Senate
20 September 1906

2^nd Parliament · 3^rd Session

TELEPHONE CONDENSER SYSTEM
QUESTION
- KALGOORLIE TO PORT AUGUSTA RAILWAY SURVEY
QUESTION
- DUTIES ON AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENTS
QUESTION
- ALLEGED AMMUNITION TRUST
CALL OF THE SENATE
QUESTION
- CADETS
QUESTION
- PUBLIC SERVICE : APPEALS
KALGOORLIE TO PORT AUGUSTA RAILWAY SURVEY BILL
- Third Reading
CONSTITUTION ALTERATION (NATIONALIZATION OF MONOPOLIES) BILL
- Second Reading
KALGOORLIE TO PORT AUGUSTA RAILWAY BILL
- Third Reading
EXCISE TARIFF BILL
REFERENDUM (CONSTITUTION ALTERATION) BILL
CONSTITUTION ALTERATION (SENATE ELECTIONS) BILL
CONSTITUTION ALTERATION (STATE DEBTS) BILL
CONSTITUTION ALTERATION (SPECIAL DUTIES) BILL

The President took the chair at 10.30 a.m., and read prayers.

page 4965

TELEPHONE CONDENSER SYSTEM

Senator MULCAHY:
TASMANIA

– I wish to know from the Minister representing the PostmasterGeneral if any objection will be raised to the laying on the table of the Senate of a return showing the telephone lines in connexion with which the condenser system, approved by Mr. W. P. Hallam, of Tasmania, is being used, and stating the saving in cost by the adoption of this system.

Senator KEATING:
Minister (without portfolio) · TASMANIA · Protectionist

– Personally, I see no objection. I shall bring the matter under the notice of the PostmasterGeneral, and inform the honorable senator definitely at the earliest opportunity.

page 4965

QUESTION

KALGOORLIE TO PORT AUGUSTA RAILWAY SURVEY

Senator DOBSON:
TASMANIA

– Has the Ministerof Defence read the newspaper account of last night’s proceedings in the South Australian Parliament ? When the Premier of the State was asked if he would introduce a Bill assenting to the survey of the proposed line from Kalgoorlie to Port Augusta, seeing that the Federal Senate had virtually agreed to it, he replied that he proposed to do so, subject to the conditions alreadv named in regard to. the mute. Does the Minister understand that the South Australian Government reserve the right to approve or reject the route determined upon ; and, if so, is he, in spite of that fact, going on with the Bill ?

Senator PLAYFORD:
Minister for Defence · SOUTH AUSTRALIA · Protectionist

– Of course, I shall go on with the Bill. The statement referred to makes no difference at all. I have not yet had time to read this morning’s newspapers, but I have no doubt that the honorable senator has correctly represented the substance of the parliamentary report. The remarks attributed to the Premier are exactly in accord with those expressed bv him in a written communication to the Prime Minister of the Commonwealth. South Australia is ouite willing to allow a survey to be made, but is determined to have a voice in the selection of the route of the line before consenting to its construction.

page 4966

QUESTION

DUTIES ON AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENTS

Senator PLAYFORD:
Protectionist

– I do not yet know when the proposals will be finally dealt with in another place, but I shall make inquiries, and, if possible, inform honorable senators some days beforehand of the intention to bring them before the Senate.

Senator Sir Josiah Symon:

– May we take it that they will not be brought down on Monday, Tuesday, or Wednesday?

Senator PLAYFORD:

– I cannot say definitely, but I shall give the Senate notice as early as possible.

Senator Sir Josiah Symon:

– Two or three days’ notice?

Senator PLAYFORD:

– I will not promise that; but I shall give a sufficiently long notice to enable honorable senators to come from Sydney, or from Adelaide, in time to discuss the proposals. There will be at least a day’s notice.

page 4966

QUESTION

ALLEGED AMMUNITION TRUST

Senator DOBSON:

– Has the Minister of Defence seen the statement which appears in this morning’s Age, alleging that there is an ammunition ring in England which prevents Australian manufacturers’ from buying powder there for the making of fuses, and compels them to obtain their supplies from Germany?

