House of Representatives
3 June 1903

1^st Parliament · 2^nd Session

PERSONAL EXPLANATION
QUESTION
- RELIEF TO THECROTTY MINERS
QUESTION
- FEDERAL ELECTORAL ROLLS
QUESTION
- GENERAL ELECTIONS
QUESTION
- ELECTORAL ACT AMENDMENT
QUESTION
- PERMANENT STANDING ORDERS
QUESTION
- COMMONWEALTH POSTAGE STAMP
QUESTION
- RIFLE CLUB REGULATIONS
QUESTION
- GOVERNOR-GENERAL’S SPEECH : ADDRESS IN REPLY
MESSAGES
PRINTING, LIBRARY, AND HOUSE COMMITTEES
HOUSE COMMITTEE
HIGH COURT PROCEDURE BILL
SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT
- Barton) -

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

page 443

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

Mr DEAKIN:
Attorney-General · BALLAARAT, VICTORIA · Protectionist

– To make a personal explanation, I wish to call attention to a statement; made by the honorable member for North Sydney on Thursday last. He is reported to have said -

I know that when the division came on -

The division, upon the tea duty - the honorable member for Eden-Monn.ro was looking for the Attorney-General, because that Minister hud left the House in the face of an important division without pairing.

Jt is possible that the honorable member for Eden-Monaro was looking for me, and that I was not in the chamber, but I have reason to remember, because of the surprise which occurred in connexion with the division, and because I have since consulted my diary, that I was within the precincts of the chamber from the commencement to the close of the sitting. I have not the least doubt that the honorable member for North Sydney made the statement in good faith in consequence of something which he heard. I am concerned only with the fact that I was in the building during the whole evening, and did not leave until after the division was taken. I was paired for the division to oblige a member of the Opposition.

Mr THOMSON:
NORTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

– As a matter of personal explanation, and in reply to the Attorney-General, I wish to say that it is a duty and a pleasure to accept his statement unreservedly. What I said was in reply to an unexpected interjection, and it might be excusable if, under such circumstances, I did not speak with the close accuracy which might have been expected had I made a deliberate statement. I do not put my explanation upon that ground, however. I had ample justification for the statement, for on the night of. the division upon the tea duty, and shortly before the division took place, the Government Whip - the honorable member for Eden-Monaro - stated that the Attorney-General had left the House and had not paired. He then endeavoured to obtain a pair for him, and put down the name of a representative of New South Wales, who at the time was absent from Victoria. I objected to the name being used, because the honorable member to whom it belonged had told me in a recent conversation that he was in favour of the duty upon tea, and another pair was found. The Government Whip was certainly seeking a pair for theAttorneyGeneral, although, I accept the statement of the latter, and that he was within the precincts of the House. I could support my statement as to the seeking for a pair by the testimony of other honorable members if I chose to bring them into the question, but I do not feel justified in doing so. I am quite satisfied to leave the matter where it is, and stop at the statement of facts within my own knowledge.

Mr AUSTIN CHAPMAN:
EDEN-MONARO, NEW SOUTH WALES

– With reference to the statements made by the AttorneyGeneral and the honorable member for North Sydney, the fact that the division alluded to was taken nearly twelve months ago makes it impossible for anyone to be very clear as to what members were or were not within the precincts of the House at the time.

Mr SPEAKER:

– It is impossible to allow a debate to take place upon a personal explanation. The Attorney- General was within his rights in making such an explanation, but I am not sure that the honorable member for North Sydney was in order in following him, and I am certain that the honorable member for EdenMonaro will not be in order in proceeding to discuss the matter further.

page 443

QUESTION

RELIEF TO THECROTTY MINERS

Mr O’MALLEY:
TASMANIA, TASMANIA

– In view of the fact that the Commonwealth Constitution is similar to that of the United States of America, and that the American Congress voted £200,000 for the relief of the victims of the Mount Pelee disaster, and that now at Crotty, in Tasmania, over 1,000 people are almost destitute because of the amalgamation of two mines there, will the Prime Minister place upon the Estimates the sum of £10,000 to assist those pioneers ?

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

– I am under the distinct impression that it is not within the power of the Commonwealth Parliament to vote money for such a purpose. The honorable member speaks in a good cause, and I shall give the matter further consideration ; but I hope that what I say now will not be supposed for one instant to be an intimation that I think that what he asks will be granted.

page 444

QUESTION

FEDERAL ELECTORAL ROLLS

Mr BROWN:
CANOBOLAS, NEW SOUTH WALES

– With reference to the alleged omissions from the Federal electoral rolls, I wish to ask the Minister for Home Affairs if he proposes to take steps to have the names of electors who are said to have be’iii left off enrolled prior to the boundaries of the State divisions being finally decided upon ?

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

– I have already taken what action is possible. The lists of names - which are really the rolls - have been printed in New South Wales, and I hope to have them exhibited at every postoflice in the State within the next day or two. I believe that they are to be sent out to-day or to-morrow. I have also inserted notices in the press, pointing out the discrepancies to which the honorable member alludes, and asking electors to inspect the rolls and to send in their names to the otticer in Sydney if they’ find that they have been omitted.

page 444

QUESTION

GENERAL ELECTIONS

Mr POYNTON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Will the Prime Minister indicate to the House what measures lie considers are of such importance as to warrant the prolongation of the session until such a time as will make it impossible to hold the elections to this House and to the Senate upon the same day ?

Sir EDMUND BARTON:
Protectionist

-In all courtesy to the honorable member, I do not feel called upon to make a Ministerial explanation on the subject at this stage. “There will be a proper occasion for a Ministerial explanation as to the- course of business.

page 444

QUESTION

ELECTORAL ACT AMENDMENT

Mr McDONALD:
KENNEDY, QUEENSLAND

– Have the Government decided whether they will introduce a Bill to amend that provision of the Electoral Act which prevents State members from contesting federal seats ?

Sir EDMUND BARTON:
Protectionist

– Steps were taken in some of the Parliaments of’ the States to prevent federal members from seeking election to the State Parliament, and when the Electoral Bill was before this House a provision was inserted in it making State members ineligible as candidates for the Federal Legislature. The whole matter involves a wide question of policy, and I am not at present prepared to say that the Government will consent to any amendment in the law, but the matterwill be taken into consideration at an early date.

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

– And heads counted.

Sir EDMUND BARTON:

– No. Tocount heads is the peculiar province of theOpposition.

page 444

QUESTION

PERMANENT STANDING ORDERS

Mr CONROY:
WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES

-I wish to ask thePrime Minister when the adoption of thenew standing orders, prepared last session, is likelv to be moved ?

Sir EDMUND BARTON:
Protectionist

– I have notdiscovered any such great difference between the standing orders provisionallyadopted and those which have been prepared by the Standing Orders Committee - although the latter are, in some respects, an improvement on the former - as will warrant me in a session like the present, in . taking up the time that I can see would be occupied in their discussion by putting them before honorable members.

page 444

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH POSTAGE STAMP

Mr CLARKE:
COWPER, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice - 1: Whether the Government has vyt considered the desirability of introducing an uniform Commonwealth postage stamp.

If so, what is the result of such deliberations.
If not, will lie consider the matter us soon, as possible.

Sin EDMUND BARTON.- The answers to the honorable member’s questions are as follow : -

Yes, so far as the Commonwealth postage stamp can be made uniform during the book keeping period. (2&3) A decision will shortly be arrived at and made public.

page 444

QUESTION

RIFLE CLUB REGULATIONS

Mr FISHER:
WIDE BAY, QUEENSLAND

asked the Minister of Defence, upon notice -

When the new regulations re rifle clubs are likely to be issued ?
Whether any of the new rifles are to be issued to rifle clubs ?
Whether it is his intention to increase the price of ammunition to members of rifle clubs ?
Why it is that requisitions for passes over Queensland railways may not be signed by the nearest Defence Force officer, as was the case prior to federation ?

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

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

. At an early date.
Yes, when available.
Not at present.
Inquiry is being made into the matter.

page 445

QUESTION

GOVERNOR-GENERAL’S SPEECH : ADDRESS IN REPLY

Debate resumed from 2nd June (vide page 384), on motion by Mr. L. E. Groom -

That the following address in reply to the Governor-General’s opening speech be now adopted : -

May it Pleaseyour Excellency -

We, the House of Representatives of the Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia in Parliament assembled, beg to express our loyalty to our Most Gracious Sovereign, and to thank Yonr Excellency for the speech which you have been pleased to address to Parliament.

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

– I should have been very willing under ordinary circumstances to co-operate with other honorable members in saving the time of Parliament by curtailing this debate, even to the extent of refraining from making any observations, were it not that I feel that although the leader of the Opposition has not tabled any motion in the nature of challenge to the Government, I could not, in view of my duty to my constituents and in self-respect to myself, forego making certain observations upon the administration of the Government since the conclusion of last session, and upon the Ministerial programme contained in the speech of the Governor-General. I feel sure that every one who heard the speech delivered last night by the honorable member for Wentworth must feel that the most serious and most damning case was made out against the Minister for Trade and Customs as. the direct administrator of his department, and against the Government as a whole. Ministers have not denied the challenge of the honorable member that they have all individually taken exception to their colleague’s administration, and yet have allowed him to continue in his control of the Customs, to the detriment and discredit of the Commonwealth’. Any one who reads that speech must admit that the Ministry stand committed for trial before the bar of public opinion. I desire in the first place to deal with one or two questions of administration, and I shall afterwards direct my attention briefly to the programme put forward by the Government. In the first place it is to be noted that when Parliament prorogued the Prime Minister had not returned from England. It will be recollected that a number of honorable members of the Opposition, myself in particular, had taken most marked exception to what I have never had any hesitation in characterizing as an immoral breach of political obligation on the part of the Prime Minister in connexion with his Maitland manifesto. I do not wish to go over the old ground again, although some honorable members on this side of the House have thought it desirable, but I desire to repeat my belief that quite outside of the tactics of politics, for which I am prepared after twenty years of political experience to make great allowances, the Prime Minister has by his action forfeited all claim to respect. Great as was my admiration for the Prime Minister, and willing as I was to stand by him and help him to consummate the great scheme of federation, I say now,’ and I shall say to the end of the chapter, that he went right beyond the bounds of political allowance with regard to party movements, and committed a great moral delinquency in deceiving the people of New South Wales in regard to the Tariff. It is all very well to say that the fiscal question should not be raised in New South Wales to-day. I admit that if the Maitland manifesto had been carried out in its letter and spirit, we, as a party, would have no right to disturb the commercial and industrial affairs of the Commonwealth by again bringing that question before the people ; but when we can prove out of the mouth of a member of the Government, that the Maitland manifesto was intended as, and was taken to be, an assurance to the people of Australia - because Maitland was, so to speak, the Mount Sinai of the Commonwealth - that the fiscal question was not to be raised, and that, therefore, it ought to be put aside as irrelevant to the election, the charge goes home in such a way that it cannot be refuted. I need only refer to the statements reiterated by the VicePresident of the Executive Council that we ought not to allow the wretched fiscal issue to enter into our consideration, but choose the best men, not from the fiscal point of view, but in every other sense of the word to take part in the great and responsible work of carrying on the business of the Commonwealth. If further proof were wanted of the impression that was created by the Prime Minister’s speech, is it not contained in the memorable event which took place in this Chamber when the honorable member for Kooyong, the honorable member for the Grampians, and the honorable member for Flinders, who were intimate friends of the Government and sat on the Government benches, speaking in pathetic terms, told us that they had been deceived by the Prime Minister and the Government, and that, in order to put their protest into the most definite and dramatic form, they would cross the House- and sit in opposition ? Does it need any torrent of language to bring the position home to the minds of the public? I started upon my federal career with a fixed determination to help in the carrying through of the great work of federation, but when, after believing for years in the high ideals which the Prime Minister, above all men in Australia, had put before the public as to our future national life; I find him. stooping down from. his pedestal of perfection to act the groundling in political life, how can I repose any further confidence in him ? I shall continue to lose confidence in him. I have watched to see how far he has realized his own high standard of political idealism. The Prime Minister proceeded to Great Britain as a kind of emissary from the Australian people, to represent them at what may be looked upon as an initial form of Imperial Council, which may in future years determine the destinies of the Empire, of which we are a part. I watched to see how far he would show himself fit to occupy that high position. We all remember - and it has a bearing upon our present day politics - readinghis utterances as reported in the English newspapers from time to time. It has been claimed as a subject for credit that he spoke frequently at great functions, and that he never in the whole course of his circuit of representation committed Australia to a single opinion. I submit that this reflects no great credit upon him, because, although he was not authorized to commit this Parliament to any particular measure touching the interests of the Empire or the Commonwealth, he had full authority to express his own opinion as to what ought to be done. We find, however, that from first to last there was a series of swollen speeches, speeches full of swollen Imperialism, regarding what oughtto.be done in the interests of the Empire, in absolute forgetfulness of thefact that the policy of his own Government was calculated to completely undermine theunion of the Empire. What could one think ?’ I was reminded of the process adopted by some enterprising butchers when they wantto sell veal. They blow it out for exhibition in their shop windows. That seemsto me to afford a forcible illustration of the kind of utterance we had from theright honorable gentleman. His speeches; were redolent of Imperialism of the most swollen character, as if he had not a thoughtfor that insignificant corner of the worldcalled Australia. The Empire was to beeverything, and yet the right honorable gentleman had brought forward a programme under which the subjects of hisown King were absolutely barred from passing from one part of the Empire to another. Afterwards we’ find him actually stooping, in deference to the socialisticparty in this country, to shut out for days together men of his own flesh and bloodcoming from the very country in which these swollen utterances of his were delivered. We are told that under the provisions of the ImmigrationRestriction Act the Prime Minister’shands were tied, but the section whichit is said prevented him from exercising a discretion, and which should nothave been passed, was accepted in the most mild and meek manner by the AttorneyGeneral without reference to the Government, because the honorable member for Bland had suggested it.

