View PDF View XML View in Voyant

House of Representatives
19 October 1905

2^nd Parliament · 2^nd Session

QUESTION
- WEATHER TELEGRAMS
QUESTION
- DESPATCH OF TELEGRAMS
QUESTION
- FEDERAL CAPITAL SITE
QUESTION
- IMPORTATION OF HATS
QUESTION
- TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH TUNNELS: ADELAIDE
IMPORTATION OF OPIUM
HOME RULE FOR IRELAND
- In Division:
- Resolved -
STATES DEBTS
ESTIMATES
ADJOURNMENT
- Order of Business : Seizure of Panama Hats : Fortnightly Payments of Public Servants

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

page 3806

QUESTION

WEATHER TELEGRAMS

Sir LANGDON BONYTHON:
BARKER, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– The following telegram appears in this morning’s Age: -

Adelaide, Wednesday.

In the Assembly to-day, Mr. Rounsevell asked the Premier to arrange with the Federal authorities to facilitate the publication of the records of rain failing on Sundays in the next day’s papers. Mr. Price said he had approached the Federal Government on the subject but could get no reply.

I ask the Postmaster-General if he can throw any light on this matter?

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

– As the honorable member was courteous enough to intimate to me this morning that he proposed to ask this question, I am prepared with the following answer : -

It is a fact that for many years it had been the practice in South Australia to obtain special reports occasionally as to rainfalls, usually about ten times during the year, and the reports were handed to the press for publication. It was, however, considered by the Acting Deputy PostmasterGeneral that such telegrams did not come within the Act and regulations, and as the State did not undertake to pay for them they were discontinued.

A weekly report has been asked for by the State Government, and the matter is now under consideration.

page 3806

QUESTION

DESPATCH OF TELEGRAMS

Mr KING O’MALLEY:
DARWIN, TASMANIA

– On Monday, 16th inst., Mr. Jones, the special correspondent of the Perth Daily News, lodged a telegram of importance to that newspaper in the Melbourne office at 3.33 p.m. It was despatched from Melbourne at 3.36 p.m. - an hour which corresponds with 1.46 p.m. Perth time. It did not, however, reach Perth until 7 p.m., when the newspaper had been published. In view of the expense entailed on newspapers in maintaining special correspondents in Melbourne, and the immense revenue received by the Department for the transmission of telegrams, will the Postmaster-General shake up the dry bones of fossildom in this negligent branch?

Mr AUSTIN CHAPMAN:
Protectionist

– I regret these delays, and steps are being taken to bring about an improvement. Already some change has been made. I am giving consideration to the special matter to which the honorable member refers, and those responsible for the delay will be dealt with.

page 3806

QUESTION

FEDERAL CAPITAL SITE

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

– Is the Prime Minister in a position to give the House information concerning the recent conference between the Attorney-General of the Commonwealth and the Attorney-General of New South Wales, in reference to the Federal Capital Site? Has he a minute to present to the House similar to that laid before the New South Wales Legislative Assembly ? I should like to know generally what the Government propose to do in regard to this matter.

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

– I have no memorandum to lay before the House, but the Attorney - Genera] has prepared a letter, in which is set forth our view of the legal questions raised during the conference between him and the Attorney-General of New South Wales. It will be posted this afternoon, and will be delivered to-morrow morning. The discussion narrowed the questions at issue to such an extent that I think that this statement of our views, and the reply to it, will probably close the correspondence, preparatory to the introduction of a Bill into this Chamber.

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

– Does the Prime Minister think that he is treating this House fairly in connexion with the matter, seeing that all the information which we receive in regard to it appears in telegraphed reports of the communications made to the Parliament of New South Wales published in the Melbourne newspapers ?

Mr DEAKIN:

– I think that this House has been treated as it would desire to be treated. The view which we have taken is that honorable members are entitled to know the progress of the negotiations, but that the publication of the correspondence, in controversial fashion, one letter at a time, instead of expediting business, is likely to promote misunderstanding, by presenting one instead of both sides of the case. During the whole of the negotiations, we have not communicated to the press anything which we had not communicated to the Government of New South Wales, and had not been received by them. They have thought fit to adopt a different course.

page 3807

QUESTION

IMPORTATION OF HATS

Mr KELLY:
WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister of

Trade and Customs, upon notice - 1 Is it a fact that on or about the 22nd September, 1905, a consignment of rush hats from the East, ex Prinz Sigismund, was entered and passed, the values on invoices presented by the consignees, Messrs. Gay lard, Greenwood, and Co., being accepted by the Department as values for duty?

Is it a fact that the above shipment was landed in Melbourne, duty paid, at about1s. 41/2d. per hat?
Is it a fact that the above shipment was similar to that recently consigned to James Henty and Co., and seized as forfeited by the Customs ?
Is it a fact that Messrs. Gaylard, Greenwood, and Co.’s above shipment was passed three days after James Henty and Co.’s was seized as forfeited ?
Why was not similar treatment meted out in each case ?

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:
Minister for Trade and Customs · HUME, NEW SOUTH WALES · Protectionist

– In reply to the honorable member’s questions -

A consignment of hats, alleged to be grass hats, but entered as “hats n.e.i.” only, was passed by a subordinate officer on the invoice presented by the importers without being brought under the notice of the collector.
Inquiry is being made, the information not being at present available.
It is not admitted that the consignment in question is similar to that recently taken over by the Customs.
Messrs. Gaylard, Greenwood, and Co.’s shipment was passed after detention of Henty and Co.’s consignment, which was taken over under section 161 of the Customs Act, which does not permit of seizure as forfeited.
As far as the Department is aware there has been no inequality of treatment.

page 3807

QUESTION

TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH TUNNELS: ADELAIDE

Sir LANGDON BONYTHON:

asked the Postmaster- General, upon notice -

Whether he has arrived at any decision with regard to the proposal to place underground the telegraph and telephone wires in the principal streets of Adelaide?

Mr AUSTIN CHAPMAN:
Protectionist

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

No decision has yet been arrived at ; the matter is in abeyance pending the appointment of a Chief Electrical Engineer, as It is desired that any work of this character that is undertaken shall form a part of a well considered and’ completely designed plan for the whole of the city.

page 3807

IMPORTATION OF OPIUM

Consideration resumed from 7 th October (vide page 3215), on motion by Mr. Johnson -

That, in the opinion of this House, the importation of opium for other than medical purposes should be prohibited.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 3807

HOME RULE FOR IRELAND

Debate resumed from 12 th October (vide page 3518), on motion by Mr. Hig- gins -

That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty as follows.: -

May it please Your Majesty :

We, Your Majesty’s dutiful and loyal subjects, the Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, desire most earnestly in our name and on behalf of the people whom we represent, to express our unswerving loyalty and devotion to Your Majesty’s person and Government.

We have observed with feelings of profound satisfaction the evidence afforded by recent legislation and recent debates in the Houses of Parliament of the United Kingdom, of a sincere desire now to deal justly with Ireland; and in particular we congratulate the people of the United Kingdom on the remarkable Act directed towards the settlement of the land question, and on the concession to the people of Ireland of a measure of Local Government for municipal purposes. But the sad history of Ireland since the Act of Union shows thatno British Parliament can understand or effectively deal with the economic and social conditions of Ireland.

Enjoying and appreciating as we do the blessings of Home Rule here, we would humbly express the hope that a just measure of Home Rule may be granted to the people of Ireland. The) ask for it through their representatives - never has request more clear, consistent, and continuous been made by any nation. As subjects of Your Majesty we are interested in the peace and con tentment of all parts of the Empire, and we desire to see this long-standing grievance at the very heart of the Empire removed. It is our desire for the solidarity and permanence of the Empire, as a Power mating for peace and civilization, that must be our excuse for submitting to Your Majesty this respectful petition.

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

That all the words after the first word “ That,” be left out with a view to insert in lieu thereof the following words : - “whilst in full sympathy with every movement calculated to advance the best interests of Ireland, this House declines to petition His Majesty either in favour of or against a change in the parliamentary system which at present prevails in the United Kingdom -

Mr HIGGINS:
Northern Melbourne

– I think it due to honorable members to reply to the arguments which have been advanced against my motion. I should like to begin by acknowledging the frank and straightforward character of the opposition led by the honorable member for Dalley.

Mr Knox:

– Is the honorable member replying? I understand that the honorable and learned member for Wannon wishes to speak on the motion.

Mr SPEAKER:

– As no honorable member seemed to wish to speak, I was putting the question, when the honorable and learned member rose to commence his reply.

Mr HIGGINS:

– If there is any honorable member present who desires to speak on the motion, I shall, of course, give way. The honorable member for Dalley met the motion on its merits, and pronounced emphatically against it, though, of course, we may have our own opinions of the value of his arguments. He assumed that we who support the motion, in saying that we are for Home Rule, mean that we are for absolute separation. No argument would convince him to the contrary, though the statement of the right honorable member for _ East Sydney directly contradicted that assumption. Then the honorable member also used the argument that a certain church would become dominant if Home Rule were conceded to Ireland. It is of no use to argue against that fanatical theory, but I hope that the growth of common sense will affect people like the honorable member and that he will eventually take the same view as did the Orangemen at the time of the union and as other Orangemen do at the present day. Now, I propose to deal with the right honorable and learned member for East Sydney in a totally different way. He did not say that he was against Home Rule He maintains inviolable secrecy upon that matter in his inviolable bosom, and wild horses will not drag from him a declaration as to whether he, an Australian politician, is in favour of or against Home Rule. Apparently the right honorable gentleman had not read any of the speeches delivered in support of the motion, and he did not appear to know that the advocates of Home Rule based their arguments not upon old grievances, but upon present grievances, and the present sufferings of the Irish people. Any one who did me the honour to read the speech in which I introduced the motion would have seen that I referred to the existing misery of the people of Ireland, to the existing and increasing depopulation of that country, to the existing over-taxation, to the absence of all popular control over the expenditure, to the miserable system of administration, and to the fact that fortyone practically irresponsible boards, all under the superintendence of an English official with no acquaintance with the wants of Ireland, governed the country. Either the right honorable gentleman had not read my speech or he saw fit to ignore the facts. My argument was that the position of Ireland to-day was similar to that in which New South Wales would be placed if its affairs were controlled by a Victorian official who was not directly responsible to the people of the former State. In fact, the position of Ireland is even worse than that. What is the amendment of the right honorable gentleman? It is divided into three parts. The first, practically, states that it is beyond our province as a House to express any opinion. The second portion of the amendment says that the question of Home Rule for Ireland will be submitted to the electors of Great Britain at the next election ; and the third section declares that the House confidently relies upon the fairness and wisdom of the British people for the removal of every Irish grievance. . So far as the method and manner of the amendment are concerned, I regard it as an example of skilful tactics devised from a narrow political point of view. I can see that it is craftily designed for the purpose of. roping in those who are against Home Rule with those who do not want to declare themselves either way. The right honorable gentleman apparently thought that, as he could not. secure a sufficient number of votes against Home Rule, he might obtain the assistance of those who did not wish to declare themselves for or against the principle. Possibly, if his amendment be viewed from the standpoint of political strategy intended to secure a temporary success, the right honorable gentleman may have acted very skilfully ; but, from the point of view of statesmanship, I cannot conceive of anything mere wretched or narrow than his proposal. So far as I can ascertain, not one of those honorable members who informed me that they were in favour of Home Rule have been shaken in the slightest degree in their determination by the amendment proposed, or the arguments used in support of it. Political strategy is not wisdom. The Prime Minister has ably exposed the fallacy of the view that, as a Parliament, we have no right to express our opinion in regard to matters of Imperial interest. I was glad to hear the Prime Minister’s speech in favour of Home Rule, although I must confess that I do not quite like the id’ea of treating the claims of the Irish people as a mere pawn in ,a vague and nebulous movement for Imperial Federation. I should prefer to base the claim for Home Rule upon the higher and nobler ground of mere justice ; but the Prime Minister may have felt that the claim of justice was sufficiently proved, and that it devolved upon him to support it by furnishing an additional motive in connexion with the movement for Imperial Federation. We are here to deliberate for the good of Australia ; and I decline to be bound by the doctrine that in considering what is for the good of Australia, we are to close our eyes to what is good for the Empire. We are a part of the Empire, and what makes for its good also operates for our benefit. The interests of the Empire are not alien to us, and Australian expediency must include considerations of Imperial expediency. The Prime Minister referred to the action taken by this Parliament in regard to the introduction of Chinese into the Transvaal - and a very good example too. I think that we proceeded to the furthest limit possible in that case. Although I think we are at liberty to deal with any subject, provided we can bring it within our view of what constitutes Australian interests, I do not think that it would be advisable for us to interfere in matters of purely domestic interest in other parts of the Empire. The resolution passed by this and the New Zealand Parliaments was addressed to the question of the interests of the Transvaal. On the 23rd March, 1904, this House passed the following resolution : -

