Australia to any considerable extent. With regard to the ageing of spirits, we have heard it stated in this House that ageing has practically no effect - that there is really nothing in it. The Lancet Commission, however, express themselves very definitely upon this point. They say -

The differences as regards chemical composition which will be seen to exist between old and new brandy are not so much in kind as degree. One effect of age upon the composition of brandy which can easily be traced is that of oxidation, a small depreciation, of alcohol occurring in favour of aldehydes and acetic acid….. This loss is chiefly alcohol ; there is a corresponding increase in ethers, in higher alcohols, and what may be called “ vinosity “ develops, coupled with “ finesse and style.

– I am informed that that is not so - that the process by which spirit 38 per cent, over-proof has been distilled cannot be detected by any form of analysis.

Mr Conroy:

– I would close up a distillery which distilled spirit of that strength for human consumption.

Mr JOHNSON:

– The honorable member may have certain information respecting this matter, but that which I have secured comes from those who are qualified to express an expert opinion. In support of the position which I took up yesterday, and as opposed to the contention of the honorable member for Perth, I propose to quote the opinions expressed before the Tariff Commission by Mr. Wilkinson, the Government analyst of Victoria, in reference to the impurities of spirits which are alleged bv many to be injurious to health. At page 15 of the digest of the evidence given before the Commission, we have the statement under the heading of “ Spirits generally - Alcohol “ - :

Mr. Wilkinson would define spirits as alcoholic liquids made from the distillation of wine, beet, cereals generally, and the by-products of sugar manufacture. - (Q, 2626-7.) From quotations read by him before the Commission, it appeared that all the alcohols, taken in certain doses, were poisonous. The least toxic was pure ethyl alcohol. - (Q. 2677.) Ethyl alcohol was the main constituent of all spirits. - (Q. 2712.) The toxicity of alcohol was correspondingly larger ‘as its chemical formula was more complex.

At page 16 of the report we find the statement that -

In the more volatile portions of the secondary products of commercial spirits, there were aldehydes. These were the products of oxidation principally from alcohol. In the higher boiling portions, there was what was called “ fusel oil.” This consisted of alcohols higher in the series, for instance, propyl, butyl, and amyl alcohols. In distillation, the impurities were in part eliminated, but they were necessary for flavour.

These foreign elements have the effect of imparting certain flavours, or a piquancy, to certain spirits. As far as I have been able to discover, that is their sole use. I have also formed the opinion from what I ha.ve read on the subject that their effect on the health of the consumers of spirits, is injurious rather than beneficial, more injurious, in fact, “than the pure ethyl alcohol.

Mr Fowler:

– I admit that chemical knowledge is so defective in respect to this matter that there is room for all sort’s of opinions in regard to it.

Mr Conroy:

– All the more reason “why we should not insert this provision in an Act of Parliament.

Mr JOHNSON:

– The report continues -

A spirit containing none of them was practically featureless. It had no character, and wasneutral in taste. - (Q. 2634-6.) Mr. Wilkinson, quoted extracts concerning the toxicity of variousalcohols, and the laws of Switzerland and Belgium with respect to the limit of impurities al-, lowed in certain spirits. He summarized these articles by stating that the so-called impurities of any spirit, upon which for commercial value1 the flavour was largely dependent, possessed toxic properties greater than those of ethyl alcohol, the main constituent of all spirit.

That is the pure alcohol. According toMr. Wilkinson, all the elements which thehonorable member for Perth contends are; necessary to give added beneficial value and greater purity to spirits possess in thegreatest degree those toxic properties which* are injurious to health. The report proceeds -

If alcohol were pure, it would have no injurious effect other than that due to alcohol, nomatter its origin. - (Q. 2667.) So far as scientific-: knowledge goes, the substances removed in therectification of spirit were more injurious than,, alcohol itself.

That is a very definite and positive statement, and since it is the opinion of one. who, by reason of the position he occupies, is supposed to be an expert in such matters, it should receive careful consideration.

Mr.- Fowler. - He is an expert in>. analyses, but I do not know that he is an . expert in spirits.

Mr JOHNSON:

– If he is an expert irc matters of this kind, I take it that he must: have studied the effect of the constituent’ parts of all spirits on those who consume them. I shall quote only one or twomore passages from this report. At page 16 we have the statement -

Mr. Wilkinson had examined some of thecheap spirits imported, and had found that they were highly rectified, and contained very few impurities indeed. They might have been of any origin. Physiologically thev could not beconsidered injurious. - (Q. 2655-6.) So far asscientific knowledge went, the substances removed” by the rectification of spirits were more injurious-‘ than alcohol itself.

Then, ‘in another paragraph, under the1 heading of “the Maturing of Spirits,” wehave the statement -

There was no proof that the keeping of spirit for a time would eliminate certain poisonous? elements.

I have quoted these statements in order that the Committee may learn the opinion held’ by Mr. ‘Wilkinson with respect to the benefit alleged to be derived from the retention of spirits in wood for a period of two years before if goes into consumption - a question which has been much discussed during this debate. The statement which I made yesterday - based on what I had read and heard with respect to this subject - was that the . on.lv result of keeping spirit in wood for a long period is to disguise from the palate of those who consume it all impurities which have notbeen removed, and which are! not so easily defected as they would be if the spirit went into immediate consumption.

Mr Fowler:

– I suggest that the honorable member should experiment on himself with both new and old spirit. If he does so, he will soon ascertain the difference.

Mr JOHNSON:

– I prefer to allow the -honorable member for Perth himself, or the honorable member for Melbourne Ports, to make such experiments. In support of what I said yesterday, let me quote the following passage from the same report, : page 1 6 : -

Medical men were very much divided in opinion upon this subject. Only an improvement in flavour would be gained.

The Government Analyst of “Victoria expressed the opinion that the keeping of spirit in woodfor a period of two years does not remove deleterious elements, though it may improve the flavour of the spirit.

Sir John Quick:

– He was the only witness who took that view.

Mr JOHNSON:

– He said-

It was a scientific fact that, no matter how long spirits were kept, the poison in them remained.