Mr Kingston:

– Was the honorable and learned member in the’ House at thattime ?

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

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

– I now pass to the Government programme contained in the speech of His Excellency. My first observation is that the speech, in its very opening,, contains a remark of a very prominent character, which I say is unjust towards the free-traders of Australia. The paragraph of His Excellency’s speech to which I refer begins thus -

It was found impossible, by reason of the exhaustive discussion of the Federal Tariff, to deal with any but the most urgent of the proposals then brought before you, and renewed demands must now be made ou your industry and patriotism before the Commonwealth machinery can be deemed complete.

– Within the last few months, a very valuable commission, composed of 23 trades unionists, was sent from England to the United States to ascertain how far and in what respects the conditions of the workmen of the United States differed from those of the workmen of Great Britain. In an edition of the Times issued a few weeks ago, there is a most interesting summary of the evidence taken, and of the report of the commission, under the heading “ Relations between Employer and Employe - Boards of Conciliation.” A Mr. Mosely was charged with the conduct of the commission.

Mr O’Malley:

– He paid its expenses.

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

– Yes, and he is regarded by the Times as a most able and competent guide for the 23 trades unionists, who were selected as representatives of the more important industries of Great Britain. They were taken in November and December of last year on a tour of the United States, that they might have an opportunity to see for themselves something of American industrial methods, and of the relations between capital and labour in America. In a two-page SUmmary of the result of that commission, published by the London Times, I do not find a word about compulsory arbitration. There are, however, some very significant remarks, which show that the’ United States workmen assume towards employers of labour an attitude entirely different from that taken by the working classes of Australia. One of the delegates says -

There was a time in om- trades union movement when a jingo spirit was dominant. Saner methods now prevail.

I would commend that to the working men of this country. The 23 trade unionists who formed the commission must have had a distinct bias in favour of the working classes, but we find this very significant statement by Mr. Mosely -

In many trades a joint committee of employers and employes meet periodically to settle rates for piece-work by mutual consent, and if such an arrangement were adopted all round I am sure it would be found beneficial : and this is * what is practically done in all American industries.

Mr. Cox, one of the members of the commission, remarks -

In wages disputes and the relations between employers and workmen’s organizations they have much to learn from us. It would be helpful if a committee of the leading trades’ union leaders were to come over and make a personal investigation into our trade union method5! and their relationship with the employer sections. There was a time in our own trade union movements when the jingo spirit was dominant. Saner methods now prevail, and a strike over a wage question is the exception rather than the rule.

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

-Its members wished the system to be extended to other States, not because of its beneficence, but because they had to tolerate its effects in artificially raising wages. If the result of such legislation in Western Australia is to artificially raise wages, thereby placing the employers of that State in an unfair position, what would be the effect of similar legislation upon Australia in its relations with the outside world?

Mr Fowler:

– There are distinct signs of progress in Western Australia.

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

– But it is still problematical whether that State will retain the capital which has hitherto been invested there. When we remember that this question is undoubtedly in its experimental stage, we ought to pause. I find that the New. Zealand correspondent of The Times, in a letter which is referred to in a leading article, says -

Meantime it is patent to any impartial observer that there is a considerable amount of dissatisfaction with the working of the Arbitration Act, and once more the question may be asked - “If these things ‘are done in the green tree, what may be expected in the dry ?”

Although I arn not prepared to commit myself to any definite statement as to the ultimate effect of this measure, the fact that it would practically compel the individual who provides the capital for any industry to submit the management of his business to aboard, whose members have no sympathy with him, induces the conclusion that if the proposed legislation be enacted capital will cease to How into the country in the way that it has done, and much that is already here will depart. I heard of a little incident the other day in regard to Victoria which is worth repeating, especially as I can vouch for its truth. A representative of the company which manufactures such splendid woollen goods in New Zealand visited this State soon after the Tariff was passed. He had authority to look around Victoria, and ascertain if it were possible to embark £100,000 in a similar industry here. Whilst here his attention was directed to the existence of wages boards, which are equivalent to the Arbitration Court of New Zealand. A fortnight after commencing his inquiries, in reply to a question put by a friend, he used this impolite language - “Not one damned copper will be sunk in the industry in this State.”

Mr Mauger:

– Yet he has to submit to an Arbitration Court in New Zealand.

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

– That is so ; but whether the £100,000 will be invested in New Zealand I do not know. I repeat that honorable members ought to pause before attempting to extend this system to the whole of Australia. I know that the intention is to make it applicable only to industrial disputes extending beyond the limits of any ohe State : but I hold that we might well defer the consideration of it until we ascertain whether the operation of similar measures in New Zealand, New South Wales, and Western Australia can be regarded as a success. Passing from that question, I come to that of the Inter-State Commission Bill. Most honorable members must be surprised to learn that, notwithstanding all the protests made by the Government regarding the sufficiency of the Bill submitted to Parliament last session, they have tardily admitted that it was wrongly conceived in that its provisions were made applicable to oceangoing steamers. They now confess that it was wrong to attempt a sort of inquisition into the financial arrangements of the different companies whose steamers ply between other countries and Australia. The objectionable provisions referred to have now been eliminated from the Bill. In this connexion I feel somewhat complimented that a little production of my own. which was republished by theShipping Federation of Australia, pointed out the enormity of those proposals. The idea that, in order to guarantee the equitableadjustment of freights between the different. States, we should have arrogated to ourselves the right to control such great companies as theMessageries Maritimes, the P. and O., and Orient, and to pry into the whole of their financial conditions, was a preposterous one. Those provisions have now been. abolished, and the measure, I apprehend, will comeforward in a somewhat .similar form to that adopted in the United States. No one can question the wisdom of seeing that no meansof carriage between one State and another is allowed to exist which would have theeffect of neutralizing that absolute freetrade which we wish to establish. If the* Bill, when it is submitted, is true to the principles which I have indicated, instead of opposing it, I shall do my best to assist the Government in passing it into law. At. this stage I do not wish to deal with the question of preferential trade. 1 have commented upon the fact that the Prime Minister had promised to submit some proposals to us in this connexion. I think that they ought to have been submitted. The Ministry, however, having resolved to keep them back, I should have been very’ glad indeed, to have heard a speech upon the subject from the Prime Minister. My opinion isthat by adopting preferential trade relations with the mother country, instead of binding ourselves to it by means of stronger cords, we should have made use of a. mechanical contrivance which would have been irksome. The ties which bind us tothe mother country are those of blood, affection, and common interests, and theseconsiderations are more elastic than would be any written agreement at which we could arrive. Mr. Chamberlain’s attemptto introduce this system, however wise it may be upon high Imperial grounds, was quite premature as regards these States. AVe must remember that, so far, the Secretary of State has visited only what are practically Crown colonies, namely, the South African States. He has not had any experience of States like our own, where we have fiscal arrangements peculiar to ourselves, and which are not alterable at a moment’s notice. I suppose that he was not aware that under our Constitution we were bound during the next seven and a-half years to carry on all the work of the Commonwealth Government and to provide the States with sufficient revenue for the maintenance of many of their institutions through the Customs department. Had he realized that twelve months or more were occupied in enabling members of this Parliament to agree to a so-called fair fiscal compromise, he would have understood the practical impossibility of the people of the Commonwealth re-opening the Tariff question at a moment’s notice with the idea of settling it in two different columns - one for the British people, and one for foreign countries. I hold that the electors of Australia are too busy to rise to these great Imperial considerations at the present day. The change must come in a settled community, where there is a large majority of people of leisure. Then local affairs can for a moment be put aside, and great Imperial aspirations can be looked into and considered. To suppose that we can shut our eyes to the necessities that arise out of the Braddon clause ; that we can sit down at a moment’s notice and settle our Tariff in a double column to suit the British Empire on the one hand and foreign countries on the other : to assume that we expect Great Britain to change her fiscal policy and tax the whole of her foods to realize this aspiration, is ridiculous. I formed theopinion days and weeks ago, and I hold that opinion to-day, that the primary purpose of this proposal was that Mr. Chamberlain might offer a menace to the people of countries like Germany,, who are trifling with the British people in regard to their Tariffs, and, secondly, that there should be a political move in anticipation of the next general election. When we see the lande.l classes of England offered a sop in the shape of protective duties on foods, which means an enhanced, value to their lands, and the working’ classes offered an unconditional old-age pensions scheme, we can readily believe that Mr. Chamberlain considers he has laid the bait for the two great extremes of British society, and that he deems them sufficient to secure the success of the present Government at the next general election, which we may depend would have come much sooner if the bait had been taken, and if the people had responded to the call made on them. The scheme of Mr. Chamberlain is impracticable, and the Prime Minister of the Commonwealth and his Government think so. I am willing to indorse that view of the Government, but at the same time I think it is a great pity for Australia that the Prime Minister should have inspired a cablegram which seems to confirm the assurance he previously gave to Mr. Chamberlain that the people were with him, and that a sympathetic response might be relied on if the proposal were adopted by other parts of the British Empire. I have already said that the reference to the Inter-State railway to Western Australia is a part of the padding in the speech of His Excellency, and most honorable members will admit that I am right. I have seen the report of the gentlemen who visited Western Australia in connexion with this proposed railway, and I have spoken to some of theni ; but taking the report itself, what does it amount to ? Months ago, when discussing the question, I said that such a railway would cost £6,000,000 ; and the report shows that, although the gentlemen to whom I have referred have never been on the line of railway except as approaching it from the great Australian Bight, and although they know nothing of the later capabilities of the route - they do not know to-day whether water will be found on any part of the line of railway - they, without that knowledge, and after making what is necessarily a wild estimate of the possible trade across this great continent, estimate the cost at about £5,500,000. We all know what estimates are when they are made in the dark, and this estimate is confessedly made in the dark. On the face of it this is an interim report made on the most meagre and insufficient data. There has been no survey, but if the Government are sufficiently impressed with the preliminary report of the commission to justify a further report, and if. the further report is satisfactory, there may be entered on a survey which I am told, on good authority, will take years to make.

