House of Representatives
20 November 1901

1^st Parliament · 1^st Session

PETITION
QUESTION
- REFUND OF DUTIES
QUESTION
- FEDERAL CAPITAL SITE
QUESTION
- MONEY ORDER REGULATIONS
QUESTION
- MR. J. KIRKPATRICK
QUESTION
- THE TARIFF
ADJOURNMENT
- Tariff Debate

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

page 7510

PETITION

Mr. KENNEDY presented a petition from the tobacco-growers of the northeastern district of Victoria in regard to the excise duty and bonus upon tobacco.

Petition received.

page 7510

QUESTION

REFUND OF DUTIES

Mr GLYNN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– On the 5th November I asked the Minister for Trade and Customs the following question -

Whether it is true that the Government refuse to undertake to refund to importers the difference in case the duties collected ave higher than the duties finally imposed by Parliament ?

To which he replied -

The Government cannot give any undertakings in this matter on account of the difficulty of securing the benefit of any rebate to the person really affected by the duty.

Speaking upon the matter a week later, he stated that it was still being considered by the Cabinet, and yesterday, in reply to the honorable member for South Australia, Sir Langdon Bonython, he said that it would be dealt with in the Tariff Bill, but that he did not propose to give a refund. I should like to know whether the refusal to give a refund applies to cases where it can be shown that the goods upon which the excess duty has been paid have not passed into consumption ?

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

– Our proposal is to make the provision of general application, though it is, of course, a matter for the decision of Parliament, and will be included in the Tariff Bill. The provision in the Bill is upon the precise lines of the provision in the New Zealand Act.

Sir JOHN QUICK:
BENDIGO, VICTORIA

– Will the Minister keep a record of the names of merchants who have paid excess duty, and submit a statement to the House when the matter is being discussed by honorable members ?

Mr KINGSTON:

– We might perhaps be able to give an intimation of the amount involved, and I shall endeavour to so arrange things that any information desired by honorable members may be obtainable j but I trust that they will not ask for the names of individuals in discussing a question of principle.

Mr GLYNN:

– Do the Government propose to give any refund in those cases in which the duties originally proposed are higher than the duties as altered according to the statement of the Treasurer last week or that promised to-day 1

Mr KINGSTON:

– I think I have already answered the honorable and learned member’s question, but if he considers that I have not done so, and will put a question upon the notice-paper, I shall look into the matter. We do not propose to give refunds. We propose to adopt the New Zealand system, and the matter will be provided for in a Bill which is to be submitted for the consideration of honorable members.

page 7511

QUESTION

FEDERAL CAPITAL SITE

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

asked the Minister for Home Affairs, upon notice -

Whether he is aware that Mr. Alex. Wilson has published maps indicating a site for the Federal Capital ?
Whether fie will refer these for report to the Royal Commission on Federal Capital Sites : if not, what is the reason ?

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:
Minister for Home Affairs · HUME, NEW SOUTH WALES · Protectionist

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

No ; I cannot refer them, as they have not been received.

page 7511

QUESTION

MONEY ORDER REGULATIONS

Mr MAHON:
COOLGARDIE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister representing the Postmaster-General, upon notice -

During what hours on week days other than Saturdays, and on Saturdays, are money orders issued in the several States ?
What justification exists for closing the money order offices on the Western Australian gold-fields at 2 p. in. on week days other than Saturdays, and at 11 a.m. on Saturdays?
Whether this limitation of hours is not productive of much public inconvenience, as well as loss of time, to the. officials who are obliged to balance accounts twice instead of once daily.
When does the Postmaster-General intend to render uniform those regulations existing in the several States which govern money-order transactions ?

Sir PHILIP FYSH:
Minister (without portfolio) · TASMANIA, TASMANIA · Free Trade

– I have been furnished -with the following answer : -

The necessary information is being obtained, and answers will be furnished as soon as possible.

page 7511

QUESTION

MR. J. KIRKPATRICK

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

asked the Minister for Home Affairs, upon notice -

Whether it is true, as reported, that he intends appointing Mr. J. Kirkpatrick of New South Wales, to an important position in the Public Works branch of his department.

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:
Protectionist

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

There is no present intention to appoint him permanently.

page 7511

QUESTION

THE TARIFF

In Committee of Ways and Means (consideration resumed from 15th November, vide page 7393).

Item 5- TOBACCO, viz. :-

Manufactured, including the weight of tags, labels, and other attachments, per lb., 3s. 6d.

Unmanufactured, per lb., 3s. 6d.

Unmanufactured, but entered to be locally manufactured into tobacco, cigars, or cigarettes - to be paid at the time of removal to the factory, per lb.,1s6d.

Cigars, including the weight of bands and other attachments, per lb., 5s. 6d., and 15 per cent. ad valorem.

Cigarettes, including the weight of the outer portion of each cigarette, per lb., 6s. 6d. Snuff, per lb., 6s.6d.

Special Exemption -

Tobacco destroyed for manufacture of sheep- wash or other purposes under departmental bylaws.

Upon which Mr. O’Malley had moved by way of amendment -

That before the word “Tobacco,” line 1, the following words be inserted - “Until madea Commonwealth Government monopoly.”

The CHAIRMAN:

– Will the honorable and learned member put his motion in writing?

Mr Conroy:

– I propose to move as a matter of urgent necessity - “That the standing orders be suspended, in order to allow of a discussion upon the items which have been brought forward.” Does the Chairman say that any Minister can make a statement with the concurrence of the committee, and that other honorable members are not at liberty to reply thereto ?

The changes which are being made in the Tariff are very important.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Does the honorable member propose to hand in a written dissent from my ruling?

Mr Conroy:

– I propose to move the suspension of the standing orders.

The CHAIRMAN:

– I would point out to the honorable and learned member that it is not competent for him to move the suspension of the standing orders in committee. He can take that course in the House.

Mr F E McLEAN:
LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT

– Might I suggest that the honorable and learned member should not persist in the motion which he now proposes to move. No good is to be obtained from dissenting from the Chairman’s ruling.

Mr Watson:

– Perhaps this matter might be overcome if, on second consideration, the honorable member for Kennedy withdrew his objection. I think it is the general wish that the honorable member for Wentworth should be allowed to make a statement.

Mr McDonald:

– I can see that unless I withdraw my objection, an endless discussion will ensue upon points of order, and the whole afternoon will thus be wasted. Under the circumstances, therefore, I withdraw my objection, but seeing that we are establishing a practice that the leader of the Opposition, or whoever is acting for him, shall be in a position to reply to any Ministerial statement which may be made, I hope that Ministers in future will see fit to make those statements when they are moving the Speaker out of the Chair.

The CHAIRMAN:

– I cannot allow this discussion to proceed any further. With the concurrence of the committee, the honorable member for Wentworth will make a statement.

Sir WILLIAM McMILLAN:

– (Wentworth). - I think that the principle underlying any matter of this kind, is that we are not slaves to our own rules of parliamentary procedure. But I also take it that there is a right on the part of a Minister to make a statement at any time. That is a privilege which ought not to be gainsaid. I quite agree that if any privilege, such as that of a reply by the leader or acting leader of the Opposition is in any way abused, the committee would have a perfect right to do away with the practice. I shall confine myself to a very few remarks. I had hoped that when the Ministry promised us a declaration of some changes in the Tariff, public discussion had had some effect, because honorable members will recognise that it was not until the Tariff was proclaimed by the present Government that any public discussion whatever took place. It was not until the Tariff, in its concrete form, was placed before us that the public throughout Australia really awakened to its immense importance and far-reaching results. I was also hoping that the alterations in the Tariff would have been on such broad, general lines as to simplify it - that there would have been alterations which would have enabled us to get through the business of the session within a reasonable period. I did hope, for instance, that the Minister for Trade and Customs would have told us that with one stroke of the pen the Cabinet had abolished the composite duties. That, in itself, would have been a great object gained. I did hope also that if the double duty were abandoned the ad valorem duty in those cases would have been left, because one of the great objections which we have to this Tariff - and it is a very serious objection, which ought to claim the sympathy even of honorable members upon the other side of the House - is that owing to the operation of some of the fixed duties, together with the composite duties, it is almost impossible for the ordinary man in the street to understand the incidence and effect of the taxation. Therefore, I did hope - and I do not think I have ever shown myself averse to the expeditious despatch of public business - that we could, at any rate, take away the broad line of objection from this Tariff, and deal with it very speedily in committee. But, because of the way in which the Tariff has been framed, and the manner in which it is now proposed to amend it, by making these very few and paltry alterations - they are really not alterations at all - we are in this position : that instead of taking a broad line, debating the principle, and thus getting rid of numberless items in one discussion, it will be absolutely necessary to debate this Tariff line by line, and item by item, in order to do justice to the people of Australia. I should be very glad if we could get through the Tariff by Christmas, so that it might be sent immediately afterwards to the other Chamber. There is no honorable member who is not put to enormous inconvenience by the unexpected length of the session, and to come back to Victoria in the hot months is an experience which nobody can look forward to with complacency. There are two honorable gentlemen in charge of the Tariff, and I did expect, especially from the Treasurer, who has had a long experience of this sort of work, a generous avowal of the public feeling of Australia : with regard to the main items of the Tariff. Its great fault is that on the face of it there is shown a range of duties nominally from 10 per cent to 25 per cent.; but when it is examined in the light of the composite duties, and in the light of the fixed duties which ought to be ad? valorem we find that the range is to 50 per cent., 60 percent., 70 per cent., and 100 per cent. I did think that it would have been put clearly before honorable members, as I think it ought to be put before the public of Australia, that when we have an item on which it is proposed to charge 15 per cent, to 20 per cent, we have, with the minimum natural protection of 10 per cent, afforded by oversea charges - a protection running in some cases from 40 per cent, to 50 per cent. - an enormous protection for the manufacturers of Australia. Speaking on broad lines, we expected that one principle - a principle enunciated by the honorable member for Gippsland - would have been considered. That honorable member said, and I welcomed the remark - “ We ought to lighten duties, or do away with them, when they press on those who get no advantage from the great bulk of the imposts.” It will not be denied that in this country nine-tenths of the people engaged in primary production will get no benefit from the duties. I am not now wandering into the general subject. We honestly expected that one of the proposals of the Minister of Customs to-day would have been to eliminate all duties on machinery which press heavily on the miners of Australia, who, under no conceivable set of circumstances, can gain anything by this highly protective Tariff. I have never gone into small details in my arguments with regard to free-trade and protection, but have dealt systematically with the interests of the great bulk of the people who make the wealth of Australia. The Tariff at present is highly protective for the benefit of the manufacturers alone, and, while the people, who are producing the wealth of Australia, are paying enormous prices for protected goods, they are also paying highly for all the necessaries of life, and for everything which goes to make a home comfortable. I now give the Government warning that, if what they have stated is the whole of the marvellous concessions they intend to make, they must expect the strongest and sturdiest opposition, line by line, to this Tariff. We will not accept any particular debate on any particular item as practically carrying further items in the Tariff.