Mr KENNEDY:

– When the Minister of Trade and Customs submitted these resolutions yesterday, the Committee were fairly entitled to more information than he gave them. Of course, if the Government can support their proposal to increase the import duty upon spirits. I shall have no objection to offer. They are in a position to know to what extent the revenue would be affected by any such action. But I wish to direct special attention to one matter which has caused a falling away from grace on the part of some freetraders. Only to-day, we have heard certain honorable members admit that there are conditions under which differential fiscal treatment should be accorded to some of our products. I was more than delighted to hear the honorable and learned member for Angas express that opinion ‘ yesterday. But the point to which I wish specially to address myself has reference to the rates of Excise duty which it is proposed to levy upon different classes of spirit. The conclusions of the Tariff Commission have proved that there was warrant for the assertion which has so frequently been made that the Commonwealth Tariff has destroyed some of our industries. The very first statement contained in the report of that body reads: -

Since the passing of the Commonwealth Tariff there has been a total cessation of distillation in Victoria.

One cause of the stoppage of the Victorian whisky distilleries has been the relative increase of excise duties and consequent reduced protection by 3s. per gallon on malt whisky, and1s. per gallon on blended whisky. Another factor has been the increased production of n.e.i. spirit in New South Wales and Queensland, much of which has been transferred to Victoria.

Amendment agreed to.

Sir JOHN QUICK:
Bendigo

– In order to give the Committee an opportunity to determine whether the import duty on spirits should be increased, I move -

That after the amount “ 15s.,” line 17, the following words be inserted : - “ and, on and after 16th August, 14s.”

– There is no local distillation, except that which, per haps, is carried on illicitly. It is said that prohibition leads to a certain amount of illicit distillation, but on that question I am not competent to express an opinion.

The result of the use of adulterants in this trade is doubtless much like that which follow* the adulteration of other articles. If, for instance, the coinage of a country be debased, the inferior article usually drives out the superior one.

Mr Hughes:

– I do not think that the same law holds.

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

– It seems to operate on the same plane. If the people can obtain an inferior article at a very much cheaper rate than that at which a superior article is offered, there is a tendency for the inferior to drive the superior article out of the market. That is the position with regard to many things, and it seems to me that the remark will apply te spirit. Inferior spirit would seem to be able to drive superior spirit out of the market. It is more easily and cheaply produced, and can be so blended as to hit the popular taste. But I was going to point out that in New Zealand there ls no’ locally produced spirit to compete against the imported article; consequently, as they have to rely upon imports for the whole of their requirements, the people must pay the dutv of1 16s. per gallon, or go without their supplies. All the evidence we can obtain shows that if the import duties go beyond a certain point in countries where spirits are distilled, inferior local distillations creep in and drive the superior article out of . the market. That is made very clear in the report ot the Royal Commission which was appointed when the right honorable member for Balaclava was Premier of Victoria. That Commission pointed out, as the Prime Minister has said, that the depression which then existed was largely responsible for the falling away of the revenue of Victoria, but that there was something’ more -

We regret to say that we regard the fact to be proved that a very inferior quality of spirit is vended, and that this state of things has been fostered by the high duties.

– Why did the honorable member, when in the Victorian Parliament, vote for the reduction of the duty on spirits ?

Mr SALMON:

– The honorable member is now talking very ancient history.

A little later on they remark- -

We gather from the evidence that the high duties have fostered corruption in the trade, and led to much business immorality. Although we have no direct evidence, we firmly believe, and indeed the records of the Excise Department show, that inferior spirit is constantly sold fraudulently under the cover of good brands. The blending of colonial spirit with imported we believe to be general, and we further think that the blend is sold as imported spirit. One witness told us that he had endeavoured in vain to find out where the large amount of colonial spirit produced was vended.

The high duties have also, we believe, fostered illicit distillation. Several illicit stills have lately been discovered, and a Melbourne merchant told us that he had reason to believe there were many others, and that illicit distillation was on the increase.

These statements of the Board gave rise to protests on the part of the distillers of Victoria. The Board again looked into the matter, and subsequently reported as follows : -

Although the duties on spirits, wine, and beer were dealt with fully in the first report, at the urgent request of representatives of the distilling industry, we took further evidence upon the subject. A large amount of additional interesting information, which we do not think it necessary to recapitulate, will be found in the minutes of’ evidence. No material facts of sufficient importance to induce us to alter our principal recommendations were, however, brought to light. Much of the evidence has, on the other hand, tended to show that our proposal for the alteration of the duties is moderate and equitable and necessary in the interests of the revenue.

This matured verdict of the Victorian Tariff Board effectively disposes of the claim that a duty of 15s. is necessary in the interests of the revenue, and also shows that a high duty will inevitably lead to deterioration in the quality of the spirit supplied, and to the introduction of corrupt practices into the trade. In this Parliament we have always professed to be solicitous for the moral and material welfare of the people whose interests are committed to our charge. We have very properl v insisted upon the temperance traditions of the Papuans being thoroughly maintained, and we have decreed the abolition of military canteens. Even the private privileges of honorable members were

Mr POYNTON:
Grey

Mr FULLER:

– I think that it does. The honorable member for Wentworth has quoted statistics showing that the result of an increase in the spirit duties imposed under the Victorian Tariff was an immediate reduction in the revenue. We may reasonably expect ‘that if the Government proposal be adopted there will be a reduction of revenue, and that the duty will have a protective incidence. Since it appears that the Government have not proved their case, and as the honorable and learned member for Bendigo, as representing the Commission, has moved that the duty Le 14s. per’ gallon, I think that honorable members would ‘be well advised in voting for the amendment. The Government have been, referred! to more than once during this debate as the custodians of. the revenue, but thev have failed to put before the Committee any satisfactory reasons for their proposal from that stand-point. All that they tell us is that, “ Having referred this question to competent officers, we have arrived at certain, conclusions.” They have given the Commission and honorable members generally no opportunity to examine the grounds on which that decision is based. ‘We know that the effect of an increase in the import dutv on spirits under the Victorian Tariff was to decrease, not to increase the revenue, and that being so, I appeal to the Committee to support the amendment. It is also clear that high duties have a strong tendency to lead to the introduction of spirits of an inferior character. A consideration for the health of the general public is one of the principles on which the recommendations of the Commission are based: We came to the conclusion1 that a duty of 14s. per gallon was the highest that could be recommended, consistently with a desire to conserve the revenue, and to secure the sale of as good a liquor as possible. Whit is the great Australian industry which it is said would’ be built up by this increased duty? It has been pointed out that labour is a very small factor in the distilling industry. I have not the exact figures by me, but I know that the proportion of the labour to the output is the smallest that any of the great industries of Australia show. Mr. Joshua, when giving sworn evidence before the Tariff Commission, distinctly admitted that the distilling industry would have but little effect on the farming industry. It has been said that if this industry were successfully established it would be of immense benefit to the farming community, but even if the whole of the spirit consumed in Australia were made out of the products of our farmers, the effect of the industry upon the farming community would be so small as to be hardly worthy of consideration. Other cognate trades in connexion with the distilling “industry have also been mentioned, but, viewing this matter from even the stand-point of the protectionists, I hold that the industry gives so little employment, and is of such small moment to the farming interests of Australia that it is not worth so big a price as we are asked to pay for it. Having gone fully into this question, I would strongly recommend the Committee, in the absence of the information which we are entitled to expect from the Government as to the grounds on which they have based their conclusions, to vote for the amendment.