That this House records its grave objection to the introduction of Chinese labour into the Transvaal until a referendum of the white population of the colony has been taken on the subject, or responsible government is granted.

That was adopted by 45 votes to 14. Upon that motion an amendment was proposed by the honorable member for North Sydney -

That this House views with extreme regret the proposal to import Chinese into the Transvaal, regarding such a step as prejudicial to the best interests of the colony.

That means the Colony of the Transvaal, and the amendment makes no mention of the best interests of the Empire. Therefore, the honorable member, by virtue of his amendment, recognised that this Parliament could interfere, by the expression of its opinion, in matters affecting the interests of the Transvaal Colony. The New Zealand Parliament also passed a resolution upon the subject, and the Prime Minister read the reply forwarded by Mr. Lyttelton, the then Secretary of State for the Colonies. The Prime Minister appeared to think that the reply contained the final word of the Imperial authorities ; but I arn happy to say that we have had some further communication upon the subject. The reply quoted by the Prime Minister appears in the New Zealand Hansard of 18th March, 1904, and reads as follows: -

I fully recognise the right of all the selfgoverning colonics to explain their opinion on so important a question, and especially of those who, like New Zealand, have rendered memorable service in the South African war.

During the present year a further communication has been received from the Colonial Office by Mr. Seddon to the same effect. It contains the following expression: -

His Majesty’s Government have never questioned the right of the Legislature of New Zealand to express their views with regard to the subject of the resolution.

There is an express statement that the Colonial Office recognises that the Legislature of New Zealand - not the people - has a right to express its views with regard to matters which are beyond the scope of New Zealand domestic politics. There is still stronger reason why we should be at liberty to express our opinion upon the subject of Home Rule for Ireland, in the fact that we are dealing with a question affecting the relations between one part of the Empire and other parts. We are dealing also with a nation which sends representatives to the Imperial Parliament - the body which controls all our foreign policy, which commits us to peace or war, and to alliances which bind us without our consent. I submit that it is quite expedient for us to express our opinion upon matters which affect the relations of one part of the Empire to other parts. It must be remembered that there are 1,000,000 Irishmen in Australia, 1,000,000 and more in Canada, and about 16,000,000 in the United States, and that it is not in the interests of the Empire that the feelings ‘ of these millions of people, full of vitality and political activity, should be sore and embittered and that they should be disposed to keep alive the feud of centuries. It is our business, as an Australian Parliament, to multiply the friends of the Empire throughout the world. Of course, it will be said that we should not interfere in these Imperial matters, but I should like to know where those who use that argument wish to draw the line. I might remind honorable members that about this time last year the right honorable member for East Sydney, who now says that it is not for us to interfere in these matters, proposed a motion which practically invited Great Britain to go to war in a certain event. In reference to the action of the Russian Baltic fleet in firing upon the Hull fishermen, the right honorable gentleman proposed the following motion : -

That this House feels bound in the present’ grave crisis to express its profound indignation at the cruel and wanton attack recently made by a Russian fleet upon British fishermen whilst they were engaged in their peaceful calling. That this . House fully sympathizes with the British Government and people in the demand that those who directed this outrage be punished.

That resolution breathes fire and slaughter. We all know that this invitation to the mother country to go to war with Russia was a great mistake. Lord Lansdowne and the other Ministers at the head of affairs .knew that it was a mistake, and they, did not respond to the lash of the press. In this, as in many other matters, we were misled by the press reports, and we now know that there was no intention on the part of Russia to put an affront on the British people or to injure British subjects. Then, in 1899, the Boer war broke out, and all the Colonies interfered in the way of sending contingents to South Africa, in order to assist the British Government in a matter which did not directly affect Australia. In 1902 a Commonwealth Contingent was despatched to South Africa, and two resolutions were passed by this Parliament which distinctly interfered with parties in British politics. It will be remembered that Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman, as leader of the Opposition in the British House of Commons, had condemned what he called the “methods of barbarism” adopted in the conduct of the war by the establishment of concentration camps, &c He may have been right, or he may have been wrong; but the fact remains that we passed a resolution protesting, against these slanders, and affirming the readiness of Australia to give all requisite aid to the mother country, in order to bring the war to an end. I merely desire to show that it is absurd for honorable members to oppose this motion on the ground that the subject-matter of it does not concern Australia. Whenever the course of action proposed is one of which they approve they abstain from using any such argument. There have also been several minor occasions upon which Australian Houses of Parliament have given expression to their opinions. For instance, about four years ago, when the Dowager Empress of Germany died, this Parliament expressed its sympathy with the German nation. Again, when President Garfield was assassinated, in 1881, the Victorian Parliament followed a similar course. In still more recent years - when President McKinley was assassinated - this Parliament forwarded a message of condolence. Other Legislatures have expressed their sympathy and their opinions on such occasions’. We all know that the Legislature of British Columbia, after the Commonwealth Constitution had been carried by the vote of the people of Australia, forwarded its congratulations, although the expediency of adopting this Constitution was much in debate in Australia. Further, .British Ministers have actually invited the approval of this House m regard to certain matters. For in- stance, upon the question of a proposed change of the Royal titles, a few months ago, we were asked, through the Prime Minister, to express our opinion. “ But,” exclaims the right honorable member for East Sydney, “ the Imperial Parliament - the grand mother of parliaments - does not interfere in Australian affairs.” I submit that that is a most shallow and superficial view to take. The Imperial Parliament passes no resolutions affirming its opinion, because it is able to act through its executive Ministers. It does so act. It knows that, “through its Executive, it has a veto upon our Acts, which the King, acting upon their recommendation, will exercise. Why should it express an opinion when it has1 the power to prevent any of our measures from coming into operation ? It speaks only through its Ministers, and those Ministers can prevent a Bill passed by our Legislature from becoming law in any form which is objectionable to them. The proposed expenditure of ,£25,000 upon a memorial to the late Queen affords an illustration of a promise exacted from the first Prime Minister of the Commonwealth, before this House was consulted. The same remark is applicable to Australia’s increased contribution towards the maintenance of an Imperial Squadron in our territorial waters. Then we must recollect that Mr. Chamberlain actually forwarded to the New South Wales and Victorian Governments a letter, in which he asked them to make special grants ‘ to the Governor-General. What right, then, has the right honorable gentleman to say that the British Parliament, through its Ministers, does not interfere in our affairs? More important than all, they interfere with our Bills before those measures are passed. The Immigration Restriction Act affords a case in point. Apparently some honorable members are possessed of very short memories. Some time ago a Bill was passed by the Queensland Parliament, which was known as the Sugar Works Guarantee Amendment Bill ; its object being to prevent the employment of Asiatics by any company to which an advance was made. That measure was actually refused the Royal assent upon the advice of a British Minister, and his despatch upon the subject was commended to the notice of this Parliament by the same British Minister in 1901. The Royal assent was further refused to the Coloured Aliens Immigration Bill, which was passed by the South Australian Legislature. All these things affected our legislation in regard to alien immigration, and compelled us ultimately to adopt the language test in our Immigration Restriction Act. If there is one section in that measure which has rendered us obnoxious to the whole world, it is the provision which’ we adopted on the advice of Mr. Chamberlain - a provision to which we agreed with very great reluctance, because we were assured that unless the language test were adopted the Bill would be vetoed. The sooner it is recognised that that test was imposed, not by our will, but by the will of Mr. Chamberlain, the better it will be for all. Not only do British Ministers interfere with our measures and our actions, but the British Houses of Parliament adopt and pass resolutions relating to affairs in foreign countries which’ are beyond their jurisdiction. For example, they have interfered by resolution in connexion with the outrages in Armenia and Macedonia, which are within the domain of the Sublime Porte. The Times of the 4th August - the very day that I submitted this motion - contains the report of a speech which was delivered in the House of Commons by Earl Percy upon the previous evening. In that deliverance he dealt with the affairs of the Congo Free State - a State which’ is within the control of the King of the Belgians. It was the third debate upon the subject, and Earl Percy, in pursuing the subject, said that they were animated by purely philanthropic and humanitarian motives. In the same speech he dealt with the affairs of Macedonia and Crete. If upon non.-British - that is, foreign - affairs such as these, the British Parliament expresses its opinion upon humanitarian grounds, why may not the Australian Parliament voice its views upon a matter which affects the peace of the whole Empire? I hope that every honorable member will scout the theory advanced by the right honorable member for East Sydney, that we have no right to vote upon this subject until we have received a mandate from the electors to do so. I strongly object to the members of this House being treated as mere delegates. I am reminded, too, that in the case of Italy, Great Britain interfered by expressing opinions, and by rendering solid assistance in the reorganization of that country. In England, indeed, Garibaldi had one of the principal supporters of Jus great campaign. If we look at history, we shall find that time after time Great Britain interferes in matters outside her jurisdiction, where she deems it to be right to do so. Here, in Australia, we have a stronger reason for expressing our opinion, because, as free subjects, we are entitled to do so, where the interests of the Empire are concerned, those interests being bound up with the interests of Australia. With special reference to the question of Home Rule, we have the best possible precedent upon which to act. ‘ May I remind honorable members that a motion to present a similar petition was carried upon two occasions, within a period of two years, by. the Parliament of the Dominion of Canada? Of course the Legislature of the Dominion is confined in its powers to Canadian affairs just as the powers of this Parliament are confined to the affairs of Australia. In 1882 both Houses of the Dominion Legislature petitioned the British Government in favour of Home Rule. At that time the Earl of Kimberley was ‘Secretary of State for the Colonies, and Mr. Gladstone had not then taken up the cause of Home Rule. The Earl of Kimberley properly pointed out that Her Majesty would have to be guided by the advice of the Imperial Ministers. Some persons have designated his reply a “ snub.” I do not so regard it. I do not think that any statesman of standing would administer a snub to the Colonies. The Earl of Kimberley simply gave ex.pression to the truth when he stated that, whatever might be the opinion of the Canadian Parliament upon the matter, Her Majesty would have to be guided by the advice of her Ministers in England. In 1886. when Mr. Gladstone declared for Home Rule, the Canadian House of Commons passed a resolution in its favour. The late Sir John Macdonald, Sir Hector Langevin, Sir Richard Cartwright, and all the leading statesmen of Canada voted for it. A similar resolution in favour of Home Rule, and opposing coercion, was adopted on 27th April, 1887. Finally, on 31st March, 1903, the Canadian ^ House of Commons reverted to the original form of a petition in the form of an address to His Majesty ; and it is upon that petition that the present motion is modelled. This consideration brings me in natural sequence to the form of mv motion. I am asking that a petition shall be presented to the King. At first I did not like the form’ of the motion which I adopted, with certain modifications, from the proposal submitted last session by the honorable member for Southern Melbourne. But,, though at first I did not like it very much, I ani convinced that it is the decorous and constitutional course to adopt. The Prime. Minister has probably forgotten how deeply this right of petition to the King has been engraven in the history of Great Britain.. As the result of the treatment of the seven Bishops in the reign of James II., the Bill of Rights, which was passed in 1688, contained the following, provision : -