Mr Fowler:

– No.

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

– Such a survey would certainly take two or three years.

Mr Fowler:

– A couple of years.

Sir John Forrest:

– That depends on how many men are engaged on the survey.

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

– The Minister for Defence is a man for whom I have the most profound respect, but 1 am afraid he has what Emerson calls “an inflammation on his mind,” and it is this Inter-State railway. We all remember the drastic way in which the Minister for Defence threatened to break «p the Government and the Commonwealth if this railway were not constructed. That of course was done in the spirit of Gilbert and Sullivan, because we know that such a line is an impossibility.

– Western Australia will not forget the expression of opinion.

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

– I am sure that none of the honorable members for Western Australia regard the promise of the Government as a serious’ one. However glibly, with their tongues in their cheeks, they talk, to their constituents about the time when the great west shall become connected with the great east, they know in their hearts that such an undertaking is for future years. It is for that reason, I say, that the reference to the Inter-State railway is a piece of padding in the speech of His Excellency the Governor General. I do not want to go on at much greater length, but I should like to say a word about the mail contract. We are told that great companies like the P. and 0. and the Orient companies are to be compelled, if they are to retain their present subsidies, to change their black labour to white labour! I can quite understand, although I cannot altogether sympathize with the desire to keep Australia pure. That is an aspiration as to which I may keep my tongue in my cheek ; but for electioneering purposes it is a very fine cry. We have now measures designed to preserve a white Australia, and I hope we shall be all the better for our racial purity ; but it is proposed to take a step further in a direction which no man can call practical. It is ridiculous for us to say - “ We are . not content to keep Australia free - not only from alien races, but from our fellow subjects in other parts of the Empire - we must also insist on our shores not being contaminated by a steamer with black men aboard.” Is that not a most degrading sop to the wildest socialism of Australia 1 Why do we not say that we will not use anything touched by black hands 1 Why not, just as Mahomedans do in regard to Christians, refuse to touch a plate from which an alien has eaten 1 Why not go to these wild extremes ? These great steamship lines do not depend on Australia for their great profits.

Mr Thomas:

– Does Australia depend on them ?

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

– No ; but we must depend on somebody to run our mails, and it is a question whether this cry for racial purity is going to be carried to such an extent that we shall be compelled to pay £200,000 or £300,000, or perhaps only £100,000, more in order to prevent any steamer coming to our ports with black men in the forecastle.

Sir William McMillan:

– This matter does not affect our racial purity.

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

– The law was not passed on the ground of racial purity.

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

– On what ground was it passed ?

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

– On the ground of getting British ships manned by British seamen.

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

– Are British ships now manned by British men ? If the honorable member for South Sydney will look up any recognised authority, lie will find that a large proportion of the mercantile marine of England is manned by Germans, Danes, Swedes, Norwegians, and Scandinavians generally. That only shows that the British” ship-owner lias to run his ships on the most economical lines in competition with those of other countries. It means thatthegreat national asset of England, her mercantile shipping, of which we are never tired of boasting, must, if the conditions are unfair, go to the wall, and the marines of other countries be allowed to dominate us.

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

– White labour on these vessels is advocated by some of the most influential newspapers in England.

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

– That may be so, but I do not think m’uch of the advocacy of newspapers ; it is usually coloured by subscribers and the editors’ motives.

Mr Kingston:

– And by advertisements.

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

– And by advertisements. The success of the merchant shipping of England depends on its being able to compete with other countries, and carry on its work with a moderate profit. We know that if instead of using foreign sailors, who seem to suit better and do the work for less wages, ship-owners were compelled to take Englishmen at higher rates of pay, it would mean that on one side of the balance-sheet there would be a much larger debit than there is at present. That increased debit must mean that the ship-owners cannot compete with . foreign ship-owners, and that the latter must finally dominate the shipping interests of the world. Do we want that? Is our desire to avoid contamination and to see ships manned wholly by white men so strong that we are prepared to pay £100,000 or £200,000 a year more to the mail steamers ? Are we satisfied to see English shipping go to the wall in competition with theshippingof other countries ? Are we satisfied toseethecarryingtradeinthe hands of German and French steamers, which are subsidized to three or four times the extent of the P. and O. or Orient steamers ?

Mr Fowler:

– The German and French steamers are manned wholly by Germans, and Frenchmen.

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

– Very likely ; but I am talking of the business aspect of the question. Let ships be manned by pure Germans, pure Frenchmen, or pure Japanese; but it must be remembered they come here in competition with British ships. We propose now not only not to subsidize British shipping companies, but to place an incubus on them, and render their position more difficult than before. I may, of course, be wrong in the views I take. I know I am out of touch upon many of the great problems of the day with ninety-nine hundredths of honorablemembers, but this lean bear with the utmost good nature. 1 know that in many cases I beat the wind in this Chamber, and I sometimes feel like a child crying in the wilderness ; but I think I do sometimes strike a key-note which may send home an honorable member who will think that at least I mean what I say, and that there is, may be, some truth and genuineness in the suggestions I make.

– Under what authority is a temporary permit granted 1

Mr.KINGSTON.- Under the authority of the Immigration Restriction Act. I could not avoid laughing when the honorable and learned member for Parkes, who really ought to know all about history, because he looks so like it, sneered at Mr. Chamberlain, and asked - “What does he know, seeing that he has visited only Crown colonies “ ? Good gracious ! What about Cape Colony and Natal ? Are they merely Crown colonies ?

Mr Mahon:

– Their Constitutions are suspended so that the honorable and learned member was perfectly correct.

It then proceeds to particularize as follows -

That although the company s stock of refined sugar in their free store was seized and excise levied thereon, a larger quantity, the property of the Millaquin and Yengarie Sugar Company, and other white sugars, made and owned by . Gibson and Howes, H. E. and A. Young, the Nerang Central Sugar Mills, and Wood Brothers and Boyd, all at the time in the stock, custody and possession of the said manufacturers respectively, were not seized, but were permitted to be delivered free of of excise, such sugar amounting in all to over 9,000 tons, and liable therefore - if your petitioners’ stocks were rightly seized - to duty in the amount of £27,000 was allowed by an officer of Customs to be sold and distributed in the State of Queensland without the payment of excise which was levied on the stocks of your petitioners, and without, so far as your petitioners can ascertain, any inquiry by the Customs department as to the quantity ofsugar thus held, or the places in which such sugar was stored.

Mr KINGSTON:

– I have searched high and low for all the communications that itis possible to obtain in this connexion. I have a number of them here, and I think I shall be able to show enough of them tosatisfy honorable members generally. Thesting of the petition is to be found in theallegation that certain men have been singled out for special treatment. Nothing of thesort. All have -been treated alike. As I was saying, the Acting Comptroller-General, wired -

Colonial SugarRefining Company have petitioned Governor-General re excise on sugarcharged on stocks of raw and refined sugar manufactured and purchased by company before dateof introduction of Tariff, and held by company in Queensland in free stores, which were not subjectto customs or excise control prior to introduction of Tariff. Petition sets out that while thecompany’s stocks were charged excise, the stocks: of sugar in breweries and other excise factories mentioned in the Excise Act were not charged excise. Petition further alleges that a large quantity of sugar, the property of Millaquin and Yengarie Company, and other white sugar owned by Gibson and Howes, H. E. and A. Yuung, the Nerang Central Mill, and Wood Bros, and Boyd, all the time in their stock , custody, and possession on the introduction of the Tariff, was not charged excise, but was delivered free. Petition states this sugar amounted to over nine thousand tons. Minister desires immediately full report as to these allegations, especially re that of discrimination between the mills, which he cannot believe has occurred.

The following reply was sent by Mr.

Irving: -

Brisbane, 20th Septembsr, 1902. Sir, - I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your wire of the Kith instant re the petition of the Colonial Sugar Refining Company to the Governor-General, and the Minister’s instructions for a full report upon, the allegations, and especially that of discrimination between the mills.

“That while the company’s stocks were charged excise, the stocks of susrar in breweries and other excise factories mentioned in the Excise Act were not charged excise.”

In reply to the above I have to state that, on the receipt of a confidential wire dated 3rd October, 1901, from the Comptroller-General, viz., “ Act as if excise duty will be collected on sugar from 9th instant, and see necessary arrangements for officers taking stock, &c, are made. “

Officers were instructed accordingly on the 8th October, and the stocks of sugar were taken in all factory and refinery premises in the State on the morning of the 9th idem.

Do honorable members see what that means ? Just fancy an officer discriminating, or an instruction being given to treat one mill differently from another ! Show me the man who ever dreamt of such a thing and you” show me a dishonest man. The com- municationcontinues–

– I am now giving the results of an inquiry ; at any rate this matter has been inquired into time and again. The question was fought out in the Senate, as the papers in my possession prove, in June, 1902, almost a year ago. The following question was asked in the Senate : -

Whether it is true, as alleged by the Colonial Sugar Befining Company, that no excise duty was levied on large quantities of sugar in stock, enstody, or possession of, or belonging to, the manufacturers thereof, and stored in their premises at Bundaberg and Brisbane, on the Sth October last, while the sugar in the possession of the said company was made liable to the excise duty paid on the above date.
If so, what was the reason for such differential treatment.

The reply was -

– I have the date here, and I should like to show the malign ity, with which’ this complaint has been pursued. Any honorable member, I do not care’ on which side of the House, would resent an accusation of the character which has been made against my administration. On the loth of May last year an honorable member of another place asked why one particular company should be singled out, while every other company and importer escaped. Is that allegation borne out by the facts and figures I ha ve to-night laid before honorable members 1 The Collector of Customs in Queensland was brought down to Melbourne, in order that this matter might be fully explained. Senator Millen in his place said -

Duty was not collected on similar sugar which was held in Queensland by the Millaquin and Yengarie Com puny - which, I understand, is really the Queensland National Bank - H. E. and A. Young, Gibson and Howes, and by Woods Bros, and Boyd. These people I understand held between them 8,000 tons, and while that quantity was allowed to go free of excise duty, a quantity of 2,584 tons, held by the Colonial Sugar Company, was charged duty.

Further on, Senatpr Millen said -

In the absence of a specific denial of my statement, I venture to say that even Senator O’Connor will not attempt to defend an act of administration which shows snch partiality or discrimination,

Senator O’Connor. There was no duty levied on sugar in stores, but the sugar in all factories and refineries were levied on.

Senator MILLEN. Of course a great deal depends on what is the definition of a store. In this particular case, a duty was levied on goods which were in a store, and not in a bond at all.

Senator O’Connor. I draw no distinction between stores and factories. Sugar in stores not connected with factories or refineries was allowed to go free.