Mr McCAY:
Corinella

– But I think it may be accepted as an axiom of political economy that, speaking generally, the effect of raising duties is to lower the amount of revenue derived from them. In 1892, at the instance of the right honorable member for Balaclava, who was then Treasurer of Victoria, the Customs duty upon spirits was increased from 12s. to 15s. per gallon. What was the result? In 1 901-2 the revenue from this source was £806,622, but the following year it fell to £472,805- a decline of £333,817. The right honorable member for Balaclava, in explaining the loss, said - .

The depression accounted for some falling off of Victorian revenue, but the real reason was the existence of a low quality spirit which took the place of the imported.

Then the Tariff Commission recommended a reduction of the duty to 13s. per gallon. It confirmed the view which was held by the Treasurer as to the causes which had contributed to that very serious decline in the revenue. In its report, it stated -

We regret to say that we regard the fact to be proved that a very inferior quality of spirit is vended, and that this state of things has been fostered by the high duties.

In connexion with the lowering of the quality of the liquor supplied to the public, I may mention that after the raising of the duties, prosecutions for breaches of the law under this head increased to double their former number. The fines for such offences rose in one year from £3,000 to £6,000. Inview of these facts, I think we have every reason to apprehend that similar results will flow fromany increase in the rate of duty at present operating.

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

AYES: 34

NOES: 18

Majority … … 16

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr WATSON:
Bland

.- I should l ike to know what the Government intend to do with regard to the insertion of a proviso in paragraph b.

Mr DEAKIN:
Minister of External Affairs · Ballarat · Protectionist

– The proviso as to the maturing of spirit will be unnecessary, as I propose to introduce in the Bill a special clause dealing with that matter.

Mr CONROY:
Werriwa

.- I would point out to the honorable member for Bland and others that it would be on every ground advisable that the proviso in question should be inserted in this paragraph.

Mr Deakin:

– The honorable member for Bland is not pressing hisproposal.

Mr CONROY:

– It would be much better to insert it in this paragraph than in the Bill itself.

Sir JOHN QUICK:
Bendigo

.- I would suggest to the Minister that it is necessary to amend paragraph’ b in the same way as paragraph a has been amended, by providing that the duty on and after 16th August shall be 14s. per gallon, instead of 15s. per gallon. The same words will apply.

Mr Deakin:

-That is so.

Amendment (by Sir John Quick) agreed to-

That after the amount “ 15s.,” line 19, the following words be inserted : - “ and on and after 16th August,1906, 14s.”

Mr DEAKIN:
Minister of External Affairs · Ballarat · Protectionist

– I move -

That the following new paragraph be inserted after paragraph b, line 19 : - “ (c) Spirits, n.e.i., per proof gallon 40s., on and after 16th August, 1906.”

– No ; that is not necessary.

Mr DUGALD THOMSON:
NORTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906

– Methylated spirits will continue to be imported at the present rate?

Mr Deakin:

– Yes.

Sir JOHN QUICK:
Bendigo

.- The motion in regard to import duties on spirits is in substitution of only paragraphs a and b of item 2 of division 1 of the schedule to the Customs Tariff Act. The other paragraphs, numbered c to k, remain unimpaired. They relate to the duty on amylic alcohol and fusel oil, collodion, methylated spirit, and perfumed and bay rum, and to bitters, essences, fluid extracts, sarsaparilla, ginger wine, tinctures, medicines, infusions, and toilet preparations of different strengths.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr DEAKIN:
Minister of External Affairs · Ballarat · Protectionist

– The Committee having altered the import duties from 15s. to 14s., it will be necessary, to maintain the ratio between Excise and import duties recommended by the Tariff Commission, to reduce the proposed Excise duties by is., and the Government are prepared to do so in regard to all the classes of spirits named in the schedule, with the exception of blended brandy, the rate on which we are advised should remain at 12s. The Chairman of the Tariff Commission, speaking last night in regard to the Excise duties, said -

These matters of detail are fairly open to consideration. They are matters upon which even members of the Commission have no very pronounced views- Whether distillation should be at an alcoholic strength of 35 per cent, or 45 per cent, overproof is not a vital question, but it is vital that unless these spirits are distilled at a certain denned strength overproof they shall not receive the preference and advantages which we have recommended.

– It will pay duty as rum.

Mr GLYNN:

– Some of the spirit made from molasses will pay duty as rum, but molasses spirit is used for other purposes as well. I wish to make sure that the differentiation in regard to molasses spirit shall not be as low as1s. ; it should be at least 2s. If molasses spirit has to pay a duty of 13s. as spirit, n.e.i., matured by storage in wood, the difference will be only1s.

Mr Watson:

– That is sufficient for molasses spirit, which can be produced very cheaply.

Mr.GLYNN. - But the difference in favour of grape spirit will be only1s.

Mr Watson:

– No; it will be 3s., the Excise duty on grape wine spirit being 10s., and the importduty 14s.

Mr GLYNN:

– Well, I should like to know, if molasses spirit is excluded from paragraph 2, under what heading it will come? The question is between the Excise rates on the two blends.

Sir John Quick:

– The Government do not propose to exclude molasses spirit from paragraph 2.

Mr GLYNN:

– But that is to be proposed.

Mr Deakin:

– At present molasses spirit would be covered by paragraphs 7 and 8, but I shall be quite prepared to consider the provision in regard to that kind of spirit. when we have disposed of the items now under discussion.

Mr SKENE:
Grampians

.- I desire that some more definite distinction should be made between pure grape brandy and blended brandy.