It is the right of all subjects to petition the King.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Standing order 122 provides that, if the House so orders, any complicated motion may be’ divided. I shall, therefore, put the question that the three paragraphs of the motion be put seriatim.

Mr Higgins:

– I should like to meet the honorable member in regard to this matter; but it seems to me that the motion will be unmeaning if we carry any one of the paragraphs, and leave out the other two.

Question - That the three paragraphs of the motion be put seriatim - put. The House divided.

AYES: 37

NOES: 18

Majority … … 19

AYES

NOES

In Division:

Mr SPEAKER:

– The step we arenow taking will not deprive honorable members of that opportunity.

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

– It will compel us, against our will, to vote for or against the proposed petition.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The right honorable member for East Sydney moved to strike out all the words afterthe first word “That.” Whether we do so in one or in several votes doe’s not affect the matter.

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Mr McCay:

– I am at an utter loss to understand the position, and should like your direction, Mr. Speaker, in regard to it. We have just resolved that the motion be put in three paragraphs. The amendment of the, right honorable member for East Sydney is to omit all the words after the first word “ That,” with a view to insert certain other words. The first paragraph which will now be put to the House reads -

That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty as follows : -

May it pl ease Your Majesty :

We, Your Majesty’s dutiful and loyal subjects, the members of the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, desire most earnestly in our name and on behalf of the people whom we represent, to express our unswerving loyalty and devotion to Your Majesty’s person and Government.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I shall be careful to so put the motion as to protect the honorable member for Lang, and the honorable member for Canobolas, whose notices of amendments’ appear on the businesspaper.

Question - That all the words after the first word, “ That,” to the end of paragraph i, proposed to be left out, stand part of the question - resolved in the affirmative.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The question is - That the words in the second paragraph, “ We have observed with feelings of profound satisfaction the evidence afforded by recent legislation, and recent debates in the Houses of Parliament in the United Kingdom, of a sincere desire,” proposed to be left out, stand part of the question.

Mr McCay:

– I understand that the question is being put in that way in order that the honorable member for Lang may have an opportunity to move his amendment. I submit that, as the amendment was not moved before, because there was another amendment before the Chair at the time the honorable member addressed the House, it cannot be moved now, because the debate has been closed. If an honorable member has intimated a desire to move arc amendment, he cannot speak again on the motion, because his action would be equivalent to making a second speech, and consequently if the honorable member for Lang attempted to move his amendment now, he would commit a double breach. Firstly, he would break the rule which precludes an. honorable member from speaking twice, and secondly, he would break the rule that there can be no further debate after the debate has been formally closed. Both these rules would apply to any suggested amendment at this stage.

Mr Watson:

– Although the argument of the honorable and learned member is exceedingly ingenious, the practice of the House from the commencement of this Parliament has been to accept notices of further amendments, in order to allow honorable members to take action after the first amendment has been disposed of, and after the debate has been closed.

Mr SPEAKER:

– There is no question whatever that the honorable member for Lang and the honorable member for Canobolas are entitled to have their propositions put from the Chair. The honorable and learned member for Corinella will need to draw a distinction between an amendment being moved and being proposed. “ Proposed “ means “put from the chair.’’ It is not competent for the Speaker or the Chairman to put an amendment from the chair before a previous amendment has been disposed of. In this case, the honorable members referted to took the only step open to them, in order to secure a decision upon their amendments, and I am obliged, not only by the practice of Parliament, but by the necessities of the case, to rule that the amendments can be put.

Mr Johnson:

– Under the circumstances, I desire to withdraw my amendment.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Is it the pleasure of the House that the amendment be withdrawn ?

Mr Chanter:

– I object.

Question - That the words, “We have observed with feelings of profound satisfaction the evidence afforded by recent legislation, and recent debates in the Houses of Parliament of the United Kingdom, of a sincere desire,” proposed to be left out, stand part of the question - put. The House divided.

AYES: 4

NOES: 49

Majority … … 45

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Mr WILKS:
Dalley

– You, sir, put the motion in the form, “ That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the question.” Therefore, I take it that the words

We have observed, with feelings of profound satisfaction, the evidence afforded by recent legislation and recent debates in the Houses of Parliament of the United Kingdom, of a sincere desire, have been deleted.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Yes ; certainly.

Question - That the remainder of paragraph 2, proposed to be left out, stand part of the question - resolved in the negative.

Question - That paragraph 3, proposed to be left out, stand part of the motion - put. The House divided.

AYES: 33

NOES: 21

Majority … … 12

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Question - That the motion, as amended, be agreed to - put. The House divided.

AYES: 33

NOES: 21

Majority … … 12

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Mr CAMERON:
Wilmot

– I desire to ask if it is competent for an honorable member to move that the protest of the minority should be recorded in the address ?

Mr SPEAKER:

– The protest of every honorable member who voted with the “ noes “ is shown on the division list.

Mr Cameron:

– But the names will not appear in the address.

Resolved -

That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty as follows : -

May it please Your Majesty :

We, Your Majesty’s dutiful and loyal subjects, the Members of the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, desire most earnestly in our name and on behalf of the people whom we represent, to express our unswerving loyalty and devotion to Your Majesty’s person and Government.

Enjoying and appreciating as we do the blessings of Home Rule here, we would humbly express the hope that a just measure of Home Rule may be granted to the people of Ireland. They ask for it through their representatives - never has request more clear, consistent, and continuous been made by any nation. As subjects of Your Majesty we are interested in the peace and contentment of all parts of, the Empire, and we desire to see this long-standing grievance at the very heart of the Empire removed. It is our desire for the solidarity and permanence of the Empire, as a Power making for peace and civilization, that must be our excuse for submitting to Your Majesty this respectful petition. .

page 3818

STATES DEBTS

Debate resumed from 21st September (vide page 2630), on motion by Mr. Knox -

Mr. SYDNEY SMITH (Macquarie).I think that it is probable that the question into which the proposed Select Committee is to be asked to’ inquire will eventually become a party one, and that it is, therefore, undesirable that you, Mr. Speaker, should take part in the proceedings. While I recognise that you would be able to materially assist the Committee’s deliberations, I hold that to place you in a position in which you might possibly come into conflict with a section of the House would be to create a very dangerous precedent. It is with no disrespect, sir, that I suggest that your name should be omitted from the list of members.

Mr SYDNEY SMITH:
MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT

– But it seems to me that it would be an undesirable precedent to establish. So far as I am aware, it is the first time a proposal has been made that Mr. Speaker should be placed in a position in which he might become involved in party politics.

Mr Watson:

– That is very improbable.

Mr SYDNEY SMITH:
MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT

– That might be the result of Mr. Speaker’s election to the Committee. I have no desire, sir, to show you any disrespect, but surely the honorable member for Bland will admit that it is possible that the question of taking over the States debts may yet become a party one.

Mr Watson:

– Everything is possible.

Mr SYDNEY SMITH:
MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT

– Then the honorable member must recognise that my objection is a reasonable one.

Mr Deakin:

– It seems practically impossible at this stage that the question can become a party one.

Mr SYDNEY SMITH:
MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT

– I take a different view. As a member of the Committee Mr. Speaker might make suggestions that would bring him into conflict with a section of the House, and, having regard to all the circumstances, I shall vote against his appointment.

Mr WATSON:
Bland

– I am not wholly satisfied that the best method of dealing with the question of the terms upon which the States debts shall be taken over is to refer it to a Select Committee. When the honorable member for Kooyong inquiredwhether I would act as a member of the proposed Committee, I told him that I should be glad to assist in its deliberations, but it seems to me that the subject of the inquiry is largely one to be dealt with by the States Treasurers and the Commonwealth Government. I admit the difficulty of arriving at a hurried decision upon a question of such’ great importance. I realize, also, the obstacles in the way of our arriving at any agreement that will be satisfactory to the States, and, above all, the difficulty of propounding a scheme in conformity with the Constitution that would allow us to economically deal with the transferred debts. In view of these facts, I think that a subject of this magnitude should be dealt with by the Cabinet, rather than by a Select Committee. It is improbable, however, that any satisfactory scheme is likely to be arranged pending an amendment of the Constitution, and, that being so, I do not feel so strongly disposed to object to the proposed procedure as I might otherwise be. As to the point raised by the honorable member for Macquarie, I consider, Mr. Speaker, that the Committee would not be complete unless you were a member of it. Any one who has paid the slightest attention to the discussion of the States debts question, must be aware that you have devoted a great deal of time to its consideration, and have made some lucid suggestions with respect to it.