What more explanation is wanted than that - given a year ago ? Senator O’Connor also said -

But at the same time the Sugar Company are not entitled to be placed in a different position from any other body, or corporation, or individuals, and I propose to deal with the subject simply as if it were an individual who thought he had a right to some redress for some injury.

This is what he also said during the discussion of the Bill in the Senate : -

We must take it that under constitutional usage sugar on the 8th October was an excisable article. Therefore, subject to this law, and according to the exact letter of the law, sugar, wherever it was, and could have been followed, no matter whether it was in private houses, or warehouses, or stores. That, in the first place, was unnecessary. It was also unworkable and impracticable to carry it out with any sort of fairness. A line, therefore, had to be drawn for the protection of the revenue.

The matter was thoroughly fought out when the 2nd clause of the 5th section of the Excise Tariff Bill was before the Senate, and honorable members know that the intention of the Government was carried into effect.

Mr Thomson:

– The Act speaks of the stock or “in possession.”

Mr KINGSTON:

– Yes ; but that was not the original provision on the Sth October, 1901 . We had not then formulated precisely what we were going to do ; but we adopted an easily explainable and just rule as to seizure. To continue the quotation from Mr. Irving’s letter from which I was reading -

These sugars were all’ placed under Customs control on the morning of the 9th October, and on being delivered for home consumption, were charged excise duty.

None of the sugar we seized, including the 6,000 tons belonging to the Colonial Sugar Refining Company, went into consumption until the duty was paid.

Mr Thomson:

– Was any sugar seized on board ships ?

Mr KINGSTON:

– I do not think so. Mr. Irving proceeds -

With regard to stocks of sugar in breweries and distilleries on Sth October, these were not taken, as no intimation had been received to that effect, and no copy of the Excise Tariff Act was received here until 1st July, 1902, which was wired for to Melbourne by the Comptroller-General when here.

I took the opinion of the Attorney-General as to the true interpretation of the Excise Act in regard to the durability of sugar in a brewery, because I wanted to know the best way to recover any amount for which it was liable. The Act imposes duties of excise upon -

All goods dutiable under the schedule . . . in the stock, custody, or possession of, or belonging to, any brewer, distiller, manufacturer, or renner thereof.

If the word “thereof” were not in the section, I take it that sugar in possession of a brewer would be dutiable, but it apparently refers to the whole group of excisable articles, so that the section seems to speak of beer in the possession of a brewer, tobacco in the possession of a manufacturer, spirits in the possession of a distillery and sugar in the possession of a factory or refinery. That is the way in which we have administered it. Mr. Irving goes on -

In my wire to you of 24th July, 1902, it was stated that the breweries held 219 tons 16 Cwt,

We would have levied the duty if we had been entitled to it. He continues -

My letter of 26th August brings this under your notice in connexion with the Excise Tariff Act, and asks for instructions. There was no sugar in the distilleries on Sth October, molasses only being used by spirit-makers in this State.

Mr. Irving then deals with the following statement : -

“That a largo quantity of sugar, amounting to over 9,000 tons, thB property of Millaquin and Yengarie Sugar Company, and other ‘ white ‘ sugars owned by Gibson and Howes, A. H. and E. Young, the Nerang Central Mill, and Wood Bros, and Boyd, all the time in their stock, custody, and possession, on the introduction of the Tariff, was not charged excise, but was delivered free.”

In reply, he says -

I have to state that all sugars found in the factories or factory premises of the persons referred to by the Colonial Sugar Refining Company, was taken possession of on the morning of 9th October, and found to be as follows : -

None of this sugar was delivered free of Excise duty ; no discrimination was made between any sugar factories and refineries.

No one reading the petition, and particularly the references which contrast the attitude adopted towards the Colonial Sugar Refining Company, with the way in which these sixty other people were treated would believe for a moment that they were treated as this letter shows, all in the same way and in the only reasonable way in which they could have been treated. No doubt a considerable quantity of sugar got into consumption before the Sth of October.

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

– What does the right honorable member mean by “consumption “ 1

Mr KINGSTON:

– It was sold, or got to places where it would not be worth while to follow it, It was not in any factory.

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

– The right honorable member does not refer to sugar in a store?

Mr KINGSTON:

– I would not hesitate to charge duty upon sugar stored by a manufacturer. If the sugar crop in Queensland in that year was 120,000 tons - though I do not think it was so much - would it not have- been only natural that at least 20,000 tons would have got into consumption by the Sth October. My officials have gone thoroughly into the matter, and we cannot find that more than 15,000 tons had got into consumption by that time, though we can account for pretty well the whole of the crop for that year. Mr. Irving continues -

With regard to the quantity of over 9,000 tons of sugar said to be in the possession of the persons named on the introduction of the Tariff, and delivered. free of duty, a large quantity of sugar, estimated to be 16,000 tons (see my wire of 17th instant), had been removed from the factories, and was stored in merchants1 premises and other places, not being factory premises, throughout the State ; but the department has no knowledge to whom it belonged. This sugar was not taken possession of on the 9th October, and in connexion therewith I beg to refer you to the following wires between the Comptroller-General and myself : -

Of course, directly I heard the suggestion that there had been discrimination, I gave instructions that a full inquiry should be made. This is the first telegram, which was sent by the Comptroller-General from Sydney, on 28th October, 1901 :-

Stated that some persons have large stocks of sugar which are escaping Excise whereas Colonial Sugar Company are charged. Is this so ? There ought to be no distinction. Reply to Melbourne.

To that telegram Mr Irving sent the following reply : - ife sugar stocks removed from mills prior to 9th instant, and stored warehouses, wharfs, &c, have not been treated as liable to Excise. Sse your wires of 9th and 10th instant. Colonial Sugar Company had large stocks in their refinery, which have been detained in common with stocks in other factories. See also my letter 22nd October, 1901, re Gibson’s applications.

Mr Thomson:

– It was not all actually in the refinery, but in the premises adjoining.

Mr KINGSTON:

– The Excise Act gives this very wide definition of a factory :- “ Factory “ means the premises on which any person is licensed to manufacture excisable goods, and includes all adjoining premises used in connexion therewith or with the business of the manufacturer.

– As the honorable member for Perth points out, the old doubts at this particular moment have all been dissipated, but to prevent their return I should like to place on record the facts. When I spoke of the’ Tasmanian case I was by no means attempting to impugn the honour of an)’ person or firm, but I did not hesitate to point out that I was justified in saying that the revenue was “ got at.” There was immediately an attempt made to scout the idea on account of the respectability of the firm, a respectability which to all outward intent I was content to admit. I referred to Robert Reid and Co. as a firm held in as high honour as any, but I was justifying their being tackled, when the necessities of the case appeared to require it, as I hope I shall always do, whatever firms, big or little, may be involved. Speaking on that occasion, I said -

What happened ‘! A declaration was made as regards about £16 worth of goods that were intended to be sent to Tasmania, that they consisted of ±’3 worth of imported material, and that the added value given to them by the Victorian manufacturer was .-£13. That was not true.

Mr Thomson:

– There was only fis. difference.

Mr KINGSTON:

– We may “regard the tradebetween Victoria and Tasmania as of a retail character, and our attention was called to this case because it was found than Tasmanian merchants were being “got at,” owing to their beingdeprived of the protection to which they wereentitled under the Constitution.

Sir William McMillan:

– Does the Minister mean that Messrs. Reid and Co. deliberately did this?

Mr KINGSTON:

– I mean to say that they did “get at” the Tasmanian merchants, whetherthey intended to or not.

Sir William McMillan:

– That is absurd.

Mr Thomson:

– If that is the view the Ministertakes, it shows where the trouble comes from.

If that is not attacking me for suggesting that this firm was capable of “getting at” the revenue, I do not know what it is. I do not believe that that criticism would be indulged in to-day, when I feel still further justified in the action which I then took. On that same occasion I called attention to the reports of the Tasmanian State-collector, Mr. Barnard, who stated -

If the quantities and values taken out by the experts here are correct - with regard to the item on the attached copy of certificate - it would show that gome of these certificates are totally unreliable ; and in the interests of this State some -action should be taken against those persons who make these declarations falsely. Otherwise the revenue of this State must be seriously affected.

Sir William McMillan:

– What does he mean by “falsely!” Knowing them to be false?

Mr.KINGSTON. - I will read what Mr. Barnard said -

In the case in point, the dutiable material from which the cotton apparel is stated to hare been manufactured, is declared to on the certificate as of value£32s.11d., and the cost of manufacture at £1311s., whereas the experts here agree that the material used cannot be of less value than £618s6d., taking the value at bare American cost, thus defrauding the revenue of the duty on £3 15s. 7d., plus 10 per cent.

– Honour is not rubbish, and an oath is not rubbish, and every entry which requires’ an oath involves a man’s honour.

The leakage in the Customs revenue from softgoods alone during the past three years has been fully equal to halt the amount of the existing deficit - namely, over ?250,000. And Mr. Stewart asks - “Can we assume that other trades are honest, if this sort of thing goes on in the drapery trade? “

specially refer to the gentleman who introduced the deputation, because I feel sure that he is absolutely public spirited. It is very pleasant to have to do with a gentleman who not only speaks boldly, but gives every assistance to the Customs. It cannot be doubted that the members of the deputation were in a position to know what was going on, and to give reliable information. Some honorable member asked me a question regarding this matter, which was also mentioned in the Queensland Parliament in the following manner : -

Mr. Macartney asked the Treasurer

Has he seen a statement referring to an alleged leakage in Customs revenue attributed to Mr. Alexander Stewart (of Messrs. Stewart and Hemmant) ?
1. Is there, in his opinion, any foundation for such statement in fact ?
2. Has any action been taken in the matter? Mr. Cribb replied : - 1. Yes. 2. Yes. 3. The alleged leakage in Customs revenue was brought under the notice of the Treasurer on 7th June last. Steps are being taken to prevent such leakage.

I communicated with Mr. Cribb on the subject, and he replied on Sth Augustas follows : -

I have the honour to inform yon that in the month of .lune a deputation of Brisbane merchants waited on me, stating that they had good reason to believe that considerable leakage occurred in the Customs revenue of this State. It has been the practice here to allow firms conducting business in other States with branches in Brisbane to pass import entries at English or foreign cost, plus 10 per cent., but it was represented that the invoices presented with “the entries did not always show the true English or foreign cost, and that clue care was not exercised to see that they did so. *This** privilege of passing entries at 10 per cent, on English or foreign cost was not intended to apply to houses which do not keep stocks in this State, but simply sell through agents on samples. The deputation further alleged that some firms were in the habit of passing entries for goods which were not properly defined in the declaration. For instance, under the head of 1 ‘ Pins,” which for use in apparel are free, hair-pins, curling-pins, &c, are included ; and saddlery buckles, which are free, are made to cover many varieties of buckles. There appears to be substantial grounds for the statements made by the deputation, and when the new Tariff comes into force there may be further inducements for unscrupulous traders to attempt to pass goods from State to State without payment of duty. I am desirous that all reasonable care should be taken that the revenue of the State should not suffer, as well as that merchants who conduct their business in a fair and legitimate manner should not be placed at a disadvantage , and I should be glad if you would give this matter your attention, and issue instructions which will insure close scrutiny of invoices, and more frequent examination of goods iri this State, with a view to preventing the abuses complained of and protecting the revenue.