Mr DEAKIN:
Minister of External Affairs · Ballarat · Protectionist

– I would point out to the honorable member that in the Bill which has already been drafted to give effect to the recommendations of the Tariff Commission, special provision is made that the spirit referred to in paragraphI shall be called standard brandy, and shall be so labelled, and that blended brandy shall be so described. The two classes of spirit will be separate and distinct, and will have distinguishing official labels.

Mr Skene:

– I wish to have a broader distinction even than that provided for.

Amendment (by Mr. Glynn) agreed to -

That the figures “ 35,” paragraph 1, line 38, be left out, with a view to insert in lieu thereof the figures “ 40.”

Amendment (by Mr. Deakin) proposed -

That after the figures “ ns.,” paragraph i, line 43, the following words he inserted : “ and on and after 16th August, 1906, 10s.”

Sir John Quick:

– Yes.

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

– Here is the case which ‘Messrs. Penfold and Company put. They point out that it takes five gallons of sound wine to make one gallon of. grape brandy.

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

– Did they not make those representations to the Commission?

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

– I do not know whether they did or not. They put a case which seems to me to require an answer. Thev say that the cost from the still is at least 4s. per gallon. They further say -

The cost of molasses spirit is at present about lod. a gallon. Thus four gallons of pure grape brandy would cost 16s. to produce, whilst three gallons of molasses spirit and one gallon of grape brandy would cost 6s. 6d. The difference in Excise on the four gallons is only 4s. in favour of true brandy, leaving a margin of 5s. 6d. on the adulterated article, which means is. 43d. a gallon.

Mr McCay:

– Will they not- obtain a higher price for the pure article?

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

– I am afraid not. I do not think that the prices as between these articles will be differentiated at all. If we are to make any movement, I think it should be in the direction of encouraging the production of pure grape brandy in. preference to that of the more ardent and fiery spirit.

Mr Deakin:

– Of which only 25 per cent, need consist of grape spirit.

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

– Exactly. Ihave already pointed out that there is a differentiation in favour of the blended article as against the pure article of is. 4 1/2 d. per gallon., or 5& 6d. upon a four-gallon cask. That is a case which ought to be susceptible of answer by the members of the Commission. I am aware that it is contended that the pure brandy will have a label attached to it which will give it a commercial advantage as against the blended article; but I doubt whether any label which can be attached tothe pure article will command a sufficient price to compensate for the difference towhich I have referred. So far as I am concerned that is about the only point connected with the recommendations of the Tariff Commission in regard to the spirit duties which seems to be open to criticism. But I cannot shut my eyes to this great’ difference in favour of the inferior, or adulterated or blended article.

Sir John Quick:

Mr Page:

– How does the loss of revenue come in ?

Mr WATSON:

– The loss will be consequent upon the larger consumption of spirits which are locally produced, and upon which a lower rate of duty will be collected. I intend to support the Government proposal.

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

.- I have always heard it stated that this Parliament enjoys the reputation of being the most sober, deliberative body in

Australia. But I will undertake to say that no body of men could display the same knowledge of the chemistry, flavour, and uses of liquor that has been exhibited by honorable members during the course of this debate. I do not, unfortunately, share that knowledge myself, and there- fore I should like to know more clearly exactly where honorable members are. I am one of those who are anxious to stand up for the recommendations of the Commission, so long as I am satisfied that they have been unanimously arrived at. I understand, however, that upon this particular point there was not unanimity on the part of its members.

Mr Fowler:

– We were not so enthusiastic upon it.

Sir John Quick:

– We all signed the recommendation.

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

– I was anxious to know whether the members of the Commission were unanimous upon this question. In my judgment it is unreasonable for this Committee to set itself up as a tribunal equally competent to the Commission which investigated this difficult subject. We have had a very good instance of that afforded us by the honorable member for Parramatta, who offered as a reason for the view which he entertains upon this question the fact that a certain firm had made a particular statement in a letter to him. We have only to consider his position for a moment to realize that he is on very unsafe ground in this connexion. Need I remind him that the Tariff Commission have had scores of men like Mr. Penfold before them upon oath? No useful purpose canbe served by any honorable member declaring that a particular witness has said so and so ; because it is quite possible that the statement which he makes in written communications with an honorable member is entirely different from that which he made upon oath before the Commission, and when he was subjected to cross-examination.

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

– The statement is the same in each case.

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

– I did not know that it was. I hope that the honorable member will bear with me; I am speaking only of the practice.

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

– The Prime Minister checked the statement as I read it.

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

– I am not speaking particularly of the case mentioned by the honorable member. If in an action at law ten witnesses had been heard on each side, it would be unreasonable to urge that the verdict of the jury should be upset because it appeared to be contrary to something said by one witness. That is an illustration of the position in which we find ourselves. The Commission examined and cross-examined some scores of witnesses on oath : and if I have read the evidence aright many of those witnesses broke down under cross-examination. They are now flooding the House with circulars which possibly - I do not say probably - differ entirely from the evidence they gave before the Commission. Only yesterday Messrs. Joshua Brothers issued to honorable members circulars in which they made certain statements protesting against the findings of the Commission. Sideby side with the distribution of those circulars we had a letter produced by the chairman of the Commission, in which the same firm complimented him upon the findings of that body, and said that they were perfectly satisfied with them, or words to that effect.

Sir John Quick:

– Theyalso said that their first circulars were founded on a misapprehension.

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

– Quite so. I am not in any way interested in this matter. I am not a heavy drinker,nor have I that fine sense of flavours which some! honorable members seem to possess. We are proceeding, however, on an entirely wrong basis. We are in the position of one of the parties to a law suit, who appeals to a Judge to upset the verdict of a jury on the ground that it is not in keeping with the evidence given by himself. We ought not now to take notice of unsworn statements of anywitness examined by the Commission.

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

– Who said that we ought to do so?

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

– The honorable member himself, urged us to do so.

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

– I did not.

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

– The honorable member, if he will allow me to say so, afforded me an illustration by falling into the error of selecting a circular sentout by one solitary witness - a circular containing statements whichmay or may not agree with his evidence. Even if it did agree with his evidence-in-chief, it might not agree with that drawn from him under cross-examination.

Mr Kelly:

-But he substantially agreed with the findings of the Commission.

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

– Then I fail to understand why the honorable member for Parramatta should have quoted’ the circular in support of a proposal to disagree with the recommendation of the Commission.

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

– The honorable and learned member is twisting out of recognition the statement that I made. It is not fair for him to do so.