Mr SYDNEY SMITH:
MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT

– Has not Mr. Speaker done the same in regard to other important questions?

Mr WATSON:

– I know of no other question in which Mr. Speaker has exhibited the same degree of interest since his election to the Chair. I therefore trust that the House, if it favours the appointment of the Select Committee, will take care that the name of Mr. Speaker is not omitted from the list of members. I see no prospect of the matter becoming a question of high party politics.

Mr Wilks:

– Various Speakers in the House of Commons have taken part in debates upon party questions, including the question of Home Rule.

Mr WATSON:

– Quite so; and, having regard to all the circumstances, I see no objection to the proposal.

Mr.McDONALD (Kennedy).- I regard the motion as a most important one ; but I think that it would be better to have the matter investigated by a Committee of experts. At the same time, I agree with the honorable member for Macquarie that, notwithstanding, the great knowledge of financial subjects which you, Mr. Speaker, possess, it would be unwise for you to become a member of a Select Committee, the proposed adoption of whose recommendations must be a contentious matter. I hope. , therefore, that the motion will be amended by leaving out your name. I shall vote against it, and will divide the House upon it.

Mr FISHER:
Wide Bay

– My only objection to the motion is that, as we are so near the end of the session, it will be impossible for a Select Committee to report on this matter before the prorogation.

Mr Wilks:

– The Government willconvert the Select Committee into another Royal Commission.

Mr FISHER:

– Why not face the question now ? I have no confidence in the suggestion that the matter should be referred to a Committee of experts, because in my view it is wholly a political matter, which must ultimately be submitted to the electors, and determined by Parliament. The investigation of this subject will require the very careful taking of evidence, and considerable time must elapse before a report can be submitted to the House. A reason why we should not appoint a Committee of experts to consider the matter is that their report would probably not be received with favour by the Treasurers of the States. No scheme is likely to be considered satisfactory unless it is indorsed by a Committee of representatives of each of the States. However much we may desire to be informed on this subject by experts, and however much we may feel that only those who are most learned in finance should be intrusted with its investigation, we must admit that any report will be valueless unless supported by a strong body of political opinion.

Mr McDonald:

– That is a strong reason why Mr. Speaker should not be a member of the Committee.

Mr FISHER:

- Mr. Speaker’s eminent services in this regard make it exceedingly desirable that he should be a member of the Committee, if there is no precedent which would prevent him from accepting the position. No one is more careful of the dignity of the office which he holds than he is, and if he thinks that it will in no way derogate from that dignity to accept a seat on the Committee, I shall not take exception to the inclusion of his name in the motion. The question is an urgent one, and it is desirable that it should be dealt with, but a Select Committee will do very little in regard to it during, the present session.

Mr. HIGGINS (Northern Melbourne).I have to admit that it was on my suggestion that Mr. Speaker consented to allow his name to appear in the motion. I conceived that if he were a member of the Committee, we should not only have the advantage of his eminent financial abilities in dealing with the matter in hand, but should be able to lift its consideration above party considerations. I may have been wrong in thinking so, but I do not feel that I went too far in consulting him on the matter before the honorable member for Kooyong put his name into the motion. If the leader of any party in the House objects to his acting, I feel sure that he will decline to act ; but I appeal to those who know how great are the issues involved, and how responsible the work to be done - affecting, as it does, the people of all the States - to consider whether it would not be of advantage to lift this matter above party considerations, and to make use of Mr. Speaker’s knowledge of the subject. However, if there is much discussion as to the advisability of leaving his name in the motion, I am sure that he will feel bound to take a certain course.

Mr McWilliams:

– It will be a great mistake if Mr. Speaker is made a member of the Committee.

Mr HIGGINS:

– I should like the goodnatured opinion of other honorable members on the point. Nothing can be done by the proposed ‘Committee. Its work will be merely to inquire and report. Its members will represent each of the States, but all they can do will be to report on the expert evidence which is brought before them. The question involved is a complex one, embracing, as it does, both, matters affecting the money market and constitutional matters. No one need covet the task of those who undertake the work. I suggest that the motion should, be passed as it stands, and that Mr. Speaker’s name should remain in it, unless he feels absolutely obliged to decline to sit on the Committee.

Mr BROWN:
Canobolas

– I shall support the motion, but I do not think that the action of the House, in referring this matter to a Select Committee, will in any way lessen the responsibility of the Cabinet in regard to it. Ministers have certain distinctive responsibilities in regard to questions of this kind, and they will remain, even if the proposed Committee is appointed. The Committee, however, may do an immense amount of good by obtaining the opinions of experts and others as to the best way of dealing with the debts of the States,’ and, when their report has been placed’ before the House, honorable members will be in a better position to deal with the whole question, while it will also be of service to the Cabinet in considering what action they will propose. I do not see that there is any good reason for objecting to the motion on the ground that the appointment of the Committee will lessen the responsibility of Ministers. The Committee should obtain very valuable information on the question to be considered. I do not agree with those who say that Mr. Speaker should not be a member of the Committee. V recognise that he has given financial matters very close attention, and is well qualified to deal with this subject. 1 hope, therefore, that the honorable member for Kooyong will leave the motion as it stands.

Mr BATCHELOR:
Boothby

-I am not at all enamoured of the motion. T think that the Cabinet should take the responsibility of proposing to the House what it thinks the best method of dealing with this matter. When the House is asked to consider such a proposal, we shall have the advantage of the knowledge of al 1 the members of the proposed Committee with the exception of you, Mr. Speaker. The one consideration that would induce me to vote for the motion is the fact that Mr. Speaker is to be a member of the Committee. At present we have no opportunity to avail ourselves of the very long experience and great ability of Mr. Speaker in financial matters, and I trust that if the Committee be appointed he will consent to become an active member of it. I am sure that the Committee would be distinctly weakened, and the respect for its decisions would be lessened, if he declined to take any part in its deliberations. Mr. Speaker was the Chairman of the Finance Committee at the last Federal Convention, and he is thoroughly familiar with the financial complexities with which the Committee will have to deal. I shall oppose the motion, but I hope that if the Committee be appointed Mr. Speaker will consent to act upon it. I congratulate the honorable member for Kooyong upon the excellent selection he has made.

Debate (on motion by Mr. Dugald

Thomson) adjourned,

page 3821

ESTIMATES

In Committee of Supply (Consideration resumed from 18th October, vide page 3755):

Department ok Trade and Customs.

Division 33 (Central staff), £6,627.

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:
Minister of Trade and Customs · Hume · Protectionist

– The provision made for the Department of Trade and Customs for the year 1904-5 was £269,797, whereas the amount now asked for is ,£269,620, or a decrease of £177.

This is very satisfactory, in view of the fact that provision is made this year for £1,991 for the payment of arrears which properly belong to last year. Exclusive of these arrears, the actual decrease is £2,168 Economy has not been practised to the prejudice of the officers, because their salaries have been provided for according to the classification rates, plus increases strongly recommended by the chief officers in the States, and approved of by the Public Service Commissioner. For officers receiving over £160 per annum- the increases amount to ,£4,357, and for officers receiving under £160 per annum the increases amount to £4,420. The States staffs have been carefully supervised, and reduced where possible. No injustice has been done to any officer, but when vacancies have occurred through retirements, transfers, deaths, &c, they have not been filled unless it has been absolutely necessary to do so. A comparison of the States staffs for the years 1903-4 and j 905-6 shows that there has been a reduction of forty-nine in the total number of officers, distributed as follows : -

At the present stage, I do not propose to enter upon matters of detail. I compiled the particulars which I have just given, after consultation with my officers, in order to indicate to honorable members the general position of the Department. In regard to the officers in the State of Victoria, where the Central Staff is, I might point out that in 1903-4 the number of officers was 272, and the expenditure £66,845. In 1904-5, the number of officers had been reduced to 258, and the expenditure to £64,501, showing a decrease of ,£2,344. For the current year, the staff has been further reduced to 248, and the estimated expenditure amounts to £62,658, showing a decrease of £1,843. Therefore, in two years, the staff has been reduced by twentyfour, and the expenditure by £4,187. Notwithstanding the net decrease shown, the following extra expenditure has been necessary. For the year, 1904-5, increases under section 19 of the Victorian Public Service Act absorbed £1,726; and it is estimated that “during the current year £500 will be required .to meet expenditure in the same direction. Adjustments, owing to increases, other than ordinary increments, granted by the Public Service Commissioner, absorb £572, and the increments for which provision -is made on the Estimates, amount to £2,000, making a total of £3,072. I mention these facts, because it would appear from the Estimates that an injustice has been done to the Victorian Collector of Customs, Mr. Smart, and to Mr. Barnard, of Tasmania, in a lesser degree. As a matter of fact. I think that they have not been quite fairly treated. I did not desire that the salaries of the officers in my Department should be increased ; but had I known that increases had been given to others, I should certainly have pressed on the Treasurer the necessity of augmenting the salaries of the officers referred to. Mr. Smart has proved himself one of the most efficient of our public servants; he does a great deal of extra work, and does it very well. I know that he feels somewhat aggrieved that no addition has been made to his salary, and I intend to ask the Treasurer to make provision in that direction upon the supplementary Estimates, or otherwise. Honorable members will see that under Mr. Smart’s management a saving of £4,187 has been effected.

Mr TUDOR:
Yarra

– When the PublicService Classification scheme was under consideration, I directed attention to the cases of some officers in the Customs Department, whose claims had been overlooked. I brought under the notice of honorable members the necessity, for reducing the overtime worked by lockers in certain bonds, and I also mentioned the fact that three junior lockers had been promoted over the heads of a number of senior lockers. It is quite possible that, as the Public Service Commissioner states, these junior officers were exceptionally smart- >

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

– I think it is desirable that we should have a quorum. [Quorum formed.]

Mr TUDOR:

– When the Public Service classification scheme was before the House I pointed out that three junior lockers in the Customs Department had been promoted to senior positions over the heads of other officers, and that the Public Service Commissioner had stated that their promotion was entirely due to their special qualifications. A short time ago I moved for the compilation of a return showing the amount of overtime that had been worked at certain bonds in Melbourne, and, strange to say, I found that one of these men had obtained £95 us. for the overtime which he had worked, whilst another had received £42 2s., and the third £37 4s.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Mr Batchelor:
BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Is the honorable member referring to Victorian lockers?

Mr TUDOR:

– Yes.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN.Then the honorable member must see that that is a matter which should properly be brought up under division 37.

Mr TUDOR:

Have the Minister or his officers taken any steps to test the accuracy of the allegation of Messrs. Henty and Co.’s representative (as published in the- Argus of ir 7th instant) that the process of bleaching such hats as those seized results in a shrinkage to half their original, size.