At the instance of a committee of merchants in Queensland, the powers of the Commonwealth were invoked for the purpose of preventing abuses, which were stated to be of a very grave character, and this circumstance added strength to the information of which we subsequently became possessed, and confirmed us in every action. Inactivity in such a case would have been a grave offence, and I am determined that such a charge shall not lie at my door. I said a little time ago that I was not requiring information which was not within the complete control of the merchants themselves. I -am not troubling merchants with regard to the classification of goods for duty. I do not care what mistake they make with regard to the duties. There may be cases in which it is difficult to sa)’ to what particular duty goods are properly subject, but what I have said time and again is - “Give me the nature of the goods, give me their value, give me proper invoices, and you need! fear nothing- you will not be prosecuted.”

Mr Thomson:

– Does not the Minister know that a great many prosecutions have been instituted after such information hasbeen given 1

Mr KINGSTON:

– No, I know to thecontrary, and I am going to prove it. This is what the Sydney merchants asked foiwhen I last saw them, and when I pointed out that they had it already they were delighted. Possibly mistakes have been made,, but they have certainly not been justified by the facts. In cases where £90 was. involved, it has been represented that only £3- was in question, and I have given an instance in which certain things were represented as having happened to more than oneindividual when there was only a solitary case. I do not suggest anything beyond an honest mistake, but still it is annoying tohave matters misrepresented. I wrote tothe Sydney Chamber of Commerce on 27th June last, and said -

What precautions are usual and proper to betaken has long been settled by the practice of States situated in similar circumstances.

Two things are chiefly essential - a true description of the nature of the goods, and their value, supported by the production of the genuineinvoice identified by the importer’s declaration.

So long as the nature of the goods, and their value, &c. , are fairly stated so that the duty can be accurately assessed and the proper invoice te produced, no importer need. fear anything. Certainly he will not be prosecuted for any error ou a really doubtful matter of opinion.

Mr Thomson:

– They have been prosecuted.

Mr KINGSTON:

– I am not speaking without book. I know how exact my honorable friend is, and I am going to proveeverything up to the hilt. Instructionswere issued in September under my signature.

Mr Thomson:

– That is nearly twelvemonths after the Tariff was enforced.

Mr KINGSTON:

– In June I made thepromise to which I have referred, and by which my officers were bound, and on 2nd September I gave instructions which .wereput into formal circulation, although they had’ been previously acted upon. I could not go back upon a letter such as thatwritten by me to the Sydney Chamber of Commerce. This was my instruction -

As to entries, I do not wish prosecutionswhen the nature and value of the goods are fairly disclosed in the entry, so that acceptance of the- entry will not necessarily cause loss to the revenue - if the officer does his duty.
I specially desire that no errorof classification by the importer in the entry shall alone render him liable to penal consequence if he has in the entry disclosed the true nature of the goods so that they can well be identified for Tariff purposes by an officer familiar with the Tariff’.

What I say is that I ain entitled to two things - the invoice and the entry. The entry is an oath to which the importer swears. I say to him - “Let me have the invoice and entry, the nature of the goods and their value, and you may make as many mistakes as you choose regarding the duty andyou will not be punished.” That is the position which I take up. I want my officers to look after the duty, and not to rely too much upon the inexperienced classification by a merchant. We are more competent than he is to decide what duty should be imposed, but he is more competent to say what is the nature of the goods and their value. When he gives us that information, together with the true invoice, he need fear nothing. This is what was circulated with the memorandum by the Acting Comptroller-General, Mr. Lockyer, one of my most careful officers - a gentleman who has raised himself to his present position as collector in Sydney by high ability. What does he say? -

Herewith are enclosed for your guidance, directions by the Minister in regard to the dealing with misdescription of goods and errors of entry by importers and agents. A careful inspection of many of such cases which have, by direction, been submitted for the personal consideration of the Minister, has disclosed in many instances, to say the least, the most culpable carelessness in the presentation of the important particulars necessary for the protection of the revenue.

Here, I say, time and again I get the excuse of gross carelessness. I say to the merchants - “ Before you swear to any statement, employ some one who will not be ‘grossly careless. Protect the revenue, and honest and careful merchants.” The communication continues -

It . is possible that many of these errors are the result of the employment of incompetent and inexperienced clerks.

I believe that they are. But I hold that the offence is rather aggravated by the employment of boys or of men, often at very small salaries, to do work which they are not capable of satisfactorily performing. The Acting Comptroller-General continues - It is quite clear that in many instances the attention and care which are considered imperative in ordinary commercial transactions, have not been extended to and observed in dealing with the department. There is undoubted evidence in many cases of inexperience, want of care, and incompetence in the preparation of entries, which,, in the interests of the revenue, cannot possibly betolerated. It, therefore, now rests with you tosec that there is no lapse of vigilance on the part of the officers, or want of care and attention on the part of importers and agents in all that is. necessary for the furnishing of full and accurate information. . The entries should be clearly written and fully completed, the goods accurately and truthfully described, and due regard eiven tothe importance and very serious nature of the declaration subscribed.

An entry involves an oath. I think thatfact is too frequently forgotten. It is regarded merely as an idle form, judged by the want of attention given to its preparation, and the facility and recklessness with which it is sworn to.

The Minister particularly directs - “In all cases of false statements on entries sis to the value of goods against he revenue which might have been avoided by proper care by competentclerks, proceedings to be taken when more than £1 duty is involved, or irrespective of amount where the case is not the first against the same importers. The Comptroller-General may sanction any proceedings, irrespective of amount, in any case when the special circumstances appear to require it.

Mr Thomson:

– Does that apply to fixed duties ?

Mr KINGSTON:

– It applies to alL Even in the case of goods which are not delivered before they were weighed, there is no trouble. I have taken pains to inquire by telegram within the last ten dayswhether there has been any breach of the order to which I refer, and I have received an assurance from each of the State collectors that nothing of the sort has taken place. Under these circumstances, how does it lie in the mouths of those who suggest the contrary to justify their attacks? Let them bringforward one case which will justify them. Such a case has never occurred, and cannot have occurred, unless my collectors have Stated what , is not true : and I know that I am supported by an honorable staff which would not, cn any account, wrongly advise the Minister’s office. There I am content to let the matter rest. I am delighted tohave an opportunity of making this explanation. I have had other opportunities in various places, and at different times. Thelast one - and perhaps the one which I most enjoyed - -was at the interview which I had with a deputation of merchants at. that great centre, Sydney. What was the result of that interview, even according to- my severest critics ? One of those critics - the Sydney Morning Herald - which had prepared me for all sorts of dull and dreadful things, headed the report of the proceedings of the deputation - “ The Minister in a conciliatory mood” - I am always that - “Amicable .assurances on both sides.” At first there was a little loose sparring, but when we got to close quarters we found that we thoroughly enjoyed each other. The report in question states -

At first there was a little disagreement regarding the precise subjects to be brought forward by the deputation, but an understanding was soon arrived at, a conciliatory spirit was shown on both sides, and the discussion was carried on in the most friendly spirit

There is nothing of the prize-fight about that.

Mr Thomson:

– The Minister has since stated that the deputation misunderstood his promise, and that he did not give the promise which satisfied them.

Mr KINGSTON:

– All I can say is that this is the report of the Sydney Morning Herald upon the matter. 1 suppose that will be accepted as an authority in New South Wales.

An Honorable Member. - The Minister does not accept its statements himself.

Mr KINGSTON:

– Not as to statistics especially as to shipping which is decorated. In such cases if one obtained 6-4’7ths of the truth he would be lucky. But the report of the proceedings of the deputation seems to be all right.

Mr Thomson:

– I quoted from it the other night and the Minister said it was wrong.

Mr KINGSTON:

– Then the honorable member must have quoted a portion which I have not seen. The members of that deputation reminded me of what I had said, but they did not assert that 1 ever declared I would not institute prosecutions except in cases of fraud. They agreed that I was right in what I wanted. In the House of Representatives, said Mr. Barre Johnston, Sir William McMillan had asked the following question : -

Would not the Minister permit a Customs official to allow the rectification of a clerical error “! to which the Minister had replied -

We arc not laying down the rule that persons must be prosecuted and penalized for the smallest clerical error, such as might take place in an arithmetical calculation ; but in collecting duties, as I have stated in communication with chambers of commerce u nd other bodies interested, we have a right to know from the importers what is the nature of the goods they ure importing, and what is the value of those goods.

When they put it that they wanted me to abstain from prosecutions where questions of duty were involved, I told them that I had been adopting that practice throughout. The report proceeds -

On the point that Mr. Wall and other gentlemen have raised, as to men being prosecuted for making wrong statements of duty chargeable, I wrote to your chamber some time ago stating that such was not 1113’ wish, and I gave instructions to the contrary months ago. I hold in my hand the instructions signed by me 011 1st September. I look to my officers regarding the question of rates - (Hear, hear) - and Mr. Lockyer tells me he believes the fullest effect has been given to these instructions. In the second clause of those instructions I specially desire that no error of classification by the importer in the entry shall alone render him liable to penal consequences, if he has in the entry disclosed the true nature of the goods so that they can be identified for Tariff purposes.

– It is pure cant to pretend to legislate for the suppression of gambling, when we know that it cannot be suppressed in that way. What I said in the House was that if we desired to legislate against gambling we should do so directly, and not in an underhand manner, which is always more or less hypocritical. As regards the transcontinental railway, I notice that some honorable members are opposing its construction on grounds of economy. One of the South Australian members the other night gave, as his principal objection to the line, the enormous cost it involved, but I notice that when the same honorable member advocated the extension of the Tarcoola telegraph line, he> made no inquiry as to the expense beforerecommending the project to the House. Another honorable member observed that the Western Australian Government should build the Esperance line before South Australiagives permission for. the transcontinental lineto pass through her territory. It will bewithin the recollection of honorable members that during last session I submitted amotion in favor of the construction of theEsperance railway, but I think these projects stand on different footings. They arebo th worthy of being completed, but there> is no reason why the non-construction of the Esperance railway should retard theconstruction of the transcontinental line. I regret very much that some effort is beingmade to prevent the Parliament of South Australia from giving the necessary consentto the construction of the Port AugustaKalgoorlie railway. If ever a Governmentpledged itself to anything beyond recall, the Government of South Australia are pledged to give permission for the construction of this transcontinental line. To prove thetruth of what I say, I have only to read a’, letter written to the Premier of Western Australia by .our Speaker, when he occupied thehigh position of Premier of South AustraliaThe letter is dated 1st February, 1900, and is as follows : -

Following our conversation as to the possibleblocking of the construction of a railway line from. Kalgoorlie to Port Augusta by the Federal authority, by South Australia refusing consent rendered, necessary by section 34 of clause 51 of the Commonwealth Bill, to the construction of the linethrough her territory, 1 regard the withholding of consent as the most improbable thing, in fact,, quite out of the question. To assure you of our attitude in the matter, I will undertake as. soon as the federation is established (West, and South Australia both being States of the Commonwealth) to introduce a Bill formally giving the assent of this province to the construction of a line by the federal authority, and to> pass it stage by stage simultaneously with the passage of a similar Bill in your Parliament.

I find also that your successor, Mr. Speaker,, in the Premiership of South Australia, wrote on 31st July, 1901, to the PrimeMinister as follows : -

In reply to your letter of 23rd inst., I have thehonour to inform you that prior to the submission of the Commonwealth Constitution Act for theapproval of the people of Western Australia, viz., the 1st February, 1900, the Honorable F. W. Holder (then Premier qf South Australia) wrote-, to the Premier of Western Australia (copy of the letter herewith) undertaking on specified, conditions

But the only condition specified in your letter, sir, was that the Western Australian Parliament should simultaneously pass a Bill through their House. Now we are given to understand, however, that certain specified conditions were mentioned, and the letter of Mr. Jenkins proceeds - - undertaking on specified conditions to in troduce a Bill formally giving the assent of this State to the construction of a line of railway to the Western Australian border. On the . 11th June I telegraphed to the Western Australian Premier as follows : - lie C’oolgardie Railway. A Bill will be introduced into our Parliament, as agreed by Mr. Holder, 1st February, 1900, but we strongly insist upon line joining your State 40 to60 miles north of Encla.