Mr Barton:

– Then honorable members must take the consequences.

Sir WILLIAM McMILLAN:

– We will take the consequences freely. The Ministers have now confessed, with a candour which is delightful, that they ought to alter the Tariff according to the expressions of public opinion, which have been heard of late ; but instead of altering the Tariff on clear lines so that the public may get an idea of the principles running through it, the Ministry have left it such a hotch-potch that it is almost unmendable. I fear very much that when this Tariff goes through a crucial test of debate and revision, instead of having the Tariff scientifically framed - a Tariff with any principle in it - we shall have a mongrel Tariff which can never be considered as applicable to Australia for any length of time. What the Ministers are bringing on themselves and the people of Australia is not the settlement of the Tariff question, but an armed truce until the next election. I have warned them what they must expect if they do not give the reasonable concessions I have indicated. I hold that in almost every respect - except perhaps in the cases of some luxuries which are debatable - 15 per cent. is the high water mark of any revenue Tariff. When we consider that 15 per cent. equals 171/2 per cent. to the consumer, and when we also consider that in most cases the actual natural protection of 12,000 miles of water is 121/2 percent., honorable members and the country ought to understand that every ad valorem duty of 15 per cent. gives practically 30 per cent. protection to the manufacturers of Australia.

Sir Malcolm McEacharn:

– Is this not an abuse of the honorable member’s opportunity ? This is a second-reading speech.

Sir WILLIAM McMILLAN:

– I have nearly finished.

Mr Kingston:

– The honorable member for Kennedy was perfectly right in his objection.

Sir WILLIAM McMILLAN:

– I am keeping strictly to the lines on which I started, and urging that the Tariff ought to have been of a moderate character and revenueproducing. I have simply to say that the people of Australia ought to understand that an ad valorem duty of 15 per cent. means 30 per cent. protection to the manufacturer ; and if that is all that the Government will give us at the present moment, let nine-tenths of the primary producers of this country realize that the Government have no consideration for them.

Mr Chapman:

– The honorable member for Kennedy will not be alone in his objection next time. This is scandalous !

Mr Kingston:

– Scandalous !

Mr Conroy:

– I desire to call attention to the words of the honorable member for Eden-Monaro, and to ask whether he is in order in saying that the conduct of the honorable member for Wentworth is scandalous?

The CHAIRMAN:

– If the honorable member for Wentworth considers the words personally offensive, I shall ask the honorable member for Eden-Monaro to withdraw them.

Sir William McMillan:

– The honorable member from Eden-Monaro is not such a judge of conduct that I should consider his words offensive.

Sir John Quick:

– I do not wish to claim the right to discuss the general question, but desire to draw attention to a matter of parliamentary practice and procedure in connexion with the proposed alterations. At the present time there is before the Committee of Ways and Means a definite proposal in the shape of a motion which has been moved by the Minister of Trade and Customs, covering the whole of the duties of customs and excise, which are to be collected. That motion, it is true, is still before the committee, and there has not, up to the present, been any general resolution for the protection of the revenue adopted in accordance with the usual parliamentary practice. I do not say that such a general resolution is absolutely necessary, but I wish to call attention to the fact that, in section 226 of the Customs Act, special provision is made to protect the Government against actions in respect of revenue which has been collected pursuant to propositions submitted in Committee of Ways and Means. The protection against actions contemplated by section 226 of the Customs Act applies only to any Tariff or Tariff alterations which have been proposed in Parliament. Under that section protection is given by the general resolution submitted by the Minister of Trade and Customs, because that has reference to a Tariff which has been proposed. No action can be brought to recover revenue duties collected under a proposed Tariff or any proposed alteration of a Tariff. But, since this motion has been submitted to the committee, two statements have been made of Ministerial intentions. I understand that, following the first statement which was made a few days ago as to the proposed alterations, new duties have been collected, and I apprehend that new duties will be to-morrow collected in accordance with the second Ministerial statement. I would point out that new duties collected merely in accordance with a Ministerial mandate or authority will not be protected under section 226.

Mr Watson:

– I rise to order. I desire to know whether the honorable and learned member is addressing himself to the question before the Chair. If we are to have a general discussion, it is as well that it should be understood.

Sir John Quick:

– 1 am submitting a question of order which I apprehend can be discussed at any time. The question of order I submit is that any proposed alteration ought to be submitted to the House in the form of a proposition, and not in mere verbal statements such as have been made.

Mr Watson:

– That is not the question before the Chair.

Sir John Quick:

– I am submitting, as a point of order, that duties to be collected under the authority of section 226, must be the duties imposed in pursuance of a proposition laid before Parliament, and that they cannot be collected merely in pursuance of a verbal statement.

Mr Watson:

– That does not affect the question before the Chair.

Sir John Quick:

– I am not concerned whether the proposition is made in committee or in the House, but I desire to take this opportunity of drawing the attention of the Government to the unconstitutionality of their course of procedure.

Mr Watson:

– I would again direct attention to the remarks of the honorable and learned ‘ member, who is not addressing himself to the point of order I have raised.

The CHAIRMAN:

– On the point of order raised by the honorable member for Bland, I would say that the honorable and learned member for Bendigo is discussing the action or conduct , of the Ministers in connexion with the collection of duties under the Tariff, and, in my opinion, is not in order in doing so in committee, though he would be in order in the House. The amendment submitted by the honorable member for Tasmania (Mr. O’Malley) deals with one of the items. The conduct of the Government, or the responsibility or liability of the Government is a matter for themselves, or a matter of privilege which should be discussed in the House and not in committee.

Sir John Quick:

– I do not wish to persist in discussing the point, but merely urge that it is highly desirable that future proposed alterations should be submitted in the form of propositions in Committee of Ways and Means.

Mr KIRWAN:
Kalgoorlie

– I hope that the honorable member for Tasmania, Mr. O’Malley, will withdraw his amendment, because this is not the proper place in which to deal with the question to which it refers ; but I make this suggestion in no spirit hostile to his proposal. The report of a Victorian commission of which the honorable and learned member for Northern Melbourne was a member, and which inquired into this question in 1895, says that upon the whole the evidence afforded strong testimony in favour of the establishment of a State monopoly in the manufacture of tobacco. This is no new-fangled notion. The manufacture of tobacco is a State monopoly in Italy, Hungary, Roumania, France, and other countries of Europe, and in Italy returned to the State in one year a clear profit of something like £5,700,000, and to the comparatively small State of Hungary no less than £2,700,000. In all the States in which it has been tried it has been proved eminently successful. I am, however, exceedingly glad that the honorable member has enabled us to discuss this matter in a cursory way, because the discussion will bring it prominently before the public ; and possibly we shall be able, at some future date, to go into it very thoroughly. I think, too, that his proposal has an important bearing upon the suggestions which have been made foi- the reduction of the import and the increasing of the excise duty upon tobacco. The Treasurer has not spoken in a spirit of hostility to the honorable member’s proposal, and several other honorable members on that side of the chamber arc very strong advocates of the establishment of a State monopoly. I claim that all of them must support any proposal to reduce the import, or increase the excise, duty upon tobacco, because they are bound to oppose duties having in any way a protective incidence, since if we protect the manufacturer of tobacco we tend to create vested interests, and thus to increase the difficulty of subsequently establishing a State monopoly.

Mr Mauger:

– The honorable member is of opinion that we should first ruin the industry, and then purchase it.

Mr KIRWAN:

– I do not think it would be ruined, but at any rate it should not be molly-coddled. One of the difficulties to which the Victorian commission gave special attention was the question of compensation, and it no doubt will have to be faced if the idea of the honorable member for Tasmania is carried out. There is another matter to which I should like to refer. I understood the honorable member to say that if the duty upon tobacco were reduced to 3s. per lb. it would mean a reduction in the revenue.

Sir George Turner:

– Unless there were larger importations, and larger importations would mean less work done here.

Mr KIRWAN:

– I should like the right honorable member to explain then, how it is that whereas his estimate of the amount of duty that will be collected in Western Australia, under the proposed Commonwealth Tariff, is only £61,250, the actual amount collected last year on British and foreign tobacco, exclusive of that collected upon tobacco coming from the other States, according to the Western Australian Statistical Register, was £88,880, the duty being 3s. per lb.

Sir George Turner:

– The honorable member is giving the committee the figures for 1900. My calculations were based on the figures for the year 1899.

Mr KIRWAN:

– Even including £15,000 as revenue upon leaf, the Treasurer’s estimate would amount only to £76,000.

Sir George Turner:

– Then there is £10,000 from excise duties.

Mr KIRWAN:

– These figures do not include excise duty. I have no doubt that the Treasurer will be able to explain the discrepancy, and I should like an explanation. Otherwise, the committee would have to assume that the Treasurer is inconsistent, as by his estimate he shows that less revenue would be obtained from a duty of 3s. 6d. per lb. than from a duty of 3s. per lb.

Sir George Turner:

– Because more locally manufactured tobacco would be used.

Mr KIRWAN:

– That does not apply in the case of Western ‘Australia, because we should still have an Inter-State duty of 3s. per lb.

Sir GEORGE TURNER:
BALACLAVA, VICTORIA · PROT

-But will not the local manufacture be increased in Western Australia?

Mr KIRWAN:

– What we make there is trifling.