Senator PLAYFORD:
Protectionist

– I read a statement of that kind, about six months ago, but have taken no notice of it. I am not aware whether there is any truth in it ; but, if true, it affects us to only a limited extent. The military authorities know nothing about the matter. If I took notice of every newspaper paragraph, I should not have time to do anything else.

page 4966

CALL OF THE SENATE

The PRESIDENT:

– In reference to the call of the Senate, which took place yesterday, three senators did not answer to thennames when they were called. One senator was absent on leave ; the other two attended in their places during the day and’ made explanations which appeared to me to be satisfactory. Therefore, I do not think that any action should be taken.

page 4966

QUESTION

CADETS

Senator DOBSON:

asked the Minister of Defence, upon notice -

Is it the intention of the Minister to transfer the Victorian Senior Cadet Battalion to the Military Forces of the Commonwealth; and, if not,
Will the Minister alter the Cadet Regulations so as to permit youths over nineteen years of age to serve in such Battalion and enable officers, other than school teachers, to obtain employment as officers in the said Battalion?
Does the Minister intend to alter the regulation applying to both junior and senior cadets which limits applicants for permanent employment in cadet corps to “teachers”?

Senator PLAYFORD:
Protectionist

– The ‘ answers te the honorable senator’s questions are as follow .- -

No. At 17 years of age those who have served not less than twelve months in a Cadet Corps may transfer either to the Militia ‘ or Volunteers, and Senior Cadets may remain in their Corps until they reach the age of 19 years. 2. (o) Section 5a of the Defence Act limits Senior Cadets to between the ages of 14 and rg.
1. -There is nothing in the Regulations to prevent candidates “other than school teachers” obtaining commissions in Cadet Corps. There are no permanent officers specially employed with Senior Cadet Battalions.
The Regulations do not limit applicants for permanent employment to “ teachers,” but the intention is lo give preference to teachers as being more in touch with schools.

page 4966

QUESTION

PUBLIC SERVICE : APPEALS

Senator PEARCE:
for Senator Staniforth Smith

asked the Minister representing the Minister of Home Affairs, upon notice - “1. Is the Government aware that under the present conditions many months frequently elapse before a decision is arrived at in the determination of appeals made to the Appeal Board created under the” Public Service Act, more particularly in the case of suspensions.

Will the Government favorably consider the advisability of making such alterations in the constitution of the Appeal Board created under the Public Service Act as will insure a more speedy determination of these appeals.

Senator KEATING:
Protectionist

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

Delay in certain cases in the nast has been due to causes beyond the Public Service Commissioner, but steps have since been taken which will prevent any undue delay in the future.
1. This is not necessary, as cases of suspension are dealt with bv Boards of Inquiry; and, under recent instructions issued by the Public Service Commissioner, the suspension is to be removed immediately after receipt of the Board’s report, unless the offence be of such gravity as to warrant dismissal.’

page 4967

KALGOORLIE TO PORT AUGUSTA RAILWAY SURVEY BILL

Third Reading

Senator PLAYFORD:
South AustraliaMinister of Defence · Protectionist

– In moving

That the Bill be now read a third time,

I ask honorable senators to assist me in passing it at as early a date as possible.

Senator MULCAHY (Tasmania) [10.45). - So far, I have taken no part in the debate on the Bill, and I do not propose now to speak at any length, notwithstanding the hints which have appeared in one or two quarters. There are some points which I think have not been dealt with very fully. As a representative of Tasmania, which I believe is almost unanimously opposed to the measure, I feel that I should not be doing my duty if I did not oppose its passage and offer a few remarks on the mode in which it has been brought forward to the displacement of public business important to the whole Commonwealth, and not to a part thereof. In the first place, I desire to deal with some points which I think are sufficient to justify a very strong opposition being offered to the motion. With me, it is not a question of whether this railway should be constructed or not, or whether we should practically commit ourselves to its construction by voting for a survey, but whether the Commonwealth should be directly or indirectly saddled with the responsibility of the work. At some time sooner or later, there is not the slightest doubt that a connexion between the great State of Western Australia and the eastern States will become a necessity. Whether that will be accomplished by means of an ordinary coast line such as is now proposed or by what a good many persons would like to see - a transcontinental line which’ would tap the heart of the country and open up practically a new State for colonization and settlement - I cannot say.

Senator O’Keefe:

– This is not a coast line. If it were, it might be somewhat useful.

Senator MULCAHY:

– So far as I can understand, it is a line which would run close to and parallel with the coast, and would not open up the interior of the States concerned at all.

Senator Turley:

– It might be close to the coast, or 100 miles north.

Senator Playford:

– I wish that we could get some new arguments.

Senator MULCAHY:

– I shall furnish the leader of the Senate with some new arguments before I resume my seat, and possibly he may get more of them than He will find pleasant.