The reply was -

The information supplied by experts is that such hats can be bleached, but none of this shipment has been experimented on by the Department.

I want to know why an experiment has not been made, if the officials believe that the hats can be successfully bleached, and sold as Panama hats? The hats were not imported as Panamas, and it is not contended that they are Panamas, or that there was any intention on the part of the importers to sell them as such. The goods are alleged. By Messrs. Henty and Company to be of exactly the same character as those comprised in a shipment which was landed here about twelve months ago, and passed by the Customs. Those hats were sold wholesale at 2s. each, and retailed at from 3s. to 3s. 6d. each. -The present shipment, I believe, comes from the same consignor, and I think that we should have some explanation why. it should have been considered necessary to stop this particular consignment when identical ones have been admitted without question ; and why Messrs. Henty and Company have been singled out from others. The system of over-valuation has been adopted by the Minister as a means of persecuting importers in general. Apparently he desires to paralyze trade and commerce, and I shall at every opportunity raise my “voice in protest against such administration. If the Customs authorities were so cocksure that these hats could be bleached- and. sold as Panamas at £1 is. apiece, why were no experiments made to test the truth of their assertions? We have a right to assume that the Customs authorities are afraid to submit the hats to such- a test. It is not too late for the Minister to satisfy himself as to the true character of the consignment. If the assertions of the departmental officers could be proved, I should not urge the slightest objection to the action taken, but, under present circumstances, we have a right to assume that a serious blunder, if nothing worse, has been committed. I am inclined to believe that something more than a blunder is involved. A course of systematic persecution has been entered upon, and I am afraid that it will be pursued in an exaggerated form when the actions of the Department cannot be brought under immediate review. In view of all the circumstances, we have a right to seriously question the bona fides of the Minister. I should -warmly support him in any action he might take for the protection of the revenue ; but in this case not the slightest evidence has been produced to show that there was any intention on the part of the importers to perpetrate a wrong upon the public. I should like to know why the action taken in the first instance was afterwards abandoned in favour of another course, which has had the effect of depriving the aggrieved firm of an opportunity to appeal to the law Courts. If the Minister believes that he is on firm ground he should not shirk an action at law. He has branded the importers as a fraudulent business firm, and no Minister has any right to leave the aggrieved persons without any redress by process of law. Messrs. Henty and Company have challenged’ the Minister to give them an opportunity to appeal to the law Courts. According to a statement published in yesterday’s newspapers a representative of Messrs. Henty and Company stated -

We never described the hats as Panamas. They were seized because they were deemed to be undervalued. The accusation against us is practically one of fraud. If we prove our case, it will be admitted that we have been badly treated. We had a shipment of similar hats last year. They were sold wholesale at 2s. each, and retailed by the Mutual Store at 3s. or 3s. 6d. The consignor was well satisfied with the account sales which he received, although the net return was only about 2s. per hat. The question is one which seriously affects our reputation, which ought not, we maintain, to be in the hands of any one man in the Customs Department. The Customs officials state that the hats are “ retailed for £1 is. each in the city after being bleached.” An attempt was made to bleach the hats before, and here is the result.

It is explained that -

Messrs. Henty and Company’s representative then displayed two hats, which were stated to be similar to those in the hands of the Customs Department. One of these had been bleached, the operation resulting in the article shrinking into half its original size.

If that statement be true, the Minister had an opportunity to submit these hats to the test of bleaching, in order to ascertain whethey or not they were “ bleachable.” I think that the firm of Messrs. Henty and Company have a perfect right to take exception to the action of the Customs Department. If. the authorities really believe that these goods can be bleached, why do they not put them through that process? If, on the other hand, they cannot be bleached without being reduced to half their original size, the Minister and his officers stand condemned as absolutely incapable. The question then arises : “ How much more of this sort of thing are we to tolerate?” Is the Department, by its administrative acts, to be permitted to paralyze the whole commerce of this country? ‘That seems to be its policy. The entire commercial community is now in a state of fear bordering upon paralysis. As one correspondent observes -

I am in constant dread lest some error of a clerk or importer, or even of some one on the other side of the world, should cause me to be fined. When the Department changes its classification of articles every now and then, how are we to escape the snares set for all importers? For four years “Doyleys” have been rated as table-furnishings at 20 per cent. The other day this was altered, and they are now textile articles at 25 per’ cent.

Honorable members will notice that a decrease is never made in the duties levied upon goods, but always an increase. Thus our legislation is being continually set at naught by the administrative acts of the Minister, or the officers of his Department who have usurped the functions and powers of Parliament relating to the imposition of taxation. .We have a right to protest against that sort of thing. If the statement which I have just read be true - :and there _appears to be no reason to doubt its accuracy - it evidences an attempt on the part of the Department to override the legislation of this Parliament, and to increase, by administrative acts, duties which have been imposed by statute. A moment ago I referred to a challenge which has been issued to the Minister by this particular firm. According to a report in the Argus, the representative of Messrs. Henty and Company said -

The statement of the Minister is weak and childish. We would be only’ too pleased if Sir

William Lyne would take proceedings against us. That would give us the opportunity we desire of showing the public that we are in the right.

No proposal could be fairer than that. The Minister ought to afford this firm an opportunity to prove whether they were guilty of an attempt to defraud the Customs revenue. The statement continues -

We are accused of fraud. Why doeshe not proceed against us? We are perfectly ready to take up the position of the owners of the goods, and can prove that these hats are purchasable at about1s. each at the port of shipment.

Messrs. Henty and Company have no desire to shelter themselves behind the technicality that they are merely indent agents. The report proceeds -

The Customs Act says that the value stated in an entry shall be “ fair market value at the port of shipment.” It is simply absurd for any one to place a value of 4s. each upon the hats. They would be imported in enormous quantities if they could, as alleged, be retailed in Melbourne at21s. each. Several hatters have volunteered to testify in Court that the hats are low class goods.

I take it that this statement is a bona fide one, and incidentally I may mention that the members of this firm are utter strangers to me. I have had no communication with them, either verbal or otherwise, and consequently I cannot be charged with having any personal interest in the matter. My only desire is that the Department shall be fairly administered, and I am sure that the public wish for nothing else.

Mr Liddell:

– I beg to call attention to the state of the House. [Quorum formed.]

Mr JOHNSON:

– It is not too late for the Minister to recede from the false position that he has taken up, if he has. been led. into it by acting upon the advice of his officers. If he refuses to allow Messrs. Henty and Company an opportunity to establish their bona fides in a Court of law, we have a right to consider that his action has been prompted by motives other than those which have so far been disclosed. Such a refusal will be prima facie evidence that it is the policy of the Customs Department to systematically persecute importers, with a view to paralyzing the commerce of the Commonwealth.

Mr POYNTON:
Grey

– When the Estimates were under consideration last year, I made certain observations regarding the position of some assistant excise officers in South Australia. Upon page 741 1 of Hansard will be found a series of questions which I put to the then Minister of Trade and Customs, the honorable member for Gippsland. I asked him -

Were Messrs. O. V. R. Adams, F. Plumstead, Simmons, W. A. Simpson, and Ringwood employed as temporary excise officers in the Customs Department of the State of South Australia for lengthened periods, extending over two years in some instances?
Were not these officers employed at various times in the country districts attending distilleries?
Do not the regulations governing the employment and remuneration of all classes of officers provide that when any officer is absent on service away from his headquarters he shall receive certain allowances to cover travelling expenses, subsistence, &c. ?
Were the above officers paid the allowance under the regulations ?
If not, what is the justification for the Public Service Commissioner to vary the law on the subject?
Will the Minister see that justice is done to these officers - all of whom were discharged , some months ago and have not been re-employed, presumably to carry out another regulation dealing with temporary officers and their tenure of office?

In reply, the Minister stated -

Yes.
Yes.
The payment of an allowance, as provided by regulations, refers only to cases where an officer, being stationed at one place and his ordinary duties being at such place, is temporarily placed on duty in some other place. In the case of these officers, their ordinary duty was at the distilleries where they were placed, and such were their headquarters.
They “were allowed board and lodging in addition to their salaries.After reaching their stations they did no travelling., and were not entitled to any travelling allowance.
The law has not been varied. Permanent officers appointed to country stations are dealt with in the same way. They are not paid travelling allowance after reaching their station.
Under the circumstances, as explained above, it does not seem that the persons mentioned are entitled to any expenses beyond those which have already been paid-.

When I received those answers I was under the impression that they were correct. The regulation referred to distinctly states that assistant, as well as permanent, officers are entitled to certain allowances when they are absent at country stations. During the late Government’s term of office I telegraphed to the Minister of Trade and Customs, informing him that I had heard that, whilst the permanent officers were receiving these allowances, they had been denied to the assistant officers, who had been discharged. I have not received a reply to that telegram, although the late Minister of Trade and Customs promised, when we were dealing with the Estimates last ses- sion, that he would look into the matter, and see that no injustice was done to these men. I have learned from a source upon which I think I can rely that the Customs Department is actually paying permanent officers an. allowance of 10s. per day for the first week, and 5s. for each succeeding day that they serve in country districts. This allowance is in addition to the fixed salaries. I contend that, if this be true, a grave injustice has been done to those who were discharged without receiving travelling allowances. I recently brought this matter under the notice of the Minister, and trust that he will be able this evening to give me a reply. If it be fair to pay members of the permanent staff an allowance of 10s. per day for the first week, and 5s. per day for every subsequent day during which they are on duty at country stations, it is equallyfair that the same allowance should be paid to temporary employes.

Sir William Lyne:

– I gave notice last night that I should require to be supplied with information with reference to the matter mentioned by the honorable member ; but we reached the Estimates this afternoon a little sooner than I anticipated, and the officer who can supply me with the particulars is not yet present. He will be here in a few minutes.

Mr POYNTON:

– I am satisfied that the regulations distinctly provide that assistants shall” be placed on an equal footing with permanent men on country stations, and my point is that if allowances are paid to permanent employes on country stations, the men I have mentioned should be reappointed and have justice meted out to them.

Mr KELLY:
Wentworth

– I wish also to refer to the seizure of hats of which mention has already been made. Some persons may think that the Minister will have to bear most of the blame for this bungle, even if he was not directly responsible for it; but I do not desire to indict him. I wish only to briefly trace the history of the whole case, in order that the pages of Hansard may bear a true account of it, and at the conclusion of my remarks I shall ask honorable members vhether, looking at all the facts, the burden of proving the justice of its claim should rest with the Department or with the firm which has been refused an opportunity to take proceedings in a court of law As honorable members are aware, the case relates to a shipment of 1,000 hats, com monly known as Formosa hats, and made of rush. The shipment arrived in the latter part of last month. The invoice not being in the hands of the agents, Messrs. James Henty and Company, they adopted the straightforward course of talcing out a sight entry - they requested the Customs officials to open up the goods, see for themselves what they were worth, and assess them for the purposes of duty. A Customs officer opened them up, noticed that they appeared to be similar in quality to a previous shipment which had already been passed, and the Department accepted without immediate demur the same valuation as before.. One would think that the matter would have ended there; but such was not the case. The next step taken by the Department was to serve the following notice upon the agents : -

Take notice that I have this day seized as forfeited under the Customs Act 1901 the following goods, namely : -

Here follows a description of the goods -

The cause of the seizure of the said goods is that the value is not a fair market value in the country whence the goods were exported. Seized under section 161.