– Of course it is. Since the Federal Tariff has been in operation, the lowest price at which locallymanufactured tobacco has been sold in Victoria is 2s. 3d. per lb., and the highest price is 4s. 4d. per lb. Assuming that the manufacturers have sold about equal quantities of the highest and lowest qualities, the average nett selling price would be 3s. 31/2d. per lb. The average price at which imported American tobacco is now sold is 5s. per lb., so that the consumer of locally-manufactured tobacco makes a saving of1s. 81/2d. per lb. Taking the whole consumption of locally-manufactured tobacco in New South Wales and Victoria for the year 1889, the difference which I have mentioned would be equivalent to £277,875 remitted in the way of taxation. Therefore, the argument of the honorable member for Parramatta, that the State loses what is not collected in the way of duty, goes for nothing. The honorable member spoke in a very light and airy way about the 1,000 operatives who are employed in connexion with the tobacco-manufacturing industry, and suggested that we had better pension them off at once. If we listened to the honorable member’s advice in regard to this and other industries we should have no one left in the Commonwealth except those employed in the primary industries. I should like to know what wages are paid to those engaged in primary industries, and what are the conditions under which they live. It is all very well for the honorable member to talk about pensioning these people off, but if we are to do away with all our manufacturing industries, where are we going to get the money to enable us to carry out the honorable member’s broad and comprehensive pension scheme 1 I hope the committee will not consent to any reduction, but that, in the interests of the consumers, of the workmen, and of the factory owners, the)’ will support the proposals of- the Government.

Mr. JOSEPH COOK (Parramatta).Honorable members on the other side seem to assume that the only desire of the advocates of free-trade is to see all our people sitting down playing their flutes to their sheep, but I would remind the honorable member for Melbourne Ports, and those who think with him, that to-day in free-trade countries there are healthier industries finding employment for the people at higher wages, and giving a better return to capital, than in the protectionist paradise of Victoria. At every point of the arguments of the protectionists we find references to the cheap labour of protectionist countries. The advocates of trade restriction talk about protection increasing wages in America, and yet, when they desire to clinch an argument, they speak of the cheap labour that abounds in that country, particularly in the protected industries. It is a fact which is established by statistics that the cheapest wages paid in America are those which are paid in the protected industries, and that the highest wages paid are to be found in those employments which are not protected. We are told to-day that American tobacco is grown and manufactured by the negroes of that country, and that because of their cheap labour the industry here requires protection. If protection gives good wages to those who live under its aegis, why does cheap labour abound in America to such an extent as honorable members represent? Why is it that the tobacco duties in America, some of which range as high as 10s. per lb., do not result in the payment of better wages 1

The CHAIRMAN:

– I would point out that we are not now dealing with the question of duty, but with the amendment of the honorable member for Tasmania, Mr. O’Malley, which proposes that the manufacture of tobacco shall be made a State monopoly.

Mr G B EDWARDS:
SOUTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT

– I wish to ask your ruling, sir, as to whether the amendment is in order, seeing that if we carry it subsequent legislation will be requires in order to make the manufacture of tobacco a State monopoly 1

The CHAIRMAN:

– I would point out that the amendment fixes no definite date upon which the manufacture of tobacco shall become a State monopoly. It is quite competent for any honorable member to move toinsert the year 1903, 1904, or any otherdate. The amendment is in order.

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

– How is it that protection has brought about cheap labour in other countries where it is in full blast 1 The negro labourers in Virginia, according tofigures supplied during this debate, get almost as much as do the people employed in the tobacco industry in Victoria. Therefore, it is idle to argue that it is because of the cheap labour of other countries that the industry needs protection here. Why isit that we have to pay ls. per lb. duty on the leaf before we can make up our tobaccohere at all ? Honorable members know thatour locally-grown leaf cannot be utilized for the purpose of making the best tobacco. The reason of this I do not pretend to say. The fact is that we have to pay ls. per lb. duty upon leaf, and bring it thousands of miles over the sea, and yet we are told that we can grow a sufficient quantity locally if the industry is properly protected. The honorable member for Darling Downs., stated the other night how much protection, was wanted in order to make the industry flourish. In Queensland those engaged in it have enjoyed a protection of 400 per cent., and the honorable member told us in a most serious frame of mind thatthat was about a fair thing, and thatthe Queensland tobacco-growers have been, able to get along very well with iti But if we cannot produce tobacco without taxingthe people in this way I say that theindustry is a national waste, and that wecan employ our people more profitably in. other occupations. A few days ago I stated that the State would be money in pocket if it pensioned off the tobacco operatives in Victoria, and allowed them to remain in idleness. I did not suggest for a moment that these people should be thrown out of employment, but I implied that they ought to be engaged in profitable enterprises which could live without this constant spoon-feeding on the part of the Government. Otherwise there is a national waste going on. The duty proposed to be placed upon this article by the Government is unnecessarily large, and will not lead to any greater quantity of the local leaf being grown. It will not lead to the manufacture of one ounce more of tobacco than is at present manufactured. Therefore, to make the distinction which the Government contemplate, is really in itself to deplete the Treasury without any corresponding return being given. We are told that tobacco is cheaper now than it was before the duties were imposed, and that the local tobacco is cheaper than is the imported article. If we can make tobacco here cheaper than we can get it from abroad, why is it necessary to impose a protective duty? All the talk about cheapness is so much dust thrown into the eyes of the people. If we can produce tobacco as is alleged by the honorable member for Melbourne Ports, at a cheaper rate than it can be imported from other portions of the world, that is an argument against the imposition of the duty proposed by the Government.

Mr BATCHELOR:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– The honorable member knows that it is cheaper.

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

– Yes, and I know what makes it cheaper. It is the difficulties which we have placed in the way of anything coming in as cheap. It is the excessive duty which we have levied upon tobacco from abroad. If it is the Tariff which makes local tobacco cheaper, it is the Tariff which makes the other tobacco dearer.

Mr HUME COOK:
BOURKE, VICTORIA · PROT

– How much cheaper was tobacco in Sydney ?

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

– There was a duty in Sydney just as there was in Victoria, and we should be satisfied if we had the Sydney conditions, which were regarded as sufficiently generous to growers and manufacturers. If our soil and climate, and the skill of our workmen, are equal to creating a substantial native industry, that industry ought to be able to exist under conditions which will not tax the whole of the tobacco users to the enormous extent contemplated in the Government proposals.

Sir GEORGE TURNER:
Protectionist

– I am afraid we are wandering into a discussion on matters outside the amendment. I would suggest that we deal with the amendment first, either carrying or negativing it, and then get back to the proper discussion of the proposal suggested, but not yet made, by the honorable member for North Sydney. We are discussing questions now which we shall have to discuss again later on.

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

– What is the Government attitude in regard to the amendment?

Sir GEORGE TURNER:

– We oppose it, as I have already said.

Mr CRUICKSHANK:
Gwydir

– I take no interest in the abstract amendment, but would like to see some definite action taken in regard to a reduction of the duty as proposed in the amendment of which we have had notice. I hope the Government will see their way to accept a reduction from 3s. 6d. to 3s.

Mr TUDOR:
Yarra

– If a Bill were to be introduced for the purpose of nationalizing the tobacco industry, my vote would be in favour of the measure. I see no use, however, in passing the amendment now before the committee, because to do so would not carry us one step forward. We should not even be affirming that this Parliament is in favour of the nationalization of the industry, but merely providing that the duties shall be so much until the Government take over the monopoly.

Mr Thomson:

– There is no power in the Constitution for the Government to take over the tobacco industry.

Mr TUDOR:

– If that be so, the amendment should never have been accepted. The honorable member for Tasmania, Mr. O’Malley, has had the question ventilated, and has ascertained that honorable members on both sides of the House are in favour of the nationalization of the industry at some future time, and he ought now to withdraw the amendment.

Mr CROUCH:
Corio

– If the amendment, as has been contended, will have no operative force, or will not even assert a principle, it will, at any rate, act as a warning to the monopolist manufacturers, who are making thousands of pounds a year, that they will not be able, in the event of the industry being nationalized, to come to the Government for any compensation. The Opposition are in favour of the importer, and we are in favour of the workers, while the Treasurer wants revenue ; and the best way to get revenue is to provide that after due encouragement has been given to the growers and payment of proper wages has been made to the workers, all shall go into the Government’s pocket. As has been pointed out, France, by reason of her monopoly in this industry, obtains an annual profit of £2,500,000, and Italy also reaps an enormous pecuniary advantage, so that this is a source of revenue which should not be neglected. The amendment makes it possible at some future time to take over the industry without payment of compensation, and I hope the honorable member for Tasmania will not withdraw it.

Mr BROWN:
Canobolas

– It seems to me that we are asked to do one of two tilings. We are asked either to make the industry a State monopoly, under direct State control, or to allow the tobacco industry to continue in private hands, and to give to those engaged in it special preferences by means of a customs duty. That is the position which seems to be involved in the amendments submitted or foreshadowed. From inquiries I have made into the matter, and after listening particularly to the honorable member for Coolgardie, I believe that there is a good deal to be said in favour of this State monopoly as against giving special privileges to private individuals. I admit that within the Commonwealth, particularly in New South Wales and Queensland, there are lands well adapted for the growth of leaf, equal to that which we are accustomed to import from America, and other countries, even for the purpose of local manufacture. One of the great difficulties that has hitherto stood in the way of developing the tobacco industry, has been want of knowledge, and want of care on the part of those engaged in it, and also the heavy excise duties imposed in several States for the purpose of revenue. If the industry were nationalized, it would be to the interest of the Government to collect a large amount of technical or special information as to the culture of tobacco leaf, and to bring about conditions that will lead to the proper scientific cultivation and initial treatment of the leaf for manufacturing purposes. In New South Wales some attention in that direction has already been given by the Government.

Mr Kennedy:

– And the industry appears to have been killed.