It appears to me that new conditions are now being added by the Premier of South Australia before consent will be given. I notice, from the reported statements of some public men in South Australia, that there is a disinclination to give effect to the promise which you, sir, made as Premier on behalf of the Parliament- and the people of South Australia. I have too high an opinion of the people of South Australia to credit the notion that they will permit their Government to commit such a serious breach of faith as this involves. I feel convinced that when South Australian public opinion is appealed to, it will be declared that the promise of the Premier of that State, given in good faith, . should be redeemed. If that State had an objection to consent being given to the construction of the. Western Australian transcontinental railway, the time for that objection was before Western Australia agreed to join the federation.

Mr Fowler:

– And then Western Australia would not have come into the union.

Mr MAHON:

– That is so. It was most unfair to wait until now to suggest new conditions and to raise new objections to the project. But we find an explanation of that peculiar circumstance in the fact that South Australia appears to have set her heart on another transcontinental line, though I venture to think that, when the true conditions under which it is proposed to build that line are known, no syndicate will be foolish enough to undertake the work. It is proposed to convey to a syndicate for the building of the line a territory almost as large as the State ofVictoria. The railway, when finished, is not to be handed over to the

South Australian Government, but is to continue the property of the syndicate. That seems to me a most inequitable proposal. I know of two similar private railways in Western Australia, but they are both miserable failures.

Mr Henry Willis:

– Are they failures so far as the promoters are concerned ?

Mr MAHON:

– They are failures so far as the country is concerned. The most miserable railway journey a man can make in Australia is that from Perth to Geraldton, on the Midland Company’s line.

Mr Henry Willis:

-Is that worse than the journey from Albany to Perth ?

Mr MAHON:

– Yes, far- worse; there is no comparison between the two. The trains run at the rate of about 15 miles an hour, and in the 318 miles, which comprise the whole distance, there is not a place where one may procure a decent meal, so that those who travel on the line invariably take their own food and liquor with them. But the secret of the South Australian objection to the Western Australian transcontinental line will be discovered in the report of an interview which took place in London between a newspaper reporter and a gentleman who claims to be the power behind the throne in South Australia. He is not the Premier, but he informs all and sundry that at any time he likes he could turn the Government out. This is the report of an interview with Mr. Darling, the leader of the Opposition in South Australia, the gentleman to whom I refer -

Although his coming to London had no official connexion with the promotion of the scheme for building a railway from Oodnadatta to Pine Creek, still, he had made “casual” inquiries amongst bankers and financiers. “They seem to be agreed,” continued Mr. Darling, “that the state of the money market and the disposition of capitalists generally are not altogether too favorable at the moment. They seem to think, however, that it is one of the ventures that might well be taken up by London capitalists when better times arrive.” The South Australian afterwards proceeded to show what the expression “ better times “ meant in his mind. “The Commonwealth,” he said, “is at present entirely opposed to the introduction of coloured labour into any part of the island-continent. If that course is persisted in, then the tropical resources of the Northern Territory cannot be profitably developed. It is no use blinking this fact. What I would suggest is the introduction of Indian coolies under an indentured system, which has worked so well in other parts of the British dominions. I believe that the people of Australia will, in the course of a few years, come round to this view.”

The railway is to be made by a private syndicate ; and, as a concession, they are to receive a territory as large as Victoria, and are to have the right of running the line, and, apparently, of charging what rates they like on it for all time. I believe, too, that they are to be exempt from State taxation. But Mr. Darling has given the project away when he says, in effect, that this territory can be made profitable only by the employment of coloured labour. I think that this Parliament will prevent Mr.” Darling or his syndicate, if it is foolish enough to undertake the enterprise, from employing coloured” labour. Possibly the syndicate has not been told that the Federal Parliament may impose taxation upon property : although, so far, we have imposed no direct taxation, we have the light to place a tax upon land. I apprehend that when those facts are made known to London capitalists they will hesitate for a long time before proceeding with the construction of the line. The correspondent from whose report I have quoted goes on to say -

I reckon that if Mr. Jenkins’ land grant railway to 1’ort Darwin j$ not built until the Australians have turned their back upon white labour, then the man is noty et born who will travel on the line.

And I quite agree with him. I think that when the question is fairly put before the people of South Australia they will not be guilty of a repudiation in the nature of a breach of faith. Despite what the politicians and leaders of Parliament may say, I should be perfectly willing to submit the issue to the people of South Australia, putting before them the promise which was made on their behalf by their Government. I intended to speak at some length upon the other questions dealt with in the Governor-General’s speech, but no doubt other opportunities will in due course arrive when the various measures in the Government programme are brought before the House. AlthoughIam inclined to consider the High Court a necessary part of the federal machinery, I fear that as proposed it would be too expensive a luxury at the present time. I should like instead to see some arrangement whereby one federal Judge could be appointed to sit with the Chief Justices of the States whenever occasion required the services of the Federal High Court, because it does not appear to me that there will be sufficient work for five

I do not know that I need weary the House by continuing this debate. I should not have spoken but for some remarks which were made regarding the transcontinental railway to Western Australia. I hope that in discussing the various measures which are to come before us, we shall display the same good feeling and friendliness that was shown in connexion with every measure except the Tariff last session. If the Government will direct their attention to securing a proper administration of the Postal department, they will perform as great a public service as has been rendered by the Minister for Trade and Customs in his department. I honour the Minister for what he has done, and I believe that the people of this country, almost to a man - certainly those in- the back country of Western Australia - approve of his administration. Although I sit in opposition to the right honorable gentleman, I concede the fact that his dealing out of evenhanded justice to the weak and the strong must meet with all-round approval, and that his action in bringing to justice men who held their heads high in the community, and regarding whom no suspicion was previously entertained, redounds to his credit. I hope that he will continue in the course which he has hitherto followed, but that he will make a strenuous effort to avoid the irritating delays which have caused so much loss and annoyance to merchants in the past. I rose mainly to deal with the objections regarding the transcontinental line to Western Australia, and to urge the j Government to give more attention to the 1 administration of the Postal department, and to conduct it upon principles other than those which appear to actuate the Postmaster-General.

Mr. BATCHELOR (South Australia).I do not intend to go over the ground which has been traversed so often by other honorable members. I should be glad tosay a word or two in defence of the attitude of the Parliament of South Australia in reference, to the transcontinental railway to the Northern Territory, but, unfortunate!)’, I am unable to do so. It seems to me that the granting of such a large concession to a private company to enable them to build a railway for their own convenience is altogether indefensible. With reference to the attitude of South Australia towards the Western Australian railway, I think that the honorable member for Coolgardie is hardly doing justice to the Premier of the former State. The South Australian Government have not stated that they will not carry out the promise, but they have stipulated that the proposed line should be constructed in a certain latitude.

Mr Mahon:

– There was no such condition made in the first instance?

Mr BATCHELOR:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– No, but there is an explanation foi- that. During the period which elapsed between the communication sent to the Premier of Western Australia by Mr. Speaker when he was Premier of South Australia, and the letter sent by Mr. Jenkins, the present Premier, the Tarcoola gold-fields were discovered, and the Government of South Australia are now naturally anxious that the line should pass somewhere in the vicinity of those fields rather than, as suggested, some distance southwards. This would relieve the South Australian Government of the necessity of constructing an almost parallel line to Tarcoola. The proposed deviation will not add 25 miles to the total distance to be covered by the railway, and the condition laid down is a reasonable one.

Mr Fowler:

– I do not think that Western Australia will object to such a condition, but we are informed that all sorts of other conditions are suggested.

Mr BATCHELOR:

– I do not believe that the people of South Australia will go back upon the undertaking entered into first by the Minister for Trade and Customs, when he was Premier of that State, and afterwards by Mr. Speaker when he held a similar office. But before that line is built other conditions may prevail. I do not think that the people of South Australia will go back upon their undertaking merely because Mr. John .Darling, or even a dozen or two individuals, may think it is desirable to do so. I say this without in any way suggesting that either South Australia other representatives are necessarily in favour of the line. But that is a very different matter from declaring that if the line is to be undertaken, South Australia will not stand in the way of its construction through her territory. I suppose that honorable members would smile if I suggested that something had been omitted from the Governor-General’s speech. One paragraph in that long deliverance states -

A number of other important measures are in preparation. Among these is a Bill to provide a uniform navigation and shipping law. This measure, however, is necessarily long and complicated.

Later on the. speech contains the following declaration : -

My advisers will gladly take advantage of any opportunity which may offer of bringing these subjects before you, but they are not sanguine of being able to do so in the course of this session.

I think that statement is a reasonable one to make. It would be quite impossible for us to enact uniform shipping legislation embodying all the navigation laws of the different States in one Act during the present session. I understand that a Bill to -effect this purpose is in course of preparation, and that it contains some hundreds of clauses. Of course we should not care to attempt to pass such a measure during the current session. But I put it to the Minister for Trade and Customs that there are some Bills that the Government intend to proceed with which are less urgent than is the passage of a ;short Bill designed to protect Australian shipping from the unfair competition to which it is at present exposed. A measure containing only a few clauses would be sufficient for the purpose. Under the circumstances which obtain to-day, Australian chipping is gradually being taken away from local companies by foreign vessels which, once in several years, call at a port -outside the Commonwealth merely for the purpose of getting their crews to sign fresh -articles. By adopting that subterfuge they are enabled to defy any legislation which we may enact with reference to the employment of white men upon them, and to override the conditions with which Australian vessels have to comply. I believe that the House would readily consent to consider a short measure such as I suggest. There is a great deal hanging to it. In this connexion I. need only point »out that an agreement exists between the Australian steam-ship owners and their seamen, ‘ which will expire during the present month, though an arrangement has been made to continue it till December next. If something is not done in the interim to place foreign ships in a similar position as regards wages, manning, &c, to that occupied by Australian vessels, an all-round decrease in wages will take place. It may be said that that matter will be covered by the Arbitration and Conciliation Bill, but the arbitrators under any Act will take into consideration the unfair competition to which the owners are subject.

Mr Tudor:

– Could we not compel the owners of vessels which trade here to pay the increased rate of wage ?

Mr BATCHELOR:

– I very much question whether we could. It seems to me that it would be far better to introduce a separate Bill for the purpose of covering these special disabilities. I know that the Minister for Trade and Customs does not care about devoting himself to a short measure of this kind. He would prefer to thoroughly master the whole question, and then draft a measure to meet the necessities of the case. If honorable members study the figures contained in a blue-book which was presented to the House of Commons last year in regard to this matter, they will be disagreeably startled. Those figures show that a large increase has taken place in the number of lascars and foreigners employed upon British ships, and a corresponding decrease in the number of Britishers so employed. During the past ten years I find that the lascars upon British ships have increased by 12,288, and the foreigners by 8,750, a total increase of 21,038 seamen, whereas the number of Britishers so employed has decreased by 7,155.

Mr Conroy:

– May not that be due to the fact that the men can do better than go to sea ?

Mr BATCHELOR:

South Australia, and also Western Australia, entered into, the former State gave nothing, and got a considerable reduction in the rates. Messages by the Cape cost just as much as those by Port Darwin ; and the amount received by South Australia is the same irrespective of the line used.