Now the intention of the consignees was specially directed in this notice, which bears date 20th September, 1905, to sections 205, 206, and 207 of the Customs Act, which are printed on the back of it. Section 205 provides that goods seized as forfeited shall not be sold if within one month of the seizure the owner - and under the definition section “owner” includes “agent”. - claims them; while section 207 sets forth that when a claim has been made for seized goods, the Collector is to require the claimant to enter an action, and that if such action be not entered within four months, the goods shall be condemned without further proceedings. On the very first notice of seizure which Messrs. James Henty and Company received, instructions were thus clearly given as to the course to be taken if it were desired to contest the action of the Department. The reply of the agents was very much to the point. They instructed a solicitor to act for them, and a notice of action, dated 22nd September - the day after that on which the notice of seizure was received- was served on the Department a few days later. It will thus be recognised that there was no hesitation on the part of the agents to take action. The notice sets forth that -

We-

Here follow the names of the members of the firm - hereby in pursuance of and according to the Act of Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia intituled the Customs Act 1901, and the statute in that behalf made and provided give you notice that we shall at or soon after the expiration of one calendar month from the time of your being served with this notice, cause a Writ of Summons to be issued out of the Supreme Court of the State of Victoria against you at the suit of us. . . . and proceed thereupon according to law for the recovery of £1,000 damages for that you. … at Melbourne aforesaid did. . . . wrongfully seize and detain and do still so retain o.ur goods. … ex steamship Tsinan.

The name and address of the plaintiffs’ solicitor appear at the foot of the notice, so that the Department knew with whom it had to deal. I think that honorable members will admit that this was a straightforward and prompt reply. We come now to an instance of what even a Customs Department may do when it finds itself, owing to its own stupidity, in a tight corner. As I have already mentioned, the notice of action was dated 22nd September, and it was served on the Department on the 25th of that month. On the following day, the Customs Department changed their ground of action. They did not even acknowledge the receipt of the notice of action, but immediately after its receipt served another notice of seizure upon the firm -

To James Henty and Company, Williamstreet, Melbourne. - Take notice that, in accordance with the provisions of section 161 of the Customs Act 1 gol, the goods described in the margin hereof, have been seized, as, in my opinion, they were under-valued for duty.

W. Smart, Collector of Customs.

The purchase money under section 161, j£66 2s. 8d., being the declared value, and 10 per cent., , will be paid to you on application. - A.W.S.

Mr KELLY:

– On the 28th September, three days after the Department had been served with notice of the intention of Messrs. Henty and Company to bring an action for damages, and two days after if had informed Messrs Henty and Company of its intention to purchase the hats, under section 161, the Collector of Customs acknowledged the notice of action in the following terms: -

I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your notice in reference to the above, and to inform you that the goods in question have been purchased by this Department, under section 161 of the Customs Act. Your clients havebeen notified that the purchase money fixed by the above-mentioned section, the declared value and 10 per cent, on the amount of such value, will be paid to them on application. The purchase was effected by seizure of the goods under section 161.

The answer to this letter was as straightforward and frank as all the actions of Messrs. Henty and Company have been, and, therefore, in as marked contrast with the actions of the Department. Their legal advisers wrote to the Department as follows : -

I have the honour to acknowledge receipt of your letter of 28th ult., intimating that the goods in question in this matter have been “ purchased “ by your department under section 161 of the Customs Act.

It is inconceivable and so utterly inconsistent with the position and quite ultra’ vires of the power of the department - after deliberate exercise of its statutory and quasi-judicial power - in enforcing the serious penal step (with consequent statutory rights thereby accruing to the importers) of having seized the goods “as forfeited under the Customs Act,” and as such forfeited goods thereupon removed them to the King’s Warehouse, and after I had thereupon given you written notice of action foi damages and consequent claim to their goods on behalf of my clients, that your department should1 afterwards seek to nullify such position by its assumption of the new and less offensive claim as “ a purchaser “ of the goods previously “ seized as forfeited,” and so lying under your department’s condemnation in the King’s Warehouse.

You are aware that throughout the whole of this transaction my clients acted in the most open and candid manner, and also had the goods submitted under sight entry for the examination of yourself and your officers, with the result that my clients have been without any possible justification by the conduct of your department, and by your notice (which presupposed their having committed and imputed their guilt in respect of one of the more serious offences under the Customs Act, which involved1 forfeiture), subjected to an imputation of such dishonorable conduct as would have entitled; your department to seize their goods as forfeited.

As honorable men and honest traders, my clients could not submit to any such outrageously unjust imputation and, therefore, for the protection of their reputation, and in order to. secure the judgment of a court exonerating them, and condemning the department, they felt constrained to take up the position indicated in the notice of the 22nd September ult., served upon you on the 25th idem.

In addition to the legal rights of my clients, your receipt of such notice claiming damages for the illegal “ seizure as forfeited “ of their goods - thus, as well as by this letter again, claimed by them as owners - doubtless gives you, as collector, the right (should the department for a moment consider it as any justification (or seriously doubting their bona fides in the matter), under section 207 and others, instead of taking any proceedings for their condemnation, to give notice requiring my clients, as the owners and claimants, to enter an action against the collector for the recovery of the goods, but if such action be not entered within four months after the date of such notice the goods shall “be deemed to be condemned without any further proceedings, and in this aspect of the question you will also be, of course, aware of the dictum of Dr. Wollaston, the Comptroller-General, in his very excellent and complete work upon the Customs of Australia, at page 134, “ Officers in dealing with seized goods should be careful, “before selling, to see that no notice of claim, or any document which could be deemed to be such, has been received, When the absence of a claim is relied on to cause forfeiture.”

You will, of course, realize that whatever, may be the extent of any such rights of the department, the department certainly has no right, after the exercise of its election and written decision, as notified, that the goods were “ seized as forfeited,” to afterwards shift its ground of procedure bv resorting to another, and the entirely inconsistent, step of purchasing the goods.

You must, therefore, see that in no aspect, having regard for the circumstances of the case, and the provisions of the Act, have you any legal justification for the position sought to be assumed by your notice of the 26th of September ult., endeavouring to set up a purchase of such goods, already treated and notified by the department as forfeited, and which had been as such removed by your officers to, and deposited in, the King’s Warehouse for condemnation under the Act.

Such second or attempted purchase notice Being therefore nugatory, your department cannot lawfully act thereunder,, and consequent thereon sell or otherwise dispose of such goods. The departmental notice of the 6th inst., published in the city press of this date, is therefore a false step, which the department must now realize. in defiance of the law, and a gross infringement of my clients’ rights, and therefore cannot be legally effectuated.

And as to such purported sale my clients, for your information, would direct your attention to the gross misrepresentation contained in your advertised notice of sale in improperly describing the goods as *’ Panama hats,” instead of Formosa rush hats.

I shall be glad of your intimation that the intention indicated by such notice of sale has been abandoned, and if not so, my clients, in addition to their other remedies, will apply to the court for an injunction to restrain any such contemplated illegality.

My clients invite the department, if its doubts as to any alleged offence have not been already dispelled, to at once commence proceedings against them for any breach of the Customs Act, or to consent to my clients commencing their action for damages against the department without awaiting the expiration of the statutory period afforded by the Act for the department to consider its position.

That letter is signed by the solicitor for the firm. The Herald, in commenting upon it, says -

The effect of Mr. Croker’s letter was the withdrawal, as notified in last evening’s Herald, of the public notice inviting tenders for the purchase of the consignment of hats in question.

Mr KELLY:

– They had under the first notice served upon them; but when they sought to avail themselves of the right- notified on that notice - to take action the Department jumped to another position and refused to allow them to seek a remedy in the law courts. That is our complaint. If the Minister will assure me that he will revert to his former position, and give the firm an opportunity to test the question in the Supreme Court of Victoria’, I shall say no more about the matter. The honorable gentleman, however, is as close as an oyster. The Department contend that other hats which, in appearance, are much like those seized, and can be bleached and sold as Panama hats, at£11s. or £2 2s. each, are being imported into Australia. That fact appearsin the correspondence between Messrs. Henty and Company and their client. I shall read the correspondence, and then ask the Committee whether the attitude of the agents, on the one hand, and that of the Department, on the other, do not lead irresistibly to the conclusion that the former have justly valued the goods, and that the Department, having made a blunder in the first instance, is now unscrupulously seeking to cover it up. Five packages of these hats were landed and sold in Melbourne nearly twelve months ago, and account sales were rendered by Messrs. James Henty and Company, as agents, to their client in the East, Mr. Woodley. These account sales show that two of the hats were sold at 3s. 6d. each, and a number of others at 2s. each. The latter price was obtained for a wholesale parcel, some, if not all of which, was sold to the Mutual Store, and retailedby that company at as.11d. each. That, I am informed, was the price at which they were retailed as ladies’ hats, after they had been improved in appearance by having ribbons placed upon them. The remaining hats were sold at 3s. each to friends of the staff, or other persons* who had been informed that they were for sale at the warehouse. They were sold in. their crude state, -yet averaged a higher price than those sold to the retailers. Mr. Woodley acknowledges the receipt of a letter from his agents, enclosing these account sales and draft, which he says - is very satisfactory, and for which please accept my best thanks. The above result prompts me to inquire if a further shipment next July would be likely to sell at a similar price -

That is, as., 2s. 6d., and 3s. each -

I have special facilities for buying these hats, and could ship any quantity with due notice. Please let me know if any difference is made between the two qualities. The commonest could be bought at 45 cents, the better quality at 65 cents, in Formosa.

This letter was written on 25th January last - nearly nine months before action was taken by the Department. It was obviously written in good faith, and it mentions that the goods were purchased at 45 cents and 65 cents each in Formosa, the value of acent being about £d. The agents, Messrs. Henty and Company, replied -

After we had disposed of the last consignment we had further inquiries, and it looks as if a shipment of five cases of the better quality, and five cases of the cheaper quality, could be sold to advantage. Please arrange shipment, so that they arrive here in October or November, when our summer starts. You might lessen the percentage of the smaller size hats in your next shipment. -

I direct special attention to the concluding sentence -

If a still better quality is made you might send us samples and prices.