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

– I notice that honorable members on this side of the House are most anxious to listen to me when I adopt their own views with respect to any question, but that as soon as I begin to express views slightly out ot harmony with their own they interrupt me more frequently than do honorable members opposite.

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

– We interrupt the honorable and learned member when he is talking ridiculously.

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

– The honorable member is forgetting himself; I merely say that he is wrong in his method.

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

– I say that I am not.

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

– The honorable member is at liberty to say so, but I repeat that he is wrong in his method.

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

– I say that I am not.

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

– I presume, Mr. Chairman, that the honorable member is not justified in contradicting me each time I make the statement that he is wrong in his method. I shall repeat my assertion, and show what ground I have for making it. I hope that the honorable member will see this time that he is in error.

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

– I can see very clearly that the honorable and learned member is making an ass of himself.

The CHAIRMAN:

– I am sure that the honorable member will withdraw that remark.

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

– Most decidedly, sir.

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

– We expect a little more than the usual courtesy to be shown bv a leader, especially when he is addressing a member of his own party. If honorable members of the Opposition are not to have freedom of expression, I for one should have to draw off from the party a little more than I have been doing.

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

– That would be a great loss.

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

– I am not going to be diverted from the point that I wish to make. Every honorable member ought to remember that a vast number of witnesses on both sides have been examined and cross-examined by eight men representing the two fiscal parties. I presume that the Commission heard the evidence of these witnesses dispassionately, and arrived at their findings apart from party feeling. No honorable member is logically justified in coming to a conclusion, different from that of the Commission merely on the evidence of one witness, unless he is also prepared to review the whole of the evidence which led the Commission to arrive at their conclusion. I wish to know a little more about this matter, and should like the chairman of the Commission in the first place to give us the reasons which he considers would justify us . in again vindicating its action. I am sorry to again call upon him to speak; I regret that after the able way in which he has discharged his duties as a member of the Commission, he should be called upon so frequently in this Committee to vindicate the judgment expressed by that body. The Government have come forward with a proposal different from that recommended by the Commission, and the only statement which they make in justification of it is that, “ The officers say this,” or “ The officers say that.” I have the greatest respect for officers in the abstract, but I am bound to say that a good many things done bv some of them in the Customs Department of the Commonwealth have very much shaken my confidence in them. That being so, I think that the Minister should fortify himself with the reasons which the officers have in mind in making these recommendations. It is scarcely sufficient for him to say that the officers of the Department advise that this or that be done. If it were, we should be governed’ by officers. I should like the officer in question, through the Minister, to tell us why he thinks that we should depart from the conclusion arrived at by the Commission after examining all the witnesses and subjecting them to the test of criticism usually applied by such a body. The Prime Minister has taken up the part of the Minister of Trade and Customs, and has not ‘given us his- reasons for departing from the recommendation of the Commission. Since the recommendation is one upon which the Commission were unanimous. I think we are entitled to have those reasons stated. That having been done, I shall ask the Chairman of the Commission to give those of us who are anxious to uphold the Commission the reasons which he thinks would justify us in helping him once more in this Committee to vindicate its action.

Mr BATCHELOR:
Boothby

.- The honorable and learned member for Parkes has described the Commission as a jury, and has declared that its findings, based on the evidence which it has heard, ought to be accepted as final by the Committee. I would point out, however, that the Commission was. not appointed to prepare a Tariff; it was appointed to take evidence, to report, and to make certain recommendations which would be considered, and, if thought fit, adopted by the Committee. The fact that it has made certain recommendations should not be sufficient to induce the Committee to abrogate their functions as a jury. We are responsible to our constituents and the country, and we must discharge those functions by examining the evidence. If we think that the Commission has made a mistake, it will be our duty not to adept its recommendations, but to act according to the best knowledge that we possess.

Mr Isaacs:

– Suppose that they do not agree ?

Mr BATCHELOR:

– The fact that the members of the Commission are unanimous lends additional weight to their recommendation, but it does not remove from us the necessity of deciding for ourselves whether that recommendation unanimously arrived at is a wise one. The Tariff Commission has undoubtedly carried out a monumental work, and I feel under a debt of obligation to it.

Mr Deakin:

– Hear, hear.

Mr BATCHELOR:

– At the same time, thev cannot call upon us - nor do I think they ask us - to refrain from exercising our own individual judgment on the facts which they have elicited. I certainly think that they have not recommended the best course to be pursued in regard to the differentiation in favour of pure wine brandy. It is admitted that absolutelypure brandy made from wine is perfectly wholesome, and that the encouragement of its manufacture must have a beneficial effect on the primary producers of the Commonwealth. There are something like 56,000 acres under vine cultivation in South Australia, and I understand that in Victoria alone there are some 3,000 wine growers interested in this question. The number in South Australia is probably much greater, whilst the number in Western Australia and New South Wales is largely increasing.

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

– I hope that the honorable member will not forget the consumer.

Mr BATCHELOR:

– I have just said that it must be admitted by members of the Tariff Commission, and others, that pure brandy made wholly from grape spirit is the most wholesome. It is recommended by medical men, and also, I believe, by the analytical chemist, to whom reference was made by the Chairman of the Commission. That gentleman said that he would prefer grape brandy for medicinal purposes. Since grape brandy is the purest, and the encouragement of its production will be most beneficial to the primary producers, it seems to me that we should strike a serious blow at the development of the industry if we adopted the recommendation of the Tariff Commission. The only argument that I have heard advanced against a differentiation in favour of pure grape brandy spirit is that the manufacturers will benefit by being able to place on ‘their labels a statement to the effect that their product is pure. Will that compensate them for the direct encouragement that is to be offered to distillers to use a cheaper article, from which they can make the most money ? Certainly not. The fact that a bottle is labelled “ pure brandy “ will have little effect upon purchasers. At the present time brandy which used to be labelled “ Boomerang Australian brandy “ is now labelled merely “ Boomerang,” but I am certain that not one out of every hundred persons who purchase that spirit has noticed the omission of the words “Australian brandy.” Indeed, I know that one of the largest wine and spirit merchants here had not noticed it until his attention was specially directed to it, although he has been dealing constantly in the spirit. It is a good thing to encourage the consumption of the purest and ‘the most wholesome brandy, and we should therefore see that the distillation of pure brandy from grape wine only is not discouraged by there being a greater profit in the distillation of a blended brandy from grape wine and other materials. It is at present to the advantage of distillers that as little grape wine spirit as possible shall be used, because spirit distilled from other materials’ is so much cheaper. The Chairman of the

Tariff Commission says that they will go on using 50 per cent, or more of grape wine spirit, but the temptation to make a larger profit by using other spirit will soon prove too strong to be resisted, while there is also the popular prejudice in favour of blended brandies to be reckoned with. Therefore, in view of the advantage of encouraging the consumption of the best and purest article, and in the interests of an industry which is of great importance to Australia, I hope that a greater differentiation will be made between pure and blended brandy.