Sir George Turner:

– But the Port Darwin line would not have been used.

Mr BATCHELOR:

– That does not matter, because the landing facilities at Fremantle and Glenelg would have been used. We have no right .to complain of the Eastern Extension Company trying to defeat a rival, but we must complain of an attempt on the part of the Commonwealth Government to unduly favour the Pacific line at the expense of the former company. Three of the eastern States are concerned in one cable, and the western States are concerned in another, and the postal authorities have decided that all messages, the routes of which are not indicated by the senders, must go by the Pacific cable. That appears to be a deliberate action in order to force as much business as possible to the Pacific line. Why should unrouted messages handed in at Kalgoorlie be sent all the way round to Brisbane, and thence by the Pacific line, when a shorter and quicker route, in which Western Australia is interested, is available?

Sir John Forrest:

– Western Australia is not interested in that route.

Mr BATCHELOR:

– I do not use the word “ interested “ in the sense of partnership.

Sir John Forrest:

– It does not matter to Western Australia which way messages go, but I think they are sent by the line from that State. The messages go just as quickly, and at the same price, on both lines.

Mr BATCHELOR:

– I have seen it stated in the newspapers, and have also very’ good authority for saying, that instructions have been given to the effect which I have indicated ; and this, of course, affects, very considerably the revenue of South Australia and Western Australia. A fair thing would be to arrange that all messages should go by the quicker route, or by each route alternately. Either method would be adopted, but with the present arrangement the Government can fairly be accused of favouring the Pacific line. I should now like to refer to the public service regulations. These as a whole- are fairly liberal, but there are a few to which exception may be taken. I shall not refer to details, because I think the public servants may be trusted to bring any disadvantages under which they labour under the notice of their superior, but there is one regulation which it seems to me ought not to be allowed in its present form. By regulation 41, officers are expressly forbidden to publicly discuss, or in any way to promote political movements. That is a very wide and sweeping regulation. Officers are further forbidden to use any official information for political purposes, or to disclose any such information without the express direction of the permanent head. These latter regulations are quite proper, and will meet with the approval of not only the public, but also of the officers themselves. Under regulation 41, however, public servants are unable to join any kind of organization whether of single taxers, free-traders, or protectionists, or in any way to promote a political movement. It may be said that the regulation is not to be -interpreted literally - that it is a power which will never be exercised : but it is a very dangerous power to place in the hands of the Executive. I shall not go intodetails, but merely mention that recently we have seen a very extreme view taken of what a political association’ is. We have seen the most disastrous results in one of the States as a consequence of the adoption of that extreme view. Here, however, we have a much wider clause, and one which I think honorable members will agree should not be in the regulations. It was first published on the 23rd December last, and took effect on the 1st January of this year. There are other clauses in the regulations to which I should refer, but that I do not wish to keep honorable members atthis late hour. I ask the Minister, however, to consult with the Public Service Commissioner to see if the regulations which I have dealt with cannot be modified, so thatthe public servants of the Commonwealth may enjoy as full rights of citizenship asthose outside the service. There are one or two other matters upon which I wished to speak, but I shall leave them over until another time. I was exceedingly pleased te hear the explanations of the Minister for Trade and Customs in answer te the charges made against him during; the debate. I feel certain that the public opinion of the Commonwealth will approve of his administration rather than of the criticism of some of his detractors. I hope that when the debate is concluded we shall get to work as speedily as possible, and that the session will not be unduly prolonged.

Mr E SOLOMON:
FREMANTLE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · FT

– At this late hour it is not my intention to keep the House very long. I would preface my remarks by thanking honorable members who visited Western Australia to see for themselves the conditions of an important State, which in many respects, I am sorry to say, has been misrepresented. The people of our State, however, regretted that more federal members did not go there to inquire into our conditions, and to be witnesses of the prosperity which we .are enjoying and shall continue to enjoy for a considerable time to come. As in 1892 our population was only 58,000, while “in March last it was 219,000, honorable members will realize that the State has not stood still. On the contrary, it has progressed by such leaps and bounds as are phenomena] even in the history of Australia. I am aware that an impetus was given to our progress by the discovery of gold, but other reasons for it are the liberality of our laws and the generous encouragement which is given to settlement. The measures to which reference was made in the Governor-General’s speech are of very great importance. It must be remembered that the conditions of the various States are very diverse. I may fairly say that there are not two States whose conditions are alike. Consequently the legislation which is proposed here necessarilv provoked a great deal of discussion. We can only hope that the laws which are passed will prove beneficial, not to particular States alone, but to the whole Commonwealth. Last session we passed into law twenty-one Acts, apart from measures of a financial nature, so that our first session was not an idle one ; and I feel sure that the legal foundation for the working of the Commonwealth which was thus laid will later redound to our credit. We have heard from some of the eloquent speakers in this Chamber that many of the Bills which are to be brought forward this session will be of the greatest importance to the future welfare of the Commonwealth, and no doubt they must. With regard to the establishment of a High Court, I feel that unless some economical proposal is put before us I cannot support the Bill. My idea is that the Judges of the States courts will be sufficient for some time to come. There may be cases involving hundreds or thousands of pounds which should come before federal courts, but, as a trial, the Chief J ustices of the States might very well be used for a year or two to constitute such a court. If that is done, there will be a great saving of expense, and justice will be meted out to those who ask for- it. With regard to the federal capital, I, for one, will- not agree to the expenditure of any large sum of money upon buildings. I agree with the honorable and learned member for Parkes that it is a mistake for the Federal Parliament to meet in one of the capitals of the States, because its members must be influenced to some extent by the newspapers of that State. If economy were practised I think that the necessary buildings could be erected without imposing too serious a burden upon the finances of the Commonwealth. I am entirely in accord with the proposal to establish courts of conciliation and arbitration. We have just had an illustration in this State of how business and commerce are paralyzed when a large industrial dispute takes place. If a similar dispute occurred at one time in more than one State the disaster would be very great. Any measure which will prevent strikes, and will save men, and especially women and children, from their effects, will be a good one. In Western Australia there were in 1901 two strikes which paralyzed trade, and honorable members can imagine the consternation and misery which was created by the stoppage of supplies to the gold-fields, which are dependent for communication on about 400 miles of railway. I am also ready to support the proposed naval subsidy of £200,000 per annum. It would be suicidal for a country with a population of something like 3,800,000, to spend, say £1,000,000 upon the purchase of a war > vessel. We should still have its up-keep to provide for, and it would practically give us no protection at all. I feel sure, however, that under ‘ the new naval agreement we shall be well protected. I hope that the Government “will see that the war ships are allowed to move from port to port. In the past the people of “Western Australia, who have always contributed their si tare to the subsidy, have «een very little of the vessels of the squadron. The honorable member for Darling Downs spoke in favour of the establish ment of a Federal Department of Agriculture. That suggestion was first made by the honorable and learned member for Bendigo, and it is a pity that it has not been carried out. Such a department need not necessarily be expensive, but it would do a great deal of good by its investigations into the capabilities of various kinds of soil, and by the information which it could give to agriculturists of all kinds. I wish to call the attention of the Minister for Trade and Customs to a case which I should like to bring under his notice. A firm in Western Australia some time ago imported some timber, and as the documents necessary to pass a Customs entry did not arrive with the timber, an arrangement was made with the department that a deposit of £50 should be paid, and that the entries should be made in due- form when the proper documents arrived. That happened in due course, and something like £26 was paid in duty. But upon an application for a refund of the difference, it was stated that the money had been paid into the revenue account, and that the Customs Act did not allow any of it to be returned. I will read copies of the papers in the case which have been placed in 1113- hands, the originals having been sent to the Comptroller-General of Customs. The first is a letter to myself, which I do not think it necessary to read. The next letter is addressed to the Collector of Customs, Fremantle, and is dated Fremantle, 6th November, 1902. It reads as follows : -

Dear Sir, - By the Wollowra, which reached this port in January last, at Adelaide, we had 1,215 pieces of timber transhipped from a vessel from America.

The papers forwarded to us were not sufficient to satisfy your department, and, by permission, we deposited the sum of £50 (fifty pounds) to obtain delivery, and to produce the specification and other information when received.

These papers have come to hand, and we desire to complete entries, but we are informed that .the <-£50 has been paid into revenue. The amount of duty charged in the shipment is .-U26 1 ls. 4d., so it will be seen th:it a sum of J-23 8s. 8d. is clue to us.

We will be pleased to learn that upon our pissing the necessary entries we may obtain a refund of this amount.

The reply was dated 7th November, and reads as follows : -

In reply to your letter of yesterday’s date, I beg to inform you that the amount in question being on deposit over the period allowed, viz., G (six) months, was carried to revenue, and as your firm failed to produce the documents required by this Act within the prescribed time, I am unable.to approve of any application for a refund of the amount overpaid.

On the 22nd November a letter was addressed to the Comptroller-General of Customs at Melbourne, in the following terms : -

We respectfully ask your consideration of a deposit entry made by us in January last, as peour letter to Collector of Customs here, and his replies thereto, as per copies enclosed herewith. We learn that according to section 17, Federal Customs Act, six (6) months is the period allowed for such deposit, but of this fact we were ignorant, and, therefore, under the circumstances, we trust you will deal justly with the case.

On the 4th December the ComptrollerGeneral replied -

I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 2nd inst., for refund in connexion with an amount deposited by you with the collector, Fremantle, in January hist, to cover duty on certain timber ex Wollowra, and in reply to inform you that the Customs Act does not permit compliance with your request.

I think that was really a hard ease, because the firm affected was one of good standing, and handed over £50 as a deposit in order to secure duty which amounted to not more than £26. I direct the attention of the Minister for Trade and Customs to this matter in the best spirit, and I feel sure that that honesty of purpose which has distinguished his administration will prompt him to act fairly in this instance. A letter which appeared in to-day’s Argus, signed by Messrs. Blogg Brothers, shows the difficulties and inconveniences to which manufacturers, even in Melbourne, are subjected -

Mr Kingston:

– I could say something very funny about that letter if I wished.

Mr E SOLOMON:
FREMANTLE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · FT

– I do not think it necessary to read the letter, but simply direct attention to it. I desire to say a few words with reference to the transcontinental railway to Western Australia Some honorable members, representing South Australia, seem to look upon this proposal in a very parochial spirit. They think that because the Western Australian Legislature declined to authorize the construction of a railway from Esperance Bay to the gold-fields, the South Australian Government should, therefore, withhold their consent to the construction of the line through their territory to “Western Australia. The House has already been informed that distinct promises were made to the Minister for Defence and others before Western Australia entered the federation. It was represented by Sir John Forrest, who was then- Premier of Western Australia, that South Australia was really in earnest in her desire to have the railway constructed, and if it had not been for such assurances, Western Australia would certainly not have entered the union. It has been stated that if a railway had been constructed from Esperance to the gold-fields, it would have greatly assisted South Australia, and apparently that State would prefer to have the local line rather than a railway which would connect Western Australia with the other States of the Commonwealth, and promote the general benefit. Would it not be better, after all, for South Australia if goods could be sent direct from Adelaide to Kalgoorlie rather than bv steamer to Esperance and then by rail to the gold-fields 1 I was pleased to hear the honorable member for South Australia, Mr. Batchelor, say that he was favorable to the construction of the line, although he could not vote for it at present. We do not wish honorable members to pledge themselves to vote for the construction of the line until the necessary information, now under preparation, with regard to water supply and many other matters is placed in their hands, because we know that it would be suicidal on our part to urge the construction of the railway before its success could be fairly assured. The honorable and learned member for Parkes rather pooh-poohed the idea that the railway would be of any use for the purpose of conveying troops. I hope that many years will pass before any necessity arises for using the line for such a purpose : but I feel sure that we should act wisely in placing ourselves in a position to convey troops to almost any point of our extensive coastline, in order to meet a threatened invasion. It is questionable whether a railway from Esperance Bay to the gold-fields, such as has been ardently desired by the people of South Australia, would pay or prove of any real benefit to our neighbours in that State : in fact, it might have the effect that neither the present line from Fremantle or the suggested line would pay ; so that I hope too much importance will not be attached to the refusal of Western Australia to construct the Esperance line. I hope the Government will push on with the inquiries now being made in regard to the transcontinental railway, and that the line will be surveyed without unnecessary delay.