They asked not for shipments, but merely for- samples of better qualities, and these have not yet come to hand. The next letter, which I shall read, was written by the client in Formosa to the agents -

I am in receipt of your ‘favour of 2ISt March, and hope to send you 500 hats of each quality in August next -

The same class of hats as had been formerly sent -

Being now on the spot, I can see after the packing and shipping -

I would direct special attention to the next paragraph -

There is a factory here that ships another style of hat, costing 14s. to 20s. each. They are made of screw. pine, and bleached, and I believe are sent in quantity to Australia. Those that I send are made of a rush, and /ould appear to sell better than the above expensive kinds. Please let me know the duty charged at per cent., and if they are blocked before being sold.

That letter was written on 30th May last - about four months prior to the action taken by the Department. “ Mr. Poynton. - What was the meaning of the reference to the hats being blocked ?

Mr KELLY:

– He wished to know whether they were made up before being sold. The agents’ reply will satisfy the honorable member in regard to that point. Before passing from this letter, however, I wish to emphasize the point that long before the action taken by the Department the client, in a letter to his agents, stated that another type of hats, which cost from 14s. to 20s. each, was being shipped from Formosa to Australia. He himself described the difference between that class of hat - a hat made of screw pine, and therefore a proper “Panama” - and those made of rush, which had been seized by the Department. The reply of Messrs. James Henty and Company to that letter was as follows : -

We are in receipt of yours of the 30th May, and note you propose to send us a further shipment of hats in August. If you decide to send along any, you might include a dozen or two of the higher costing ones as a sample. The demand here for this class of hat, however, is only very small. The duty is 20 per cent, ad valorem, and we sold them unblocked -

That answers the question of the honorable member for Grey -

You may rely on our disposing of the shipment to best advantage.

– There was nothing illegal in that. ‘

Mr KELLY:

– I “will read an extract from page 585 of the last edition of May, wherein it is stated -

No method has been established for obtaining in the Committee a general discussion upon the administration of the expenditure sanctioned by the civil service estimates ; and debate must be kept to the specific object of the grant which is placed before the Committee. Eoi instance, the grant for the salary of the Chief Secretary for Ireland does not justify a review of his conduct regarding prosecutions - a subject which is relevant to the grant for public prosecutions. Criticism made on the grant for prisons upon the enforcement by the officials of the prison rules, was permitted, but nor of the conditions imposed by. those rules from a legislative point of view -

That, of course, refers to a question of policy - nor can the circumstances attending the trial which resulted in sending a prisoner to gaol, bediscussed on the prisons vote.

I am very loth to intervene, and I mav ‘ say that I have done so entirely upon my own responsibility, and from a desire that the proceedings of the Committee shall be perfectly in order. I do suggest to the honorable member that the proper time to discuss a question of policy is when the Budget is before us, and not when we are dealing with the Estimates of the separate Departments.

Mr Wilks:

– I am very pleased to obtain something in ‘ the nature of a definite ruling in regard to this matter; but I would point out to you, sir, that the custom has been to allow a general discussion to take place upon the first item of the Estimates of each Department. Our right in that respect has never been questioned. Now, however, in the middle of this debate, an entirely new departure is to be made. Had I known that such a surprise was to be sprung upon us, is it likely that I should have foregone 111 right to criticise the Budget statement? Certainly not. I do not know whether it is proposed that we should follow the practice of the House of Commons ; but it does not agree with our own practice. Personally,’ I shall take the very first opportunity of putting this matter before Mr. Speaker, with a view to ascertaining whether recognised practice in this House is to be lightly set aside. In the meantime, I trust that you, sir, will not give a definite ruling upon the matter.

Mr Johnson:

– Upon the point of order which_has . been raised, I desire to submit for your consideration a case of this kind : It may ‘happen that at the conclusion of a Budget debate the administrative acts of a Minister mav be called into question.

The CHAIRMAN:

– I have not objected to that.

Mr JOHNSON:

– Then your ruling does not prevent honorable members referring to the administrative acts of a Minister?

The CHAIRMAN:

– If honorable members will permit me, I should like to say that the only objection which I raised was to the discussion of questions of policv. Questions of administration will, under the first item of every Department, be open to the fullest and freest debate.

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

– As your ruling, sir, if adopted, will have general application, I think it is of some importance that this question should be definitely settled. As has already been pointed out, it was decided, at an early period in the history of the first Commonwealth Parliament, that an opportunity should be afforded upon the first item of the Estimates of each Department for a general discussion. That discussion has extended to questions of administration, and also of policy. So far as I am aware, that practice has never been departed from. You, sir, have quoted May as the authority for your present decision. But I would point out that May says -

No method has been established for obtaining in the Committee a general discussion upon the administration of the expenditure sanctioned by the civil service estimates ; and debate must be kept to the specific object of the grant which is placed before the Committee.

Thus, May lays it down that in the British House of Commons the administration of the expenditure sanctioned by the Civil Service Estimates cannot be debated, whereas you, sir, propose to allow a debate upon the question of administration, and to exclude discussion upon questions of policy to which the extract quoted from May makes no reference. Then, again, May acknowledges that in the case of some Estimates an exception has been made in the British Parliament, and that, by established usage, the Minister in charge of the Army or Navy Estimates may make a general statement concerning the services for the year upon the first votes that are proposed to theCommittee, and a general discussion upon the Army and Navy services is taken thereon. Thus exception has been made in connexion with these services. In this Parliament the exception has been made in connexion with each of the Departments. It would be a serious departure from the procedure which has been established here if effect were given to your ruling, which is not in accordance with the practice laid down in May, inasmuch as you, sir, are prepared to allow a discussion to take place upon administration - a discussion which is not allowed in the British Parliament. I think that the House, which has adopted a certain practice, should at least have a deliberative voice in its abrogation.

Mr WILKS:

– I sincerely trust that you, sir, will suspend your judgment upon this matter until we have obtained a decision from Mr. Speaker. I have almost concluded my remarks in regard to the question of the sugar bounty. The ComptrollerGeneral of Customs is the chief adviser of the Minister, and as that officer has recently returned from a visit to Queensland, I presume that he has advised the Minister upon this subject. What I desire to point out is that some industries are at present suffering owing to the fact that a sufficient drawback is not allowed upon certain articles which are exported. I refer particularly to the jam industry, and in this connexion I should like to quote the following extract from the report of the Imperial Committee to which I have referred : -

The importance of the jam industry to the fruit-growers cannot be over-estimated. The jam-maker, as one witness put it, is the fruitgrower’s best customer. Immense quantities of fruit are grown for the express purpose of being made into jams; and all growers, including those who produce the highest and choicest class of fruit, send a large part of their crops to the jam factories every year. As Mr. Berry stated, they depend on their best fruit to pay their expenses, and the “second size” and “common varieties” are sold to the jam manufacturer, and give to the growers their profit. The jam industry has enormously increased in recent years, the public taste for jam having steadily grown, and a considerable export trade having sprung up. One cause of this development has, certainly, been the cheapness of sugar.

During the earlier sittings of the Committee, several witnesses expressed a fear that the price of sugar might rise, in consequence of the imposition of the sugar duty, and the abolition of the bounties. But, although some of these witnesses alleged that there had been a slight increase, none of them could say that the jam industry had been seriously affected at that time; in fact, both Mr. Blackwell and Mr. Chivers, the two jam makers then examined, emphatically stated that little, if any, damage had been done to the fruit growing industry.

Since then, however, there occurred the remarkable rise in the price of sugar in the last months of 1904, and the Committee, therefore, summoned another witness, Sir Thomas Pink, in order to ascertain what had been the effect of this rise in the jam trade. His view was that the effect so far had not been great, since the rise had taken place after the fruit crop of 1904. At the same time, he attributed this rise principally to the partial failure of the beet crop on the Continent, and was confident that, if there were a good crop next season, the price would fall again. He pointed out that sugar was then being sold by speculators for delivery next December at 4s. a cwt. less than its present price. While not denying that the abolition of the bounties had contributed to some extent to the rise in price, he stated that a large increase in the production of cane sugar was likely to take place in consequence of their abolition, and said that already large quantities of the latest and best machinery were being sent to the principal cane-growing countries ; thus ultimately there would probably be an increase in the total amount of sugar produced in the world. With regard to the duty, he objected to it, both on the ground that it was a tax on one of the raw materials of the manufacture of jam, and also because it was too high, amounting to about1/2d. a lb. on sugar, and £d. a lb. on jam - jam consisting roughly of 50 per cent. of sugar, and 50 per cent. of fruit.

Sir William Lyne:

– I may inform the honorable member that the matter of the drawback was discussed to-day at a meeting of the Cabinet, and that the Government have decided to take it into consideration. The other matter has also been discussed.

Mr WILKS:

– I am very pleased to have that statement from the Minister, and trust that honorable members will recognise that I have been led to discuss this matter at some length solely because of my belief that it is one of national importance, deserving the serious consideration of honorable members.

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

– What further proof is required? We have the statement of a disinterested person - for instance, the honorable member; for Denison - that he has seen these hats, and is satisfied that the Department has made a mistake. That is the conclusion at which he has arrived, after a careful investigation, and I would rather accept his opinion upon this matter than that of the Minister or the experts of the

Department. The honorable member speaks with a knowledge of the trade extending over fifty years. Then again, we have the results,, of the investigation by the honorable member for Wentworth, and the honorable member for Corangamite. It seems utterly useless, however, to address any appeal for justice or fair play to the Ministry, who have a solid party at their back, conniving, as I think, at a gross injustice.

Mr Storrer:

– Is the honorable member in order, Mr. Chairman, in asserting that honorable members on this side .are conniving at an act of injustice?

The CHAIRMAN:

– He is not, and I ask him to withdraw the remark.

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

– I withdraw it. The reputation of a firm of merchants has been besmirched by the Minister, and they ask for the aright to vindicate their character.

Mr Watson:

– There is no allegation of fraud.

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

– Does the honorable member shelter himself behind such a technicality? The Minister has seized these hats in the exercise of his legal powers - powers which he should be chary to exercise.

Mr Poynton:

– When the Government increased the valuation of imported harvesters for Customs purposes the honorable member said that they should seize the machines.

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

– I said nothing of the kind. The Minister made a deliberate promise to the House that he would look further into the matter affecting the valuation of harvesters, and give the persons concerned a chance to prove their contention. He has never carried out that promise. All that I am asking is that the statement made by Messrs. James Henty and Company shall be investigated. If they have been guilty of sharp practice, they should be imprisoned, and kept there. They deserve nothing better if that be the case ; but before we destroy a firm’s reputation in this way we ought to give them a chance to be heard, and to show in a British Court of justice that they have not done the things imputed to them. I protest against the arbitrary methods adopted by the Minister, who has not the intelligence or the courtesy to make a statement to the Committee in reply to the allegations concerning his administration’. He is prepared to apply the methods of a Czar to the Parliament of Australia, and I congratulate him upon his solid backing of men1 who ought at least to have some respect for the elementary principles of justice. /

Mr Thomas:

– That sounds verv well.