Mr BROWN:

– It is only quite recently that special scientific attention has been given to this matter, and it takes time for the information to become generally available ; but so far the results have been good. It is probable that under proper conditions, locally grown leaf will be able to compete successfully with the imported article j and there is no reason why it should not. In “Victoria, too, some attention has been given to this matter, irrespective of the special privileges conferred on the manufacturers. In to-day’s issue of the Melbourne Age there appears a short article dealing with the

Manchester Co-operative Wholesale Association, which specially encourages the development of industries within the British possessions. This association does a large trade in the sale and manufacture of tobacco, and in an endeavour to assist the production of the leaf in these States, particularly in Victoria, certain importations were made into England. These importations, however, did not turn out satisfactorily, .and further importations have had similar results. The article in the Age of this morning contains the following : -

While on a visit to Victoria a few months ago a director of the Manchester Co-operative Wholesale Association purchased ten hogsheads of the locally grown tobacco and shipped them home. He wished to see whether the “ stripped “ leaf was any better than the older type of Victorian tobacco which his firm had bought on previous occasions in London. Five of the hogsheads were sent to Manchester and five to the association’s branch at Glasgow. In both cases the results have been unsatisfactory. Mr. Craig, manager at Manchester, reports that the tobacco sent to him had been completely ruined by careless and inexperienced handling. The leaf had been torn in the process of stripping, the packing was bad, and in some casks there was as much as 17 per cent, of moisture. (About 10 per cent, is the proper amount. ) Similar results are noted by Mr. Harkness, the association’s manager at Glasgow. The leaf in two hogsheads sent there was practically rotten - some of it quite black - and will have to be destroyed. I have seen a sample which Mr. Sinclair is sending out to the Agricultural department. It is vile ragged stuff, scarcely distinguishable from gutter garbage. Yet both Mr. Craig and Mr. Harkness say that Victorian tobacco is quite capable of being made a sound marketable article if treated with reasonable care. Mr. Sinclair was assured in the freest terms that their firm would give the tobacco every show when it can be used without risk of injury to their trade. This assurance was afterwards repeated by Mr. Shilito, president of the association. He said the firm was most anxious to help colonial industries, and especially desired to work up a good Australian connexion.

That paragraph bears out my contention. I consider that before our local tobacco can commend itself to consumers, and successfully compete with the imported article, a care and attention must be given to its cultivation and preparation which those processes have not hitherto received. It is scientific knowledge, not the proper climatic conditions and quality of soil, that is wanting, and in my opinion the best way to put the industry upon a sound footing is to make it a State monopoly. Further, by doing so the large sums of money which now go into the pockets of private monopolists will be transferred to the revenue of the State, and assist in the proper financing of our affairs. In making the production of tobacco a State monopoly, we should not be entering upon new ground. The honorable member for Kalgoorlie has shown that the experiment has been successfully tried in many European countries, and I have no doubt that if the industry were a State monopoly, the wage-earners and producers, to whom it would give employment, would have better treatment than under present conditions. For these reasons I have the greatest pleasure in supporting the amendment, and I hope that the honorable member who moved it will press it to a division, so that the people may see what members are in favour of this piroposal and who are against it.

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

– If the honorable member for Tasmania, Mir. O’Malley, had placed a motion before honorable members definitely proposing the creation of a State monopoly in tobacco, it might have been worth our while to seriously discuss it ; but the amendment which he has moved is so meaningless that it appears to me questionable if it is in order. He wants the committee to say that “ until a Federal Government monopoly is established,” the duties upon tobacco shall be such as are set forth in the Tariff which we are now discussing. The committee are not asked to affirm the advisability of establishing a Government monopoly in tobacco ; indeed, the honorable member does not ask us to affirm anything. This is merely a cheap advertisement and nothing else.

Mr O’Malley:

– I stand here the equal of every honorable member, and I came into this Parliament by the vote of the sovereign intelligence of the people of Tasmania. The honorable member has accused me of using my position for the purpose of advertising myself, and I seriously object to his statement.

The CHAIRMAN:

– I did not understand the honorable member for South Australia to accuse the honorable member of advertising himself.

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

– I know the honorable member for Tasmania so well that I acknowledge that I did wrong in accusing him of attempting to get a cheap advertisement, because every advertisement he gets he works hard for. If I have offended the honorable member I withdraw the expression. What I wish to emphasize is the uselessness of his amendment. If honorable gentlemen wished to delay the consideration of this Tariff, they could move similar amendments in regard to every item. We might move to insert the words “ until a Government monopoly is established “ before the proposed duties upon spirits, beer, iron, clothing, or anything else. Knowing a little about the amount of revenue obtained by other countries from State monopolies in opium and tobacco, it is extremely probable that if the honorable member moved a specific motion he would find me one of its sturdiest supporters ; but in view of the universal desire to proceed with the Tariff as speedily as possible I hope the honorable member will not insist upon his amendment. The question for the committee is really whether the proposed duty upon tobacco should be reduced, and the moving of amendments like this only diverts the attention of honorable members from the real point at issue. The whole commercial community are waiting for us to pass this Tariff, so that they may know what they will really have to pay, and we have no right to delay its consideration by incidental discussions upon practically irrelevant matters.

Mr. WINTER COOKE (Wannon).Putting aside the very difficult question whether it is within our power under the Constitution to establish a Government monopoly of tobacco, I would point out to the honorable member for Tasmania that, as the Ministry are opposed to his amendment, it is wholly improbable that he will carry it, and he will do his cause harm by forcing a division which will show that the great majority of the House are against his proposal. That is one reason why he should withdraw the amendment. Another reason is that we have not now before us sufficient information to enable us to consider the question which he wishes to raise. It is true that a committee appointed by the Victorian Parliament reported in favour of the establishment of a State monopoly in tobacco, but its members said that they desired more information, and I apprehend that if this question is to be discussed, it can be profitably discussed only after a searching inquiry on behalf of the Commonwealth as to whether it is desirable that the Government should take upon itself the manufacture and sale of tobacco.

Mr E SOLOMON:
FREMANTLE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · FT

– I would also urge the honorable member for

Tasmania, Mr. O’Malley, to withdraw his amendment, because there is really nothing definite in it. If the honorable member would bring forward a definite motion to the effect that the Government of the Commonwealth should take over the manufacture of tobacco as a State monopoly, I should be only too glad to support him, but by pressing his amendment the honorable member is likely to defeat his own object.

Mr F E McLEAN:
LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT

– I think the honorable member for Tasmania is being well advised by those honorable members who suggest that his amendment should be withdrawn. I understand that the Government have declared against the amendment, and the honorable member by pressing his proposal will be placing a large number of those who sympathize with him in his main desire in a very false position if he forces them to vote against him. He is making his proposal at the wrong time, because the schedule of the Tariff is not the place in which to air ideas with regard to the establishment of a State monopoly in tobacco. A large number of honorable members would support a jiroposal to establish such a monopoly if it were made at the proper time, but if the honorable member presses his amendment he will get a rebuff, and the vote on the subject will not fairly represent the feeling of the House.

Mr O’MALLEY:
Tasmania

– I have carefully and conscientiously endeavoured to sift the declarations of my friends in all parts of the House in opposition to my amendment, but I represent the most extraordinary conjunction of extremes. My views are not easily changed, and although I should like very much to surrender in deference to the wishes of my friends, there is a principle at stake, and I must be loyal to it. I fought the federal election with nearly every paper in Tasmania against me, and it was stated that I would not dare to come into this House. I have come in here, however, as a thoroughly independent and conscientious representative, and I am going to divide the committee upon this question even if I stand alone. One man who is in the right eventually becomes the majority, and if honorable members will look back into history, they will find that almost every reformer who has attempted to benefit the human family has had alone time to stand alone and fight alone. Honorable members say it is not right that we should make a State monoply of the tobacco manufacturing industry, but I am not moving blindly in this matter. I have here a report of a Victorian parliamentary committee which sat in 1895 and which reported upon the tobacco industry. Mr. Outtrim was the chairman of the committee, and the other members were Mr. Graham, a late Minister of the Crown, Mr. Graves, Mr. Higgins, the honorable member for Northern Melbourne, Sir John Mclntyre, Mr. Prendergast, a genuine democrat, and Mr. Scott. I will read a few of the statements in the report. The committee recommended that Victoria should declare for a State monopoly.

Sir MalcoLiV McEacharn:

– Did they all make that recommendation ?

Mr O’MALLEY:

– I cannot see any mention of dissentients. The committee point out that the State of Hungary made a profit from the monopoly of £2,700,000, and that Italy made a profit of £5,700,000. They state : -

Your committee are of opinion that, amongst other advantages likely to be derived from the establishment of a State monopoly in the manufacture of tobacco in Victoria, are the following : Increased revenue ; better quality of tobacco to consumers ; encouragement to Victorian farmers to grow tobacco ; and increased employment to people.

The report proceeds : -

There can be little doubt that, if the tobacco trade were in the hands of the State, an increase of manufacture would ensue; that a lesser quantity of the manufactured articles would be imported, but that the leaf would be obtained and be made in cigars, &c, in the State factory. In this way work could be found for a much larger uumber of persons than are now engaged in manufacture.

The report concludes in the following terms : -

Your committee have been unable to obtain any definite information as to the amount of compensation which will have to be paid to persons now engaged in the tobacco trade, in the event of the State establishing a monopoly. During the year 1805 there were fourteen tobacco manufactories in operation in Victoria, the approximate value of machinery and plant being , £39,080, lands £43,080, and buildings £42,920- total, £125,080. ….. An examination of the evidence will show that the witnesses were almost unanimous in favour of the establishment of a State monopoly, as, in their opinion, it would furnish good results to the Government, to consumer and to growers.

Do we want any better evidence than that ? Honorable members now urge delay. I admit that delay is one, of the fundamental principles of the British Constitution, but we are dealing with the Commonwealth Constitution. The railways of the various States are monopolies, and I would ask honorable members whether they are any worse managed than they would be if they were in private hands ? The men who work f or the railways are well paid, and the railway carriages made in Victoria lately under the co-operative system cost 20 per cent, less than carriages that were previously imported. I do not desire to destroy the tobacco interests, or to rob the present manufacturers. They are entitled to every shilling they make, but I believe that all the profits that are made out of the vices of tlie people ought to be at the disposal of the State, which has to look after those who become objects of charity in their old age.

Mr Ronald:

– Smoking is not a vice.