Mr BROWN:
Canobolas

– I think that, in view of the long speech made by the Minister for Trade and Customs, we may fairly ask the Prime Minister to consent to an adjournment of the debate at this stage.

Sir Edmund Barton:

– I think that we might go on a little further to-night. I have been very considerate to honorable members in allowing early adjournments, and I think they should be satisfied if we close at a quarter to eleven.

Mr BROWN:

– In view of all the circumstances, the Prime Minister might very fairly have consented to an adjournment, but I know that I need not expect very much consideration from him, and, therefore, I am quite prepared to proceed. A great variety of subjects have been dealt with in the course of this debate, but most of them are of the greatest importance, and deserve the fullest consideration at our hands. Therefore, I do not regard the time devoted to their discussion as wasted. No doubt the Government are anxious to conclude the debate, in order that they may escape further caustic criticism, and enter upon the work of the session without further delay. One of the charges levelled against the Prime Minister is that he was not perfectly fair to the electors of the Commonwealth, and particularly to those of Nev/ South Wales, when he indicated to them the Tariff policy which he stated it was intended to submit to this Parliament. The Prime Minister, in his reply to the leader of the Opposition, declared that there was no reasonable ground for the assumption that he was not perfectly frank with the electors of New South Wales in regard to this matter. But I am disposed to think that the criticism of the leader of the Opposition was perfectly justified. I would remind the right honorable gentleman that a very strong feeling existed in New South Wales over the question of the adoption of the Constitution. That feeling largely obliterated the old lines of difference between persons entertaining opposite fiscal views. If for no other reason than that, the Prime Minister should have fully disclosed to the electors the character of the Tariff which he intended to submit to this Parliament. At the conclusion of the severe contest in connexion with the adoption of the Constitution a meeting was held at Bathurst to consider the future position of the federal movement. At that meeting the chief figure was the Prime Minister, who was regarded as’ the leader of the profederal movement in New South Wales. The battle-cry which he then raised in connexion with the impending struggle was not one of protection versus free-trade, but the main contention was that the Constitution was in danger. He appealed to the electors to rally round the federal party, and thus save the Constitution. The reason for this action was that a large section of the anti-federalists were prepared to do all they possibly could to defeat the purposes underlying that instrument of government. At the meeting held in Bathurst, amongst the gentlemen who occupied seats upon the platform were the honorable member for Wentworth and the honorable and learned member for Parkes. The tenor of their addresses was strongly in accord with the policy outlined by the Prime Minister ; but they were wise enough not to burn their boats, and when they became familiar with the character of the Tariff which was to be submitted, they wisely drew back.’ No doubt they congratulate themselves to-day that they are not in the position of many of the old-time free-traders of New South Wales. For example, one of the right-hand supporters of the Prime Minister in his own electorate was a free-trader. He supported him upon the understanding that the right honorable gentleman was to be the leader - not of a protectionist Government, but of a Federal Administration. The federal idea was to be uppermost. When the Tariff was submitted to this House he withdrew his support, and during the course of the present debate the Prime Minister has declared that the gentleman in question had not sense enough to perceive what was the real position at the time. Yet in his Maitland address I find that the Prime Minister, amongst other things, stated -

I have not come here to conduct a protectionist campaign, though under other circumstances I should have been prepared to do so.

Later on, in addressing a Brisbane audience, he is reported to have said that the difference between the policy of the Government and that . of the other side was only a thin veneer - that it was .not the wide fundamental distinction which is implied by a protective as distinguished from a freetrade Tariff. During the same campaign the Minister for Home Affairs is reported to have said -

He could only call it cruel to raise the fiscal question now, when the very Constitution itself rendered free-trade and protection alike impossible.

All these facts go to show that the fiscal issue was not submitted to the electors. I- would further point out that Senator O’Connor gave utterance to sentiments similar to those entertained by the Minister for Home Affairs. The Vice-President of the Executive Council is reported to have said -

We ought not to allow the wretched fiscal question to come in, but we ought to choose the best men.

That was the original battle-cry. The men who were in sympathy with the federal movement were to receive first consideration, and the wretched fiscal issue was not to be raised. But what happened? After the elections had been won, the Government had to evolve their taxation proposals. In submitting those proposals to this House the Minister for Trade and Customs declared -

This is a protectionist policy. We were sent here by the people to support that policy, and we place it before you with the force of our majority behind us.

That is very different from the statement which was .made throughout New South Wales prior to the elections. All things considered, I think there is very substantial ground for the criticism which has been levelled against the Government upon this particular matter. I regret to say that the high expectations formed of the first Federal Administration have not been realized. Probably the reason for this is to be found in the fact that the Prime Minister selected his present colleagues very largely from the legal profession of the other States. The result is that in the administration of the affairs of government we get too much of legal technicalities and too little of common-sense. The result is that much friction has been caused throughout the Commonwealth by an incapacity on the part of Ministers to handle matters in a commonsense manner. Whilst I freely confess that 1 was in opposition to the Constitution Bill, because I wished to see it more democratic in some respects, I think I have every reasonable ground for claiming that

I am as sincere a federalist as the men who fought for a conservative Constitution. Ihope that federation will not be judged by the mismanagement of the first Federal Government. I join heartily with the mover of the address in reply in the hope that as time goes on those causes of friction will disappear, and that the great advantages to the whole of the people of Australia from this union will present themselves in so Strong a light that dissatisfaction will be forgotten, and all will assist in upholding and supporting the federal movement. But it is a matterof great regret to every friend of the union that theFederal Governmenthave made such a bad start. If even now the Government . could see their way to clear themselves of the mere legal technicalities, red tape, and blue paper which, as it were, make the Federal Government stink in the nostrils of the average member of the public, they would serve the high purpose I have no doubt they have in view much better than they are doing at present. This weakness is seen right through the various departments, from that of the Prime Minister in the case of the half-dozen hatters, down to the administration of the Post and Telegraph department, and I am afraid that even the department of Defence is not altogether free from this irritating red-tapeism. As to the hatters, I wish to say that I supported the provision under which they were excluded, because I believed that a law of that character was necessary and desirable in the best interests of the people of Australia. And I am not prepared to go back on the stand I then took ; but it is most regrettable that the powers conferred bj’ this provision were put into operation on this particular occasion. I admit that the papers which have been produced place a much more favorable light on the conduct of the Prime Minister than appeared when the question was exciting high feeling in the State of New South Wales. There was some substantial ground for the feeling of friction which was occasioned in that State. The Prime Minister in his reply seemed . to wish to lead the House to suppose that the noise was caused by opponents of his Government, and of the principles of legislation of this character. But I remind the Prime Minister, that perhaps one of his strongest political friends in New South Wales is his late colleague, the present Premier of that State. That gentleman is not likely to lend himself toany expression of hostility towards theFederal Government on measures of thisdescription, but he saw grave grounds fortaking exception to the action of thePrime Minister. In the height of the disturbance, before the Prime Ministercame to a decision, Sir John See telegraphed, to him as follows : -

I sincerely hope your Government will see fit release hatters on Orontes without further delay. Matter raising intense dissatisfaction here.

The following day Sir John See wired! again -

Just received cable from Agent-General thataction taken to prevent landing of British workmen seriously affects financial proposals of this: State. Again strongly urge permission to land.

HOUSE COMMITTEE

Resolved (on motion by Sir Edmund Barton) -

That Mr. Manifold be a member of the House Committee in place of Mr. Piesse, deceased.

page 496

HIGH COURT PROCEDURE BILL

- Resolved (on motion by Sir Edmund Barton) -

That leave be given to bring in a Bill for an Act to regulate the practice, and procedure of the High Court.

page 496

SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT

Resolved (on motion by Sir Edmund

Barton) -

That the House at its rising adjourn until tomorrow at half- past 2 o’clock p.m.

House adjourned at 10.53 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 3 June 1903, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1903/19030603_reps_1_13/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant

House of Representatives 3 June 1903

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

Mr DEAKIN:Attorney-General · BALLAARAT, VICTORIA · Protectionist

Mr THOMSON:NORTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr AUSTIN CHAPMAN:EDEN-MONARO, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr SPEAKER:

QUESTION

RELIEF TO THECROTTY MINERS

Mr O’MALLEY:TASMANIA, TASMANIA

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

QUESTION

FEDERAL ELECTORAL ROLLS

Mr BROWN:CANOBOLAS, NEW SOUTH WALES

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

QUESTION

GENERAL ELECTIONS

Mr POYNTON:SOUTH AUSTRALIA, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Sir EDMUND BARTON:Protectionist

QUESTION

ELECTORAL ACT AMENDMENT

Mr McDONALD:KENNEDY, QUEENSLAND

Sir EDMUND BARTON:Protectionist

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

Sir EDMUND BARTON:

QUESTION

PERMANENT STANDING ORDERS

Mr CONROY:WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES

Sir EDMUND BARTON:Protectionist

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH POSTAGE STAMP

Mr CLARKE:COWPER, NEW SOUTH WALES

QUESTION

RIFLE CLUB REGULATIONS

Mr FISHER:WIDE BAY, QUEENSLAND

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

QUESTION

GOVERNOR-GENERAL’S SPEECH : ADDRESS IN REPLY

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

Mr Kingston:

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

Sir Edmund Barton:

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

Sir Edmund Barton:

Mr SPEAKER:

Sir Edmund Barton:

Mr SPEAKER:

Sir Edmund Barton:

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

Sir Edmund Barton:

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

Mr Ronald:

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

Mr Ronald:

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

Mr Kingston:

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

Mr CONROY:

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

Mr Kingston:

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

Mr Mauger:

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

Mr Crouch:

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

Sir John Forrest:

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

Sir Edmund Barton:

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

Sir Edmund Barton:

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

Sir Edmund Barton:

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

Mr BAMFORD:HERBERT, QUEENSLAND

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

Mr Mauger:

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

Mr Mauger:

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

Mr O’Malley:

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

House of Representatives
3 June 1903

Mr DEAKIN:
Attorney-General · BALLAARAT, VICTORIA · Protectionist

Mr THOMSON:
NORTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr AUSTIN CHAPMAN:
EDEN-MONARO, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr O’MALLEY:
TASMANIA, TASMANIA

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

Mr BROWN:
CANOBOLAS, NEW SOUTH WALES

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

Mr POYNTON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Sir EDMUND BARTON:
Protectionist

Mr McDONALD:
KENNEDY, QUEENSLAND

Sir EDMUND BARTON:
Protectionist

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

Mr CONROY:
WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES

Sir EDMUND BARTON:
Protectionist

Mr CLARKE:
COWPER, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr FISHER:
WIDE BAY, QUEENSLAND

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr BAMFORD:
HERBERT, QUEENSLAND

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr MAUGER:
MELBOURNE PORTS, VICTORIA · PROT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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