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

Mr Thomas:

– Cannot the Victorian members speak for the firm?

Mr LONSDALE:

– It does, not matter to me Whether the members of the firm are Victorians or South Australians. We are all members of the one Commonwealth, and no one citizen of Australia should be treated unjustly. We do not wish to place the Department in an unfair position, and do not ask it to admit that the seizure was wrongful. All we wish is that these gentlemen shall have an opportunity to bring the action of law of which they have given notice, to prove that they have not committed fraud. Some one objected just now to the term “ British justice,” but if it is Australian justice that the Department has meted out in this case, I say, save me from it. We desire that British justice shall be done. There are other matters to which I might refer in connexion with these Estimates, But I do not wish to do so. One cannot study the history of this case without being satisfied as to the bona fides of the consignees. They are prepared to take the risk of going to law, and of having an adverse verdict returned against them. Thai shows that they are satisfied that they are in the right. I hope that that section of the House which publicly stands by the Minister will, in the interests of justice, approach him privately, and get him to do what is fair. The Minister may say what he pleases about not having been influenced bv the notice of action which was served on the Department, but it is extraordinary that he. did not change his ground until after it was received. I appeal to the Prime Minister, who is now present, and who has a knowledge of the law, to see if something cannot be done to give justice to these people. We are not engaged in a “ stonewall.” All we ask for is justice. If the Minister had promised to allow the consignees to bring an action at law the discussion would have ceased long ago. Some twelve months ago a consignment of ha$s was sent to Messrs. Henty and Company from the East.

They were passed through the Customs at a valuation of1s.1d. each, and sold wholesale at the average price of. 2s. fid. each. The consignor was so pleased with the price obtained that he wrote to say that he would send another consignment in August, which is the consignment which has been seized by the Department. We believe that this seizure is wrongful, and I ask the Prime Minister to use his influence to gain an opportunity for the consignees to test the action of the Department in a court of law. However, as I understand that I can speak on this matter in the morning, I shall not refer to it further now.

Mr LIDDELL:
Hunter

– I wish to draw the attention of the Minister to a matter of considerable importance. I have seen the statement in the newspapers that the Minister has ‘declared that it is his intention, in order to discourage the smuggling of opium’, to destroy any smuggled opium which may be confiscated by the Customs Department. Opium, however, is an exceedingly valuable drug, which has very useful medicinal offices, and I see no reason why confiscated importations should not be banded over to the hospitals, or disposed of in some way, so that the drug may be of service to those who require it. For many years it was the practice in England to destroy all smuggled tobacco by burning it in what was known as the “ Queen’s pipe,” and in that way a large quantity of valuable material was wasted. I ask the Minister to see that opium which is being smuggled into the country is not similarly wasted.

Proposed vote agreed to.

Division 34 (Patents), £9,145

Mr LONSDALE:
New England

– It does not matter what other honorable members may have agreed to, I shall not allow myself to be prevented from appealing to the Prime Minister for justice in the case of Messrs. Henty and Company. Apparently I have been tricked. I understood that progress was to be reported. I should not have agreed to finish my speech under other circumstances. Personally, I am prepared to stop here all night, and to-morrow as well, to prevent an injustice from being done. The Minister knows that his action was unjust. When I said that I would speak in the morning the Prime Minister nodded his head, showing that I have been tricked.

Mr Wilks:

– The honorable member can say what he has to say on the Appropriation Bill.

Mr LONSDALE:

– It will be too late then. However-, I shall not be caught in this way again.

Proposed vote agreed to.

Division 35 (Statistics), £1,525; division 36 (New South Wales), £70,204, agreed to.

Division 37 (Victoria), £62,658

Mr KELLY:
Went worth

– I should like to know whether the Minister intends to reply to the representations which have been made to him to-night.

Sir William Lyne:

– I propose to make a short statement when we reach the last division.

Proposed vote agreed to.

Division 38 (Queensland), £51,668 ; division 39 (South Australia), £25,661 ; division 40 (Western Australia), £32,653, agreed to.

Division 41 (Tasmania), £9,479

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:
Minister of Trade and Customs · Hume · Protectionist

– I wish to make a short statement in reference to the assertions

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

– I rise to a point of order. I ask you, sir, to rule that the Minister cannot make any explanation at this juncture, except such as may directly relate to the vote before the Chair.

Mr Kelly:

– I waived my right to criti cize a number of the proposed votes, on the distinct understanding that the Minister would make a short statement at this stage. I do not know whether the Minister has been in collusion with the honorable member for Parramatta–

The CHAIRMAN:

-I must ask the honorable member to confine his remarks to the vote before the Chair.

Sir William Lyne:

– Most honorable members desired to hear my reply to the unfounded representations to-night, but some are evidently afraid of what I may have to say. I shall make a short statement on the motion for the adjournment of the House.

Proposed vote agreed to.

Progress reported.

page 3853

ADJOURNMENT

Order of Business : Seizure of Panama Hats : Fortnightly Payments of Public Servants

Mr DEAKIN:
Minister of External Affairs · Ballarat · Protectionist

– I move -

That the House do now adjourn.

– There will be much more made. It is ‘not necessary that 1 should say any more. I should have made this explanation earlier in the sitting, but honorable members are aware that, when a Minister desires to get his Estimates through, it is not wise for him to say too much, lest he should invite undue criticism. Out of deference to honorable members, opposite, and to show that I have had no desire to flout them in any way, I have made this explanation.

Mr KELLY:
Wentworth

– In the course of his remarks, the Minister has said that honorable members who referred to the presence of moths in the consignment did so with the express object of damaging the sale of the hats. That statement is absolutely incorrect. Until this evening, I do not think that any honorable member, or any member of the outside public, knew I would say this evening that there were signs of moths in the consignment. I think it due to the honorable member for

Corangamite to make this statement. The matter has not been brought forward with the object of prejudicing the sale of -the hats, and I have not referred to it in order to benefit a firm of whom I knew nothing. I have taken up the matter solely in the public interest, and I consider it extremely unworthy of the Minister to attribute such motives as he has just attributed to honorable members on this side.

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

– I wish to know if Ministers are prepared to give any information with regard to a question which I put to the Treasurer of the late Administration. I desired to know whether it was the intention of the Government to pay the officials, and particularly the minor officials of the Post Office, fortnightly instead of monthly. The question is one in which a very great many officials in the Commonwealth service are vitally interested, and it is one to which the Government should give some consideration.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I notice an order of the day on the paper for the 16th November, dealing with the matter to which the honorable member refers.

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

– I asked a question of the Treasurer of the last Administration, to which I received a reply tantamount to an intimation that I should have a further reply later on. I am now asking whether the present Government are in a position to give me the further reply which was promised prior to the motion to which Mr. Speaker has referred being put’ on the notice-paper. I do not think that my question infringes the standing order, because it preceded the motion, and I ami merely asking for the reply which was. delayed. I am not one of those who wish, to occupy the time of the House uselessly, but, as we have been detained here so long, I thought. I might get the information for which I have asked.

Sir William Lyne:

– I cannot give the information, but I shall direct the attention of my right honorable colleague to the honorable member’s question.

Mr Bamford:

– I think that at this stage of the proceedings it is advisable that there should be a quorum.

There not being a quorum present,

Mr. Speaker adjourned the House at 12.14 a-m. (Friday).

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 19 October 1905, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1905/19051019_reps_2_28/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant

House of Representatives19 October 1905

QUESTION

WEATHER TELEGRAMS

Sir LANGDON BONYTHON:BARKER, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

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

QUESTION

DESPATCH OF TELEGRAMS

Mr KING O’MALLEY:DARWIN, TASMANIA

Mr AUSTIN CHAPMAN:Protectionist

QUESTION

FEDERAL CAPITAL SITE

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

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

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

Mr DEAKIN:

QUESTION

IMPORTATION OF HATS

Mr KELLY:WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:Minister for Trade and Customs · HUME, NEW SOUTH WALES · Protectionist

QUESTION

TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH TUNNELS: ADELAIDE

Sir LANGDON BONYTHON:

Mr AUSTIN CHAPMAN:Protectionist

IMPORTATION OF OPIUM

HOME RULE FOR IRELAND

Mr HIGGINS:Northern Melbourne

Mr Knox:

Mr SPEAKER:

Mr HIGGINS:

Mr McCay:

Mr Higgins:

Mr SPEAKER:

Mr Higgins:

Mr McCay:

Mr SPEAKER:

Mr HIGGINS:

Mr SPEAKER:

Mr HIGGINS:

Mr SPEAKER:

Mr HIGGINS:

Mr SPEAKER:

Mr HIGGINS:

Mr SPEAKER:

Mr HIGGINS:

Mr Watson:

Mr SPEAKER:

Mr Higgins:

In Division:

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Mr SPEAKER:

Mr McCay:

Mr Chanter:

Mr McCay:

Mr Watson:

Mr McCay:

Mr Watson:

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Mr Mahon:

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Mr SPEAKER:

Mr McCay:

Mr SPEAKER:

Mr Watson:

Mr SPEAKER:

Mr Johnson:

Mr SPEAKER:

Mr SPEAKER:

Mr McCay:

Mr Watson:

Mr SPEAKER:

Mr Johnson:

Mr SPEAKER:

Mr Chanter:

Mr WILKS:Dalley

Mr SPEAKER:

House of Representatives
19 October 1905

Sir LANGDON BONYTHON:
BARKER, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

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

Mr KING O’MALLEY:
DARWIN, TASMANIA

Mr AUSTIN CHAPMAN:
Protectionist

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

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

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

Mr KELLY:
WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:
Minister for Trade and Customs · HUME, NEW SOUTH WALES · Protectionist

Mr AUSTIN CHAPMAN:
Protectionist

Mr HIGGINS:
Northern Melbourne

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

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

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

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

Mr WILKS:
Dalley

Mr CAMERON:
Wilmot

Mr SYDNEY SMITH:
MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT

Mr SYDNEY SMITH:
MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT

Mr SYDNEY SMITH:
MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT

Mr SYDNEY SMITH:
MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT

Mr WATSON:
Bland

Mr SYDNEY SMITH:
MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT

Mr FISHER:
Wide Bay

Mr BROWN:
Canobolas

Mr BATCHELOR:
Boothby

Sir WILLIAM LYNE:
Minister of Trade and Customs · Hume · Protectionist

Mr TUDOR:
Yarra

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

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Mr Batchelor:
BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Mr LONSDALE:
New England

Mr JOHNSON:
Lang

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Mr McDonald:
KENNEDY, QUEENSLAND

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

Mr POYNTON:
Grey