Mr O’MALLEY:

– Primitive man did not smoke. Columbus, when he landed in America, did not .find the Indians smoking. Although tobacco caine from the State of Virginia to England, there was no smoking among the Indians ; the habit is tlie result of civilization, and tobacco has become necessary through custom. Its use is now one of the vices of the people, and the profits accruing from it should go into the coffers of the State for the benefit of the general community. I admit that the history of the human race shows that every advance has been painful and slow. Everyman who stands up to advocate something new - something with which the people are not familiar - is regarded as a faddist, a fool, or an idiot, but a few years afterwards tlie wise men of the community steal that faddist’s ideas, and become great statesmen. It is said that the Government cannot manufacture tobacco, but I can show honorable members that the Government can secure the very best and most scientific men to take charge of their factories. They can also give better prices to the growers, who are now subject to tlie will of the manufacturers’ ring. The bonuses that have been paid to growers have been distributed among a number of Chinamen, who are engaged in the cultivation of the leaf, and I am told that a great quantity of the tobacco upon which the export bonus has been paid is now lying unused somewhere in Europe. The leaf used here mostly conies from America and the locally - grown leaf goes to waste. Under a system of State manufacture we should have uniform wages, and all tlie workers in the factories would share in tlie profits. They would share the profits which now go into the pockets of the manufacturers. We also intend if possible to take over the liquor business. . If we do this

Ave ought to be able to pay off a portion of our indebtedness. In America the statesmen are constantly talking about paying off the debt of the country, but here they talk about borrowing more. Email)- the people of England will lend us no more. We shall have our very souls in soak in London before we finish up. It ought to be the policy of this democratic country to carry on its public works out of revenue. Of course it may be urged that I propose to interfere with private enterprise. I do not wish to do anything of the kind, but I say that everything which conies within that category, which depends upon the luxuries or the vices of the people, ought eventually to come into the Treasury of the State. I ask the committee to carry this amendment. I wish to say, in closing, that I recognise that the reformers have a momentous battle to fight against desperate odds. Tlie odds are about a thousand to one. Every weapon that ability, that ignorance, that wealth or fashion can command is turned against us. The very cannons are loaded with vested interests, and the bullets are poisoned. Every advance that the people make is an encroachment upon some vested interest. So that when we stand up for our rights we find that they will not trade with us. They will make our wives and children starve. But neither my wife nor children shall starve. I am one of the few who can stand here and tell the people what I think and what I intend to do. In conclusion I wish to say that with me this matter is one of principle, and I must be loyal to principle. The future economist may devise some method by which to secure a more equitable distribution of the profits amongst the people, but while we are awaiting his advent, industrial development continues. To-day public opinion is crystallizing around the philosophical idea that the producers shall share in the profits of their produce. The whole world is looking to the Commonwealth of Australia to fulfil humanity’s hope for equality of opportunity. Under my proposal one factory will not make thousands and thousands of pounds of profits, whilst the worker gets little, and is thrown upon us in his old age as a pensioner. When the

Government assume control of this industry it will be run upon co-operative lines, and every man will become a partner in the venture. Therefore, I have supreme pleasure in submitting the amendment.

Mr CONROY:
Werriwa

– It is a matter for regret that the honorable member for Tasmania did not specify a date upon which this amendment, if carried, should become operative. If that had been done it would have been incumbent on the Government to carry out his proposal. But ti le amendment, if carried in its present form, will have no effect whatever, inasmuch as it will not bind the Ministry. Had this matter been brought forward at a more opportune period it would have merited very serious attention. At the present time amongst all nations the question of whether the tobacco and liquor trades ought not to be brought under Government control is being seriously discussed. Certainly many advantages would flow from the adoption of such a course. In order to show that I am prepared to seriously consider a proposal of this kind when the proper time arrives, I intend to support the amendment.

Mr. RONALD (Southern Melbourne).It seems that the alternative proposals before the committee are to hand over the manufacturing industry either to the foreigners or the State. If the profits arising out of this industry were conserved to the State in accordance with the terms of the amendment of the honorable member for Tasmania, we should have a large State monopoly, and a very profitable one. With other honorable members I regret exceedingly this untimely and inopportune amendment. It will put many honorable members upon both sides of the House in a false position,because although some of us are heart and soul in favour of State monopoly, we see that the amendment will give us nothing definite, and can lead nowhere. If it would bring us one step nearer to State monopoly, I should support it. The experiences of other countries in regard to tobacco show us that even in free-trade Great Britain preference is given to the local manufacturer to a very considerable extent. Moreover, a differential duty operates in Canada to the extent of ls. 8d. per lb. in favour of the locally - produced article. In Victoria hitherto we have had a differential duty of ls. 3d. per lb. The

Government proposals are in favour of ls. per lb., and anything less than that would make it utterly impossible for our local manufacturers to carry on their businesses. A great deal has been said about the huge fortunes that have been made by the manufacturers, but little or nothing has been said concerning the gigantic profits made by the importers. I protest against that omission. The practical way to benefit the industry here is to see that the local manufacturers have conserved to them a differential duty of ls. per lb. We must wait for a more convenient season in which to make the tobacco industry a State monopoly. I shall welcome that convenient season when it comes. But at the present time the proposal is impracticable, even if constitutional, and I question whether it is one or the other.

Mr FOWLER:
Perth

– I do not wish to give a silent vote upon this question. The honorable member for Tasmania, in submitting his amendment at the present stage, is not pushing the great principle which he advocates any “forrarder.” To my mind the honorable member is really moving in the opposite direction. While I am willing to give him credit for sincerity, I am afraid he is establishing a somewhat awkward precedent as regards other honorable members who may not be so highly scrupulous as he is with regard to selfadvertisement - who may not be prepared to make those desperate endeavours at selfeffacement for which the honorable member is noted. We might be presented with the prospect of honorable members introducing a suggestion of this kind in all the various details of the Tariff ; and a contingency of that sort is one which even the honorable member would regard with a good deal of concern. I am thoroughly in favour of the principle of the amendment, but I object to the introduction of it into the Tariff. I hope, however, to have a very early opportunity of doing something in the direction of establishing it as an active principle in the social and industrial conditions of Australia.

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

Ayes……… 21

Noes……… 40

Majority…… 19

Question so resolved in the negative.

Amendment negatived.

Sir GEORGE TURNER:
Protectionist

– We have already discussed this question at such great length that the proposal of the honorable member does not need much further discussion. I have already conceded that, after further consideration, I have come to the conclusion that the margin of 9d. is ample, though the fact that in New South Wales the manufacturers have been working with a margin of 9d. is not altogether a guide to us, because it must be remembered that they have had a good supply of locally grown leaf upon which they have paid no duty.

Mr Mahon:

– But will not the manufacturers of all the States be on the same footing now?

Sir GEORGE TURNER:

– The supply of locally grown leaf will be available to them all, and I think that there is a probability that there will be a little more competition for it.

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

– Has not the use of locally grown leaf been increasing ?

Sir GEORGE TURNER:

– In Victoria it has decreased very largely, because of the outbreak of disease, and also because we increased the excise duty from 6d. to 9d., and the extra 3d., it was stated by the growers, was deducted by the manufacturers from the price they paid for the leaf. The production of leaf is now increasing rapidly in Queensland, and they have discovered there a district which they have named Texas, where it will grow well. That leaf will be available to the manufacturers of all the States. It is also an undoubted fact that the importation of manufactured tobacco has been slowly decreasing. That decrease will undoubtedly continue, even if we reduce the duty to 3s. per lb., but we shall get more revenue during the next few years, if we leave it at 3s. 6d. per lb. Having given the matter full consideration, I cannot agree to the proposed reduction, because I believe it would play into the hands of the importers, and enable them to put large sums into their pockets. We are anxious not to press unduly upon the local manufacturers, and to encourage by every means in our power the local growers. No doubt as the production of leaf here increases, the importation of leaf, and possibly also of manufactured tobacco will decrease ; and when that happens we shall be able to slowly increase our excise duties, and thus keep our revenue up to about the same amount. The Government will resist any proposal to reduce the duty upon imported manufactured tobacco ; but we are prepared to concede 3d. by increasing the duty upon imported leaf. That arrangement will benefit the grower, and will also increase our revenue, because leaf will continue to be imported in large quantities for a number of years to come. None of us believe that we shall be able to supply all our requirements with locally-grown leaf, and, even if the quantity of locally-grown leaf were sufficient, I do not think its quality would be such that it could be used to the exclusion of imported leaf. We propose, therefore, to make the duty upon the imported leaf1s. 9d. per lb. That will reduce the protection afforded to the manufacturer, in so far as he uses imported leaf, by 3d. per lb., although the rate will not press unduly upon him, whereas if we increased the excise duty he would have to pay more, not only upon imported leaf but upon -locally-grown leaf, and the grower would suffer. By the course we propose, the grower will not suffer, and a larger quantity of leaf will probably be grown. I believe that the manufacturers will endeavour to use as much of the locally-grown leaf as they can get ; and if they are competing against each other our growers may get a fair price.

Mr Watson:

– They do not compete for the local leaf, but arrange prices among themselves.

Sir GEORGE TURNER:

– That has been so in the past. No doubt while they have been fighting with regard to their tobaccos they have joined together in getting the leaf out of the growers as cheaply as possible, but I think with the larger margin there will possibly be competition amongst the manufacturers to get as much as they possibly can of the local leaf. We are growing very little leaf in Victoria, but if the manufacturers have to pay the full ls. 9d. on the imported leaf, they will probably make a big effort to buy local leaf in New South Wales and Queensland, and. the grower will get the advantage of the increased price resulting from the competition. I do not propose to speak at any great length. I think I have dealt fully with the new proposals. We are not dealing with cigars, but simply with the question of imported tobacco. The motion of the honorable member for North Sydney is to reduce the import duty on manufactured tobacco by 6d., but we cannot agree to that, and our alternative proposal, as far as leaf imported for making tobacco here is concerned, is to increase the duty by 3d., and thus reduce the preference which the local manufacturer has on imported leaf to 9d. We still leave him the benefit of the local leaf, and we think the effect of this will be to create a demand for that leaf, and thus encourage our growers to produce more, and enable them to get a better price.

Mr GLYNN:
South Australia

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

– Undoubtedly, by the duty on the imported leaf.

Sir William Lyne:

– The production of the local leaf was killed by the Tariff of 1893.