Mr BROWN:
Canobolas

– I consider that the Tariff Commissioners have devoted a considerable amount of attention to the matters they have had in hand, and that the reports which they have submitted for our guidance are very valuable. But, while I am prepared to give due consideration to their recommendations, I am not prepared to follow them blindly. If they are not such as I can accept, or if I think that points have been overlooked, I shall require further information before supporting them. There are one or two points affecting the proposals now under discussion, in regard to which I require some elucidation. We are dealing with brandies of two descriptions, pure brandy distilled wholly from grape wine, and blended brandy distilled partly from grape wine and partly from other materials, such as molasses. In dealing with the subject, it must be borne in mind that the cost of producing spirit from grape wine is very much greater than the cost of producing spirit from molasses, which is a by-product. I agree with the honorable member for Bland that the term “ brandy “ was originally applied to spirit distilled from grape wine. But it has become customary to place on. the market under that name spirit distilled from grape wine blended with spirit distilled from other ‘ materials, such as molasses, potatoes, and wheat. This blended brandy. being cheaper than pure brandy, has competed very seriously with it. It is thought, therefore, that in framing the Tariff V distinction should be made between brandy and blended brandy, and I hold that view. I also agree with the honorable member for Bland that only spirit distilled wholly from grape wine should be allowed to be sold as brandy, other spirit being sold as blended brandy, so. that the public mav not be imposed upon. The recommendation of the Commission in regard to distinctive labels is an admirable one, so far as it goes, but, as the honorable member for Boothby has shown, purchasers do not pay much attention to labels. Behind the proposals to differentiate between the dutv on brandy and the duty on blended brandy is a large producing interest. We have been told by a circular that there are something like 56,000 acres under grape vines in South Australia, and large areas are being, cultivated in Victoria and New South Wales for the production of grapes. The Committee will therefore do well, in adjusting the Customs and Excise duties, to pav attention to the interests of that industry. It seems to me that if the re? commendation of the Tariff Commission is accepted there will not be a sufficient margin in favour of pure brandy to encourage its production, seeing that 75 per cent, of the spirit in blended brandy is distilled from materials other than grape wine, and that there is a public demand for blended brandy. The circular to which I have referred contains the statement that a difference in duty of 2s. in favour of pure brandy will be barely sufficient to give a living wage to those employed in the growing of grapes, and that a difference of 3s. would be better. I shall support the recommendation of the Commission in regard to the labelling of spirits, because, if carried into effect, it will achieve a good end : but I feel that a larger margin than they recommend should be made in favour of pure brandy, to prevent its production from being crushed out by the competition of blended brandy.

Mr Frazer:

– There is a good deal of protection about that suggestion.

Mr BROWN:

Sir JOHN QUICK (Bendigo) [10.1 81. - I wish to deal as briefly as possible with one or two points that have been raised. In the first place, the honorable and learned member for Parkes asked why the Commission had recommended a protection of 4s. per gallon in respect of brandy distilled wholly from grape wine, and of 3s. per gallon in respect of blended brandy. The reason is that the blend was to consist partly of grape wine spirit and partly of spirit obtained from- other materials, but was to comprise mot less than 25 per cent, of pure wine spirit. As a matter of practice, a blend may consist of spirits derived from molasses, grain, or other distilling material. Too much stress has been laid upon the fact that cheap molasses costing only 9d. a gallon is, or will be, used in blending. As a matter of fact molasses spirit is not exclusively used for that purpose. According to the evidence it is sometimes used, but grain spirit is also employed. Honorable members will see on turning to page 24, paragraph 3, of the report, that the grain spirit which mav be so used costs from 2s. 9d. to 2s. nd. per gallon. That being so, the average cost of spirit used for blending, instead of 9d. per gallon, is more likely to be is. 6d. or 2s. per gallon.

Mr Watkins:

– How does that compare with the cost of crape spirit?

Sir JOHN QUICK:

– Grape spirit costs about 4s. per gallon. When, we require that for blending purposes 25 per cent, of grape spirit shall at least be used, and that the rest of the blend shall comprise spirit made from grain or molasses, we must recognise that the cost of the blending material will certainly be more than 9c!. per gallon. The Commission thought that a fair, rough and ready calculation showed that it would be sufficient to give blended spirit an advantage of is. per gallon less than that enjoyed by the pure article. In dealing with a question of this kind the measure of protection cannot be indicated with mathematical or logical certainty. The calculation made by the Commission was a rough and ready one, based upon the difference in the cost of the materials used, and upon the supposition that sometimes 50 per cent, or 75 per cent., instead of 25 per cent., of grape spirit might be employed. I submit that our estimate that a difference of is. is sufficient to allow is just as likely to be correct as is any other estimate that has been put before the Committee. It is based upon evidence, but it appears that our conclusion is to be rejected. If it is we shall not be responsible, but shall bow respectfully to the decision of the Committee. I should like to point out further that the recommendation to allow a difference of only is. and a protection of 3s. per gallon, as against the protection of 4s. per gallon in the case of the pure standard brandy, is based upon evidence that the raw material out of which the blended brandy is to be made may not average od. per gallon, but more like 2s. per gallon. I think’ that is sufficient to justify our recommendation. However, the question is an arguable one, and its final decision rests with the Committee. Ap’parently under the guidance of the Committee the House will propose to reduce from 3s. to 2s. per gallon! the protection which we recommend should be given to blended spirit. In reply to the point raised by the honorable member for Coolgardie, I should like to mention that the words “ similar process “ were inserted after the words “brandy distilled wholly from grape wine bv a pot still,” so as not to exclude the Coffey patent still which is used in some of the great distilleries in the States. They were designed to allow the use of the patent still, provided it be so managed as to yield results substantially similar to those obtained from the use of the pot still. Bv means of the pot still spirit is distilled in such a way as to retain the natural ethers or the natural volatile elements and characteristics of the true brandy or whisky. It was admitted by most of the witnesses that when run at high pressure and strength, the patent, still will not yield that result, but that it may be so managed that it will do so. We do not wish to exclude the patent still. In settling the wording of this clause, 1 consulted a trusted Excise officer who assured me that these words will not exclude the patent still provided that it is so managed as to yield results substantially , similar to those obtained from the pot still.