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

– Before the Tariff of 1893 was introduced, if the leaf had been worth anything at all, it surely ought to have been worth the duty upon the imported leaf. Yet the fact is that for a period of four years a steady decrease has taken place in the use of the locally-grown unmanufactured leaf as againstthe imported. This seems to resolve itself more into a question of the revenue, which I, for one, have been sent here to protect. I do not profess to be an absolutely rabid free-trader, and all my observations have been to the effect that the revenue must be protected, and the States secured, as far as possible, the amounts they were receiving before the advent of federation. Tobacco, wines, spirits, and similar commodities have been recognised by all free-traders as fair subjects for taxation ; and the only question is whether the manufacturers have not been receiving from the consumers of the

Mr Ronald:

– I have smoked it for years, and it is as good as the imported article.

Mr CAMERON:

– It is a wonder that the honorable member is alive. Four of the States are, to a certain extent, interested in the growth and manufacture of tobacco, but two of them neither manufacture tobacco nor are they likely to do so. The Government proposal will strike a very serious blow at both Western Australia and Tasmania, because under the higher duties both States will suffer a loss of revenue which they can ill afford. I shall vote for the reduction of the import duty on manufactured tobacco to 3s.

Mr. BATCHELOR (South Australia).I am glad that the Government have decided to reduce the difference in the duties in favour of the local manufacturer from ls. to 9d., and to maintain the duty on manufactured tobacco at 3s. 6d. per lb. I believe we shall get more revenue, and, consistently with the maintenance of the industries we have in our midst, it is a fair thing that we should derive from tobacco as much money as we can. The Government proposal is fully in keeping with the policy they announced at the outset of seeking to obtain revenue without destruction. At the same time, I think it would have been better to propose an increase in the excise duty rather than a higher duty on the imported leaf.

Sir George Turner:

– Our experience in Victoria was, that if we did that the money would be taken out of the pockets of the growers.

Mr BATCHELOR:

– I do not think an increase of the excise duty would have that effect, but, on the other hand, the protection of ls. 6d. per lb. to the local grower ought to be quite sufficient. The Government have a good opportunity in connexion with the increase in the excise duty, to make a difference in favour of twist or strand tobacco, which is of very much better quality than is cake tobacco, in the manufacture of which short ends and all kinds of cheaper material are used. Twist tobacco can be made only from long leaf that can be manipulated by hand, and if the Government had made a difference in the excise duty in favour of twist tobacco it would have been to the advantage of the consumer and very much better for the men employed. It is worth our consideration whether we cannot secure for the men who work in tobacco factories some of the advantages to be derived from the encouragement of the industry in our midst. If it is not too late, I would ask the Treasurer to consider whether it would not be a great deal better to increase the excise on block tobacco by 3d. per1b., leaving the duty on twist tobacco as it stands.

Sir WILLIAM McMILLAN:
WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT

-I used to regard my right honorable friend the Treasurer as one of the most candid and straightforward of men, but after having looked at the way in which he has arranged these tobacco duties, I think that he is much more cunning than I had previously supposed him to be. We cannot look at this question of the import duty on tobacco without considering the scheme of tobacco duties as a whole. In dealing with the import duty on the manufactured article we must also take into consideration the duty upon imported leaf and the excise on locally manufactured tobacco. The Treasurer has stated that under his new proposal there will be a difference of only 9d. in favour of the local manufacturer, and that if we agree to an import duty of 3s. 6d. per lb. on manufactured tobacco he will increase the rate on imported leaf by 3d. per lb., leaving the excise duty as it is ; thereby making a considerable concession from the free-trade point of view. Does not my honorable friend know very well, however, that when you once go beyond a certain point in taxing the imported manufactured article, every penny - no matter how you deal with other items - must give an enormous advantage to the local manufacturer ? Even supposing that the 3d. were not conceded, and that the difference were1s. in favour of the manufacturer with a 3s. import duty on the manufactured article, the arrangement would be much better and much fairer than with an import duty of 3s. 6d. per lb. and a smaller preference for the local manufacturer. I fail to see why we should not continue the average duty that has been levied in the different States in previous years. The honorable member who has just sat down has referred to the historic phrase, “ revenue without destruction,” and I would ask honorable members to look at this question in the light of securing “ revenue without destruction.” New South Wales levied a duty of 3s. per lb. on imported manufactured tobacco, and that State contains over a third of the total population of Australia. “Victoria, which has nearly another third of the total population of the Commonwealth, also levied a duty of 3s. Tasmania and Western Australia were likewise content with a 3s. duty, Queensland being the only State to go beyond that amount and fix the duty at 4s. - because, probably, the conditions in that State were more favorable to the production of tobacco, and it was desired to protect the growers. The duty which has been paid by the whole population of the Commonwealth, with the exception of about 600,000, has hitherto been 3s. per lb., and yet the Treasurer, who says he does not wish to create any more confusion than necessary in the finances of the States, and to raise revenue without destruction, refuses to adopt the rate which has almost universally prevailed. Now let us look at this question from a financial point of view.. The import duty on manufactured tobacco cannot be taken by itself, but we must consider the aggregation of the items in order to ascertain what the financial result will be. I find that in Victoria the total revenue derived from imported tobacco four years ago was £219,000, and this amount has since been increased to £235,000. In New South Wales the revenue derived four years ago was £289,000, but the amount has since increased to £323,000. Thusin Victoria there has been an increase of about £15,000, whilst in New South Wales the gain has been £30,000. In New South Wales, with a Tariff under which the manufactured article was placed at a disadvantage of 9d. as compared with the locally-manufactured article, the revenue result has been immensely better than in Victoria, but still we are asked to depart from a sound basis of finance and to increase the import duty in a way that will seriously affect the revenue.

Mr Watson:

– In New South Wales they smoke a good deal more tobacco per head than in Victoria.

Sir WILLIAM McMILLAN:

– I know that there are several influences at work, but I believe that Victoria is not suited for the growth of tobacco. In New South Wales and Queensland - and especially in the latter State - all the conditions are favorable. Seeing that three of the largest States in the union - one in the tropics, one south, and the other in the middle - are specially interested in this matter, is it not fair to take an intermediate position, in view of all Australia, and have a moderate rate? There are many things which affect our conclusions. We find, for example, that in spite of Victoria having a difference of 1s. 3d. per lb. in favour of the local manufacturer, the industry from year to year has been a declining one. I am told, too, that so inferior is the leaf, that it is practically shipped to the other side of the world, so that it enters very little into the manufactured article here. I know, as a matter of fact, because I have had some dealings in it, that the bulk of the leaf grown in many parts of New South Wales - the parts, I suppose, which are least adapted to it - is, first, on accountof the uncongenial soil, and, secondly, no doubt, on account of great ignorance in dealing with it, a very poor product indeed. On the principle in which I believe - that men should cultivate that which is natural to their hands, and should not be forced into other channelsby any artificial action of Government - I say that the sooner the industry in those parts dies out the better. It is absurd to legislate in a Commonwealth Tariff as if we were dealing with the product of a certain State, which we could grow to advantage. The whole force of the argument, it seems to me, is in favour of a lower import duty. When we give 9d. per lb. preference to the local manufacturer upon an article which is so intrinsically cheap we do everything that is reasonable, even from a protectionist stand-point. But when in addition to that 9d. per lb. difference we increase the rate on the imported article, we add proportionately to the protection which has been given. We create practically by our higher import rate a prohibition. “Dp till the present no reason has been given why a 3s. rate, which has prevailed in a majority of the States and among a population of 3,200,000 as against a population of 600,000, should be altered now. Indeed, in many cases we find that an attemptis being made to maintain the highest rate that has obtained in any of the states. All through the object has been made purely from a protectionist point of view to create rates which are alien and inimical to revenue principles. Therefore I think we have reason, even on the principle enunciated by the Prime Minister of “ revenue without destruction,” to ask the committee to adopt the average rate which has obtained in a majority of the States.

Mr KINGSTON:
Protectionist

– I confess that I was rather sorry to hear the remarks in reference to Australian tobacco which have been made by one or two honorable members during the course of this debate. The language employed would lead us to believe that Australian tobacco was absolutely worthless, and that the sooner the industry died out or was crushed the better. In this connexion I am forcibly reminded of the words of Gilbert in the “Mikado,” in which the Lord High Executioner speaks of the people whom he has upon “ the list.” There are a number of them. One is -

The idiot who praises

With enthusiastic tone,

Every century but this,

Every country but his own.

I am inclined to think’ as regards the tobacco industry that it is entirely suited to our soil and climate, and ought to be encouraged as much as possible. In this respect I quote the utterances of the Statistician of New South Wales, whose words are generally regarded by New South Wales freetraders as absolute gospel. He says -

The soil and climate of Australia appear to be suitable for the growth of the plant, but sufficient care and skill have not been expended upon the preparation of the leaf.

– The growth of tobacco has increased in New South Wales to a greater extent than in Victoria, and more local leaf is used in New South Wales than in the southern State. It seems to me, therefore, that when we are asked to take the Victorian experience as a basis, we are being asked to go further than we ought to go in reason. If we give protection sufficient to enable the industry to flourish in those parts of Australia best adapted for it, we shall be doing all that can be reasonably expected. Honorable members will see that if we give more protection than is necessary, we shall only be adding 33 per . cent. to the advantages which’ the New South Wales growers enjoy at present, and that they will be placed in a better position to run the Victorian growers out of the industry. I do not think the amendment of the honorable member for North Sydney is likely to be accepted, and I feel inclined to support the suggestion of the honorable member for Bland, which I had hoped to sec accepted some days ago. I should like to see an increase of 3d. in the excise duty hitherto levied in New South Wales and an increase of 3d. in the duty on imported tobacco.

Sir William McMillan:

– Does not the honorable member favour an import duty of 3s. on manufactured tobacco 1

Mr PIESSE:

– Yes, if I can get it.

Sir William McMillan:

– Let us fight for it.

Mr PIESSE:

– I think the other proposal would be a reasonable compromise, and I should be prepared to accept it.

Mr KENNEDY:
Moira

– Although I am riot entirely in sympathy with the Government proposals, I quite agree that 9d. per lb. is a fair margin in favour of the local manufacturer of tobacco. I take strong exception to the remarks of the honorable member for Tasmania, Mr. Cameron, that Victorian tobacco is not fit to smoke. It will be admitted that the bushmen of Australia are fairly good judges of tobacco, and for the last twenty years I have smoked Victorian tobacco as well .as the imported article About fifteen years ago, I bought in the Tumut Valley, in New South Wales, for 2s. 9d.per lb., locally grown and manufactured tobacco, which was quite as good as the imported article for which I had been paying 5s. 6d. per lb. Still, in spite of the fostering care of a paternal Government, the factory in which that tobacco was manufactured has been closed, and the growth of tobacco has greatly diminished in New South Wales.

The honorable member for Tasmania, Mr. Piesse, said that the growth of tobacco had increased in New South Wales ; but the industry has been almost extinguished in both New South Wales and Victoria. In New South Wales in 1888 there were 4,338 acres under cultivation for tobacco, whereas in 1889 the area had been reduced to 546 acres. In Victoria, during the same period, there had been a still greater decrease in the area under cultivation. The honorable member for Wentworth spoke from very imperfect knowledge when he said that the country in which tobacco had been grown in Victoria was unsuited for that purpose.

Sir William McMillan:

– I say that Victorian soil and climate are not suited to the growth of tobacco.

Mr KENNEDY:

– That is the statement I rose to rebut, and I am going to quote against the honorable member Mr. A. J. Bondurant, who was for some years the tobacco expert in the Agricultural department of Victoria. He says : -

I am persuaded, from a short residence in the colony of Victoria, after having visited the districts where most of the tobacco is now being cultivated, and others where it is cultivated to a moderate extent, that if the same intelligence and care are used here in the management of this difficult and profitable crop as are used by the average grower in the southern States of America, the product will be much improved, and the colony be successful in producing all of the pipe and much of the cigar leaf required for its own consumption. This is not all. With such a favourable soil and climate, if this industry is carried to the extent that is justifiable, in my judgment, by those who are interested in the agricultural success of the colony as land-owners, before many years the tobacco from Victoria should occupy a place in the markets of London and Liverpool as a successful competitor of the tobacco from Virginia, Tennessee, North Carolina, Kentucky, and other southern States of America, that is so eagerly sought after and readily sold on those markets.

That is the opinion of a gentleman whowas reared and trained on the tobacco plantations of Virginia, and who was engaged in the cultivation and curing of tobaccoleaf in America until he came to Victoria.

Sir William McMillan:

– He failed to grow tobacco in Victoria.

Mr KENNEDY:

– On a former occasion I pointed out the causes of his failure. His crops were ruined by blue mould, a disease for which a remedy has only recently been found. But it is a strange thing that in New South Wales, where this disease was not known, and where the climate and soil are eminently adapted for the growth of tobacco, the production has also been a diminishing one. Mr. Bondurant gave a reason for the reduced production of the leaf in Victoria when he said that our people did not apply themselves to it. The chief reason why we have failed up to the present is because we have not had the knowledge necessary for the proper growth and curing of the leaf. It is a peculiarity of the British people in most countries that they have not applied themselves to the minor industries. Those who say that we should direct the attention of our people to the primary industries should bear in mind the splendid advantages to be derived from that intense culture which must be applied to the growth of tobacco. I repeat that our soil and climate are eminently adapted for the cultivation of this plant. It is true that we have sent to London leaf which did not meet with approval but that was because it was put upon the market in a condition unsuited to that market. We have it in a report from our own Agent-General in London, that the failure to find a market for the first Victorian shipment was not altogether due to the fact that the leaf was of an inferior quality, but resulted from its being placed upon the market as unstemmed tobacco leaf, and which contains an excessive amount of moisture. I note that reference is made in this morning’s papers to another shipment of tobacco which has arrived in London in a rotten condition. The extraordinary feature about it is how it was allowed to be shipped. In justice to Mr. Bondurant, I must say that he was out of the colony when it was shipped. These are the chief factors which have conduced to failure up to the present time. But they are not all the factors which have been operating to the detriment of those engaged in the production of the leaf. It is a peculiar coincidence that a considerable diminution in the growth’ and production of tobacco leaf in New South Wales and Victoria took place simultaneously with the increase of the excise duties. Seeing that there is practically no difference of opinion between honorable members as to the margin which constitutes a sufficient protection to the local manufacturer, it is almost regrettable that such a long time should have been occupied in discussing this matter. We ought to be able to come to an understanding as to whether 3s. 6d. per lb. or 3s. 3d. per lb. is the proper duty to impose. But where the question at issue is one of revenue, I must look for guidance to a great extent to those who are responsible for sound finance, and therefore I must look to the Minister in charge who will have to answer for his conduct if he misleads the committee.

Mr Thomson:

– He is getting 3d. per lb. more revenue than he himself proposed. ‘

Mr KENNEDY:

– That is the only disturbing factor in my mind. Although he told us that he was going to levy an additional 3d. per lb., he did not tell the committee what increased amount of revenue he expected to derive as a result. There is no difference of opinion practically as regards the principle at stake. There is a conflict of opinion only as to the gain or loss to the revenue, and that matter ought to be speedily settled, seeing that all agree as to the principle involved.

Mr KIRWAN:
Kalgoorlie

– I merely rise to correct a false impression which may be created by the quotation from Coghlan which was made by the Minister for Trade and Customs. The right honorable gentleman was careful to avoid quoting certain other portions winch I shall read for the benefit of the committee. He stated that Coghlan had declared that the decline in the production of tobacco throughout Australia was due to the fact that sufficient care and skill have not been expended upon the preparation of the leaf. But in the very next sentence, which the Minister did not read, Coghlan shows that the real cause of the decline was over-production. That sentence is as follows : -

The quantity of leaf produced in 1888, namely 70,000 cwt., was so greatly in excess of local requirements that very low prices only could be obtained, and a large portion of the crop was left upon the growers’ hands.

Furthermore, in the very first line of the paragraph quoted by the Minister, Coghlan attributes the decline in the production of tobacco to the same cause and to the want of a foreign market. If the amount of tobacco cuitivated in Australia was formerly too much, where is the necessity for imposing a protective duty in order to induce greater cultivation? colghlan also gives some figures concerning the production of tobacco in the various States of the Commonwealth, and it is a most extraordinary thing that in the State where the growers enjoyed the most protection, the decrease in the production has been the greatest. I refer to Victoria, where in 1897 a bonus was paid for locally-grown tobacco leaf. In 1896 the area under tobacco cultivation in Victoria was 1,264 acres, and the production amounted to 7,890 cwt. In 1897, the area under cultivation had decreased to 522 acres, and in 1898 it had fallen to 78 acres. The production decreased in 1896 to 7,890 cwt., in 1897 to 3,419 cwt., and in 1898 to 190 cwt.

Mr Salmon:

– Is there not a note attached to the figure “ 190,” which the honorable member last quoted 1

Mr KIRWAN:

– There is a reference to the fact that “in 1898 the crop in Victoria was almost a complete failure.” But although the crop was not a success in that year, the land under cultivation had fallen from 522 acres in 1897 to 78 acres in 1898. These figures are significant of the fact that in the very State where protection is highest, the decrease in the total production of tobacco was considerably greater than in any of the other States. In New South Wales there was also a considerable decrease, but it was as nothing in comparison with the enormous decrease in Victoria ; and at the present time the production of tobacco and the area under cultivation in New South Wales is considerably greater than in the neighbouring State. Under all the circumstances it seems most extraordinary that the Government should suggest a policy of protection in order to increase the production of tobacco. The local manufacturers have already received a considerable advantage in consequence of Inter-State free-trade, all the markets of the Commonwealth having been thrown open to them. Mr. Hart, the manager for Messrs. Cameron and Co., who are understood to have made huge profits, is reported in the Age as having said that if the Tariff goes through without alteration, tobacco manufacturers generally will have little or no cause for complaint. Mr. Hart is also reported as having said -

One result of the new conditions is an immediate rise of 6d. per lb. in the wholesale price of all high-grade tobaccoes, whether imported or locally made. The Minister for Trade and Customs became very indignant because of certain, references made by the honorable member for Wentworth to the extent of tobacco cultivation in Australia. But the honorable member for Melbourne Ports, who, I suppose, voices the opinions of protectionists in this House, talked to-day as if the tobacco industry were the great industry of Australia, and referred sneeringly to the primary industries, which members of the Opposition desire to foster. He seems to think that agriculture, the pastoral industry, the mining industry, and others, which produce no less than £83,000,000 of wealth for Australia are quite minor matters compared with the importance of a few factories at Footscray or Williamstown. There was no indignation on the part of tlie Minister for Trade and Customs when the honorable member for Melbourne Ports made observations of that character, while there was quite a storm when the honorable member for Wentworth objected to these duties on the ground that they were revenue destroying.

Mr SYDNEY SMITH:
MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT

– I have no desire to delay the division, but in view of statements made by several honorable members I cannot allow the debate to close without expressing my opinion in regard to one or two aspects of the case. The Minister for Trade and Customs on Friday last was good enough to read a quotation showing the decline of the tobacco industry in New South Wales, but was careful to avoid making similar reference to the industry in Victoria. About twelve years ago, there were about 300 people employed in the growing of tobacco in Victoria, and in this connexion, I should like to quote the following leading article from a newspaper published in the district of Wangaratta, on November 6 : -

Wangaratta is now the only tobacco-leaf centre in the State. During the last five years the Government has given a helping hand to the grower. It provided an experimental farm for object lessons ; an expert from the United States to teach how best to grow and cure the leaf ; gave a bonus of 3d. on all exported leaf that passed the expert ; rented in Wangaratta, at £100 per year, a Stemmery where the leaf could be graded and stemmed and packed for export. What has been the result? There are fewer growers of leaf now than when the Government came to the relief of the industry.

– I ask that the honorable member be required to withdraw that insinuation.

Mr CONROY:

– I did not say that the honorable member was interested in the tobacco industry. I say that it is a bad thing for the Government to put forward tentative proposals. As far as they are personally concerned, I know that no suspicion should attach to their action, but I ask them in their future conduct to guard against the possibility of such suspicion. It surely cannot be thought that the public will not look at this matter from all points of view, or that the workers will not want to know why they are being taxed to the extent of an extra 6d. per lb., when they know that the additional duty will operate very largely to the advantage of three or four large manufacturers. I think the Government have done extremely wrong in exposing themselves and other honorable members to the suggestion of having acted from interested motives. I have made my . protest, and as far as I am concerned, I think that not only will the revenue suffer through the imposition of the higher duty, but that undue preference will be given to a certain class of manufacturers. I intend to vote for the amendment of the honorable member for North Sydney.