Mr MALONEY:
Melbourne

.- I desire to briefly state my views with respect to this question. There should be no conflict of opinion as to the difference between brandy made from wine and that made from other materials to which reference was made in the evidence given before the Habitual Drunkards Board appointed by the Victorian Government in 1898’. Among the witnesses examined by the Board were Mr. Daniel Ferguson, Chief Inspector of Distilleries, and Mr. Archibald Wm. Smart, senior landing surveyor, the one having thirty-five years’ experience and the other an experience extending over something like twenty-one years. It was shown clearly by those witnesses that only one-third of the whiskies and. brandies then imported into Victoria were the pure spirits their names represented them to be; that another third consisted of a mixture of brandy and whisky with silent spirit ; and that the remaining third consisted qf silent spirit blended with essences which, in their concentrated form, were generally virulent poisons. What is protection to the manufacturer is protection to the consumer, and the Government deserve the support of every loyal protectionist in their attempt fo protect the consumer by giving an impetus to the manufacture of brandy from wine and of whisky from malt. Mr. Smart, when giving evidence before the Habitual Drunkards Commission, said -

The cheap spirit can be made from anythingthat contains saccharine. I think it is made from sugar, molasses, and all kinds of grains, including maize. Sometimes rice and potatoes are used. It is not manufactured here into different spirits bv the addition of essences; it is brought out as whisky, rum, and brandy. About one-third of the whisky imported is the plain spirit flavoured, and possibly about another third is mixed with a real whisky.

The recommendation ‘ made in one of the minority reports was that -

The sale of cheap spirits flavoured 1o taste like brandy, whisky, gin, &c, should be prevented, as expert evidence shows that alcohol, and even Glasgow whiskies, costing11d. a gallon, are sold as the best spirits.

I maintain that such spirits are sold tinder a fraudulent term -

The two Government Custom House officials examined showed that of the whiskies and ‘ brandies imported and sold in this colony, onethird only are the pure spirits their names represent them to be, another one-third being plain or silent spirit, and the remainder a mixture of brandy and whisky with silent spirit.

It may be mentioned that expert analytical chemists state the silent spirits to be the purest of alcohol ; if that be so it would be more honest that they should be sold under their proper names.

– There is a good deal of force in that statement. A body of experts has expressed an opinion favorable to Australian brandy as against that produced elsewhere. When the authorities of the British Army obtained samples of brandies they were unable, of course, to think of purchasing the high-priced French brandy to which I have just referred. Those brandies could not compete with Australian brandies. In the country 7s. 6d. a bottle is charged for Hennessey’s brandy, though no one will say that it is a spirit distilled wholly from grape wine. On the other hand, there can be obtained in Bendigo, at 3s. 3d. a bottle, a brandy distilled wholly from grape wine, which any medicalman would say is far more valu able for medicinal purposes. In America, according to the expert whore evidence I have just quoted, spirit which is to be used medicinally must have been matured for at least two years. It will be admitted that blending leaves the door open for adulteration, and no honorable member desires that either the food or the drink of the people shall be adulterated. I should like to see a greater amount of protection given to the distilling of pure grape brandy and pure malt whisky ; but, as that cannot be obtained, I shall, as a protectionist, accept what the Government offer. I wish to pay my meed of praise to the Tariff Commissioners, who have devoted great energy and talent to the task intrusted to them. A long experience of Commissions in Victoria leads me almost to support the view of the German cynic, that, if the Lord had placed the making of the earth in the hands of a Commission, it would never have been made, or, if made, would have been a botch. I have no fault to find with the present Commission ; but I wish to point out to its members - and I hope that they will take the remark in good temper - that they cannot be allowed to “ boss “ the Committee. It is within the region of possibility that, to suit a certain type of politician - such as, thank Heaven, we have not yet produced in Australia - a Government may appoint a Commission to give a one-sided report, and, if such a Commission were allowed to dominate Parliament, it would be a very serious matter. Therefore, I shall resent very strongly any attempts to force the opinions of any Commission on honorable members.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr GLYNN:
Angas

.- I ask the Government to make paragraph 2 read -

Blended brandy distilled wholly from grape wine, containing not less than 25 per cent, of pure grape wine spirit (which has been separately distilled by a pot still or similar process at a strength not exceeding 35 per cent, overproof) the whole being matured by storage in wood.

Mr HUTCHISON:
Hindmarsh

– I wish to move -

That before the word “ materials,” line 45, the word “ approved “ be inserted, and that after the word “materials,” line “45, the words “ not including spirit made from molasses,” be inserted.

If honorable members will look at the report of the Commission, they will find the following statement: -

With reference to the constituents of blended brandy, we are of opinion that no spirit should be regarded as a blended brandy unless it contains 25 per cent, of true brandy, the product of grape wine, the result of a separate distillation at a low alcoholic strength; the balance may be patent-still spirits from any approved material.

– The grain spirit is to include 25 per cent, of grape wine spirit.

Mr FISHER:

– My idea of carrying on the Government of .the Commonwealth is, in matters of taxation, to tell the people exactly what we intend to do in the plainest possible manner, because they will then be in a position to deal with us at the general elections.

Mr WATSON:
Bland

.- When I interjected about distilling in New South Wales prior to Federation, T thought that my memory was not quite so much at fault as the extract quoted by the honorable member for Wide Bay would perhaps lead one to believe. The extract is quite correct as it was quoted, but I find that just prior to Federation distillation had ceased in the State owing to the fact that the Excise and import duties had been made equal. Some years prior to Federation, however, the distilleries of the State were producing a great deal of spirit, and I had that fact in mind when I spoke. No doubt the honorable member for Wide Bay is correct in saying that the difference between; the Excise and Customs duties imposed by the Federal Tariff have had a beneficial effect on the distilling industry of New South Wales.

No attempt is now being made to injure that industry. What is proposed is that the Excise duty on molasses spirit shall remain as it is, namely, 13s., or is. less than the import duty.