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

Ayes … … … 28

Noes … … … 33

Majority … … 5

Question so resolved in the negative.

Amendment (by Mr. Watson) proposed -

That the words “and on and after the 21st November, 1901, 3s. 3d.” be added to the duty, “Manufactured …. per lb., 3s. 6d.”

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

Ayes … … … 33

Noes … … … 29

Majority ……4

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr KINGSTON:
Protectionist

– I move-

That the words “ on and after 21st November, 1901, 3s. 3d.” be added to the duty “unmanufactured . . per lb. 3s. 6d.”

I take this course in order to give effect to the last decision of the committee.

Mr CONROY:
Werriwa

– I wish to point out that, unless the tobacco is entered by the manufacturer for special purposes, there is no exemption whatever. Surely there may be many articles in which unmanufactured tobacco can be used without any necessity existing for the imposition of such a high duty ? We do not know what the departmental by-laws are. I would further point out that nicotine is very valuable as a preservative against many fungoid growths. Under the circumstances, I do notsee why we should be called upon to assent to so high a duty. The Ministry ought to show other purposes for which unmanufactured tobacco is to be admitted free.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. CONROY (Werriwa).- I desire to point out that under this Tariff as it stands, the protection afforded to the local grower of tobacco amounts to something like 2s. per lb. It is perfectly clear from the arguments of the Ministry themselves that there can be no objection to raising the price of imported unmanufactured tobacco leaf to1s. 9d. per lb., because, according to their doctrine, the foreigner pays it. The effect of passing this item will, to my mind, be a diminished consumption of imported unmanufactured leaf, and consequently a reduced revenue.

Sir WILLIAM McMILLAN (Wentworth). I take it for granted that the understanding arrived at the other night that there should be only 9d. per lb. in favour of the local manufacturer will be adhered to, and that as a consequential result of the decision of the committee to make the duty upon the imported manufactured article 3s. 3d. per lb., we shall retain the duty upon the imported leaf at 1s. 6d. per lb., and the excise duty at1s. per lb.

Sir George Turner:

– That is so.

Sir WILLIAM McMILLAN:

– Then I see no necessity to prolong the debate upon the question raised by the honorable and learned member for Werriwa. But I hope that the Ministers in charge of this schedule will see their way to drop the ad valorem duty upon cigars, even if we have to make a slight addition to the fixed duty. We want to understand thoroughly what we are doing. It is impossible, as regards tobacco and other well-known articles, to accurately arrive at the ad valorem duty. Let us see how we stand with regard to that wonderful expression by the Prime Minister, “ Revenue without destruction.” I find that in New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland, and Western Australia that fixed duty upon cigars was 6s. per lb. In South Australia it was 6s. 3d., and in Tasmania 7s. So that, in regard to 3,500,000 people out of a total population of 3,750,000, a duty averaging 6s. per lb. formerly operated. The reason why the Government have selected the highest duties in the different States prior to this Tariff operating seems to me absolutely incomprehensible. In this instance the Government areactually going beyond any State except one, and that a State with a small population. I believe I shall have the sense of the House with me if I move the elimination of the 15 per cent. ad valorem duty, and I move-

Mr Kingston:

– There is no reason why we should not be fair.

Mr.F. E. McLEAN. - The proportion of expensivecigars imported is so small, and means so little in revenue, that if the right honorable gentleman did not keep to the fixed duty, and , charge that enormous tax on the cheaper descriptions, he darenot come down to the Housewith a proposal to impose this composite duty. A pertinent question has been asked why an ad valorem duty is. not included in regard to excise. That question may not be under discussion at the present moment, but it is fair to ask why the Government do not pursue a consistent policy, because, if an ad valorem duty is fair in one case, it is just as fair in the other. The Government have already withdrawn the composite duty on tea, which is an article that stands in a precisely similar position to cigars. Tea varies very much in quality, and the composite duty on that article could be defended on exactly the same grounds as a composite duty on cigars. These composite duties are the worst feature in the Tariff; and to bring forward a proposal of the kind is only pandering to a certain section of the community, and making them believe that the rich man is going to pay so much more taxation than the poor man. The weight of the taxation imposed on the poor man by this Tariff is so enormous that it is almost hardihood on the part of the Minister for Trade and Customs to make such an appeal as he has to the committee;

Mr Watson:

– Abolishing 15 per cent. on cigars will not help the poor man much.

– It does not matter two pins to me. I know that under the Tariff the cigar which I and my friends smoke will pay a duty of 5s. 6d. a pound, and the cigar which the boodler smokes will pay 15 per cent. ad valorem, and that is sufficient for me.

Mr Thomson:

– The honorable member’s cigar will pay 15 per cent.

Mr PAGE:

– There is no danger of that.

I am not afraid, but that the right people will pay the tax this time, however much they have attempted to shuffle out of their duty before. I feel quite confident that we are on the right track this time.

Progress reported.

page 7555

ADJOURNMENT

Tariff Debate

Mr BARTON:
Minister for External Affairs · Hunter · Protectionist

– I move -

That the House do now adjourn.

The honorable member for Wentworth told us to-night that in consequence of a statement made by a Minister, he would endeavour to secure a very lengthy debate on every item and every line in the Tariff. I hope that my honorable friend did not mean the whole extent of an expression which was used perhaps in the heat of debate, but if he tells us things of that kind, he must expect that we shall take means to see that the public time is not unduly wasted.

Sir WILLIAM McMILLAN:
Wentworth

– I do not know that the Prime Minister has exactly interpreted what I said, and I think it is rather unusual to refer to a debate on a motion for the adjournment of the House. I simply said that I thought from the promises that had been made by the Government, we should have heard of some very drastic changes in the Tariff; that those changes would have been made on broad lines, which would have enabled us to deal with the Tariff on equally broad lines, but that as there were practically no changes made at all, as the Tariff was so very chaotic, and as it was impossible to take action of that kind, we should have to debate it item by item, and give it - unless the Government agree to reasonable concessions - our strenuous opposition all through.

Mr. BARTON (Hunter- Minister for External Affairs). - It comes to this, then, that the honorable member says that he must debate the Tariff item by item and line by line, and that the withdrawal of something which I. thought was said in the heat of debate has not taken place. I have no inflammatory statement to make - that is foreign to my nature -but I must ask the honorable member to expect that if he continues the tactics to which he has alluded, the Government will try to economize the public time and to bring the debate to an end at the earliest opportunity, consistent with fair and reasonable latitude.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

House adjourned at 11.18 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 20 November 1901, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1901/19011120_reps_1_6/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant

House of Representatives20 November 1901

PETITION

QUESTION

REFUND OF DUTIES

Mr GLYNN:SOUTH AUSTRALIA, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

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

Sir JOHN QUICK:BENDIGO, VICTORIA

Mr KINGSTON:

Mr GLYNN:

Mr KINGSTON:

QUESTION

FEDERAL CAPITAL SITE

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

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:Minister for Home Affairs · HUME, NEW SOUTH WALES · Protectionist

QUESTION

MONEY ORDER REGULATIONS

Mr MAHON:COOLGARDIE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Sir PHILIP FYSH:Minister (without portfolio) · TASMANIA, TASMANIA · Free Trade

QUESTION

MR. J. KIRKPATRICK

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

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:Protectionist

QUESTION

THE TARIFF

Mr KINGSTON:South AustraliaMinister for Trade and Customs · Protectionist

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

Mr KINGSTON:

Sir Edward Braddon:

Mr KINGSTON:

Mr Fisher:

Mr Macdonald-Paterson:

Mr KINGSTON:

Mr Macdonald-Paterson:

Mr KINGSTON:

Mr Conroy:

Mr KINGSTON:

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

Mr KINGSTON:

Sir William McMillan:

Mr KINGSTON:

Mr Kirwan:

Mr KINGSTON:

Mr Knox:

Mr KINGSTON:

Mr Poynton:

Mr KINGSTON:

The CHAIRMAN:

Mr McDonald:

The CHAIRMAN:

Sir William McMillan:

Sir Malcolm McEacharn:

Mr Barton:

Mr A McLEAN:GIPPSLAND, VICTORIA · PROT

The CHAIRMAN:

Mr McDonald:

Mr Conroy:

The CHAIRMAN:

Mr Conroy:

Sir William McMillan:

Mr McDonald:

The CHAIRMAN:

Mr McDonald:

The CHAIRMAN:

Sir William McMillan:

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

The CHAIRMAN:

Mr Conroy:

The CHAIRMAN:

Mr Conroy:

The CHAIRMAN:

Mr Conroy:

The CHAIRMAN:

Mr Conroy:

The CHAIRMAN:

Mr F E McLEAN:LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT

Mr Watson:

Mr McDonald:

The CHAIRMAN:

Sir WILLIAM McMILLAN:

Mr Barton:

House of Representatives
20 November 1901

Mr GLYNN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

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

Sir JOHN QUICK:
BENDIGO, VICTORIA

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

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:
Minister for Home Affairs · HUME, NEW SOUTH WALES · Protectionist

Mr MAHON:
COOLGARDIE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Sir PHILIP FYSH:
Minister (without portfolio) · TASMANIA, TASMANIA · Free Trade

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

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:
Protectionist

Mr KINGSTON:
South AustraliaMinister for Trade and Customs · Protectionist

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

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

Mr A McLEAN:
GIPPSLAND, VICTORIA · PROT

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

Mr F E McLEAN:
LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT

Mr KIRWAN:
Kalgoorlie

Sir GEORGE TURNER:
BALACLAVA, VICTORIA · PROT

Mr G B EDWARDS:
SOUTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT

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

Mr BATCHELOR:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

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

Mr HUME COOK:
BOURKE, VICTORIA · PROT

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

Sir GEORGE TURNER:
Protectionist

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

Mr CRUICKSHANK:
Gwydir

Mr TUDOR:
Yarra

Mr CROUCH:
Corio

Mr BROWN:
Canobolas

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

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

Mr E SOLOMON:
FREMANTLE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · FT

Mr F E McLEAN:
LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT

Mr O’MALLEY:
Tasmania