Mr Tudor:

– But molasses spirit is prohibited in connexion with the manufacture of brandy, blended brandy, and malt whisky.

Mr WATSON:

– Yes, because it is desired to give a special degree of protection to spirits produced from materials which are a great deal more costly than molasses or potatoes. For this reason, the Excise duty on pure grape spirit has been made as low as ios. The action of the Committee in agreeing to that duty was an admission of the principle that we are justified in giving special consideration to spirits distilled from costly material. So far as the preservation of the public health is concerned, it is said by some that a blended grain whisky is as wholesome as a pure malt, whisky. I see nothing to prevent the distillers of molasses spirit from placing it on the market, though if they do so they must pay an Excise duty of 13s. They will not be able to call it by any of the names mentioned in the schedule, but they could do as Messrs. Joshua Brothers do in naming their spirit merely “ Boomerang.” Provision is made for the use of the terms “pure Australian brandy,” “pure Australian malt whisky,” “blended wine brandy,” and “blended grain whisky.”

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

– They could call it sugar brandy.

Mr WATSON:

– I think so. We now have on the market cherry brandy and other brandies which are not true brandies.

Mr DUGALD THOMSON:
NORTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906

– I take objection to this proposal, not on account of the difference made in the Excise duty, as that may be met by the cheapness with which this spirit is distilled, but because it is sought to prohibit the use of spirit which is not shown to be more harmful than the spirit which is allowed. If the distinction which is attempted to be made is drawn, it seems to me that the Excise Department may prevent spirit made in the northern States from being labelled “ blended sugar brandy.” Thev may say, “You shall not call this spirit brandy, because the Excise Act allows the application of the term brandy to certain specified spirits only.

Mr Deakin:

– I do not think that that is so. It will depend on the wording of the Bill.

Mr DUGALD THOMSON:
NORTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906

– I hope that the Minister will give consideration to the matter before the Bill is introduced. There should be no discrimination against molasses spirit unless it is more detrimental to health than other spirit.

Mr Fisher:

– What- about fiscal faith? The distilling of spirit from molasses is an industry which was brought into existence by the Federal Tariff.

Progress reported.

page 2892

ADJOURNMENT

Election Funds

Motion (by Mr. Deakin) proposed -

That the House do now adjourn.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

House adjourned at 11.44 P m-

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 15 August 1906, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1906/19060815_reps_2_33/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant

House of Representatives15 August 1906

QUESTION

IMPERIAL DEFENCE COMMITTEE’S REPORT

Mr KELLY:WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr DEAKIN:Minister for External Affairs · BALLAARAT, VICTORIA · Protectionist

Mr KELLY:

Mr DEAKIN:

PAPER

QUESTION

ADMINISTRATION OF PAPUA

Mr HUGHES:WEST SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr DEAKIN:Protectionist

QUESTION

OBSOLETE WAR VESSELS

Sir LANGDON BONYTHON:BARKER, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Mr DEAKIN:Protectionist

QUESTION

PREROGATIVE OF PARDON

Mr CROUCH:CORIO, VICTORIA

Mr DEAKIN:Protectionist

DUTY ON HARVESTERS

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

Mr DEAKIN:Protectionist

Mr DEAKIN:

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

Mr ISAACS:Attorney-General · INDI, VICTORIA · Protectionist

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

Sir John Quick:

Sir John Quick:

Mr ISAACS:

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

Mr ISAACS:

Mr ISAACS:

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

Mr ISAACS:

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

Mr ISAACS:

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

Mr ISAACS:

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

Mr ISAACS:

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

Mr ISAACS:

QUESTION

ROBE- MOUNT GAMBIER TELEPHONE

Sir LANGDON BONYTHON:

Mr AUSTIN CHAPMAN:Postmaster-General · EDEN-MONARO, NEW SOUTH WALES · Protectionist

QUESTION

WHITE WORKERS: SUGAR’ INDUSTRY

Mr MAHON:COOLGARDIE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Mr DEAKIN:Protectionist

QUESTION

CLERKS : GENERAL POST OFFICE, SYDNEY

Mr HUGHES:

Mr AUSTIN CHAPMAN:Protectionist

Mr JOHNSON:LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr AUSTIN CHAPMAN:

QUESTION

HAWKER BOARD VOUCHERS

Mr MALONEY:MELBOURNE, VICTORIA

Mr DEAKIN:Protectionist

QUESTION

TELEGRAPH MESSENGERS’ DUTIES

Mr HUGHES:

Mr AUSTIN CHAPMAN:Protectionist

QUESTION

IPSWICH DEFENCE FORCES

Mr WILKINSON:MORETON, QUEENSLAND

Mr DEAKIN:Protectionist

QUESTION

PENNY POSTAGE

Mr AUSTIN CHAPMAN:Protectionist

QUESTION

TARIFF

Mr FOWLER:Perth

Mr Salmon:

Mr FOWLER:

Mr Salmon:

Mr FOWLER:

Mr Salmon:

House of Representatives
15 August 1906

Mr KELLY:
WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr DEAKIN:
Minister for External Affairs · BALLAARAT, VICTORIA · Protectionist

Mr HUGHES:
WEST SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr DEAKIN:
Protectionist

Sir LANGDON BONYTHON:
BARKER, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Mr DEAKIN:
Protectionist

Mr CROUCH:
CORIO, VICTORIA

Mr DEAKIN:
Protectionist

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

Mr DEAKIN:
Protectionist

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

Mr ISAACS:
Attorney-General · INDI, VICTORIA · Protectionist

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr AUSTIN CHAPMAN:
Postmaster-General · EDEN-MONARO, NEW SOUTH WALES · Protectionist

Mr MAHON:
COOLGARDIE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Mr DEAKIN:
Protectionist

Mr AUSTIN CHAPMAN:
Protectionist

Mr JOHNSON:
LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr MALONEY:
MELBOURNE, VICTORIA

Mr DEAKIN:
Protectionist

Mr AUSTIN CHAPMAN:
Protectionist

Mr WILKINSON:
MORETON, QUEENSLAND

Mr DEAKIN:
Protectionist

Mr AUSTIN CHAPMAN:
Protectionist

Mr FOWLER:
Perth

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

Mr DUGALD THOMSON:
NORTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906

Mr DUGALD THOMSON:
NORTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906

Mr DUGALD THOMSON:
NORTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906

Mr DUGALD THOMSON:
NORTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906

Mr JOHNSON:
Lang

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