Senator Playford:

– I shall be very, pleased to hear them.

Senator MULCAHY:

Senator Pearce:

– As a matter of fact, Sir John Forrest was in opposition to the Ministry which first introduced the Bill.

Senator Findley:

– He was not in the Labour Government, was he?

Senator MULCAHY:

– But did he ever sit in opposition to the measure when it was before Parliament? I hope that anything I have- said will not wound Senator Keating’s feelings, because I have been desirous of sparing him. But I feel strongly that Tasmania requires - in fact, demands - that every one of her six senators shall, upon all questions where State rights are infringed, vote as one man. That is the only appeal which I can make to my honorable friend, and with it I conclude.

Senator WALKER:
New South Wales

– I am sure that every member of the Senate has listened with considerable pleasure to the excellent speech - from his point of view - delivered by Senator Mulcahy. We can also, I think, sympathize with the Tasmanian senators who hold a strong opinion in opposition to this Bill. It cannot be said that the measure is the project of one Ministry alone. Every Govern ment we have had in the ‘ Commonwealth has brought it forward. It is alleged that those who take the Federal ‘view of the question are actuated merely by sentiment. Upon this question, three senators representing New South Wales entertain one view, and three another. Yet I venture to say that their electors would not find ‘ fault with them upon that account. I should be very glad to hear the views of certain honorable senators in regard to establishing communication with the northern portion of Australia. It will be interesting to note the attitude which Senator Mulcahy will assume towards the construction of a transcontinental line of railway to Port Darwin. The great advantage which Tasmania has- derived from entering the Federation has been that of Inter-

State free-trade. Concerning the project which is now under discussion, I propose to read an extract from an article which appeared in the Sydney Morning Herald upon the 12th inst., and which contains views with which not a few of us coincide. It reads

In the meantime the trial surveys will commit nobody, even if some obstacle does not arise before the close of the session to prevent the complete passage of the Bill. What has been done is but a step in the direction of a national work which must be accomplished some day, and it requires no prophet to foresee a time when both the Pacific and the Indian Oceans, and Port Darwin and Adelaide, will be brought into touch with each other by unbroken transcontinental lines. These railways are part of the fulfilment of the Continent’s destiny, and, so far as settlement and the development of Australian sources are concerned, until these lines are built, we are still at the threshold of Commonwealth progress. The present expansion will imperatively demand their construction before many years, if the Commonwealth does not take the business in hand before. On the ground of rapid communication alone, these enterprises will have to be carried out; and when it is remembered how considerably the .time of transit between the eastern States and Europe may be shortened by these lines, especially if we get the talked-of service by way of the Persian Gulf and Asia Minor, or even if the Siberian line develops as was expected before the war, it will be seen that these undertakings cannot be over long delayed. It is a question of Commonwealth defence also.

In this connexion, I appeal to Senator Dobson. The article proceeds -

Railway lines are required for the rapid transit of troops, and transcontinental lines are essential to the concentration of forces at any point of attack. Our unprotected northern coasts are a standing invitation to any possible invader, and to marauding expeditions. At present the northern and western seaboards of the Continent are virtually isolated from the Federal Defence system, and these parts of the Commonwealth, which contribute to the cost of defence in common with the rest of the States, have a not unreasonable ground of complaint on this score. It is entirely a selfish argument to say that these coasts might be harried, and Perth and Fremantle held to ransom .by any enterprising attacking force, without the security of the Test of Australia being in any way menaced. That attitude would be an unworthy one on our part, even if the Northern Territory and Western Australia stood outside trie Commonwealth altogether. The common Australian “bond and the common racial tie would move us to take up their causes as our own, and that being admitted, we cannot be surprised if our fellow taxpayers within the Federation claim to be considered now, without waiting until the actual moment of trial comes. If the arguments based on the requirements of defective defence are considerably far-fetched, as there is always a tendency to do in the piping times of peace, there remains the argument based on the demands of commercial and developmental expansion.

Senator Pearce:

– My character will stand without the honorable senator’s recommendation.

Senator STYLES:

– I do not want to be offensive to the honorable senator.

Senator Pearce:

– I am not dying for the honorable senator’s recommendation.

Senator STYLES:

– I am sorry that the honorable senator should take that view of my remarks, because I am only saying what I believe. I should like. sir. to see you vote against the Bill ; but I do not suppose that you will.

– I should like to correct a slight mistake I made when speaking yesterday. I stated that I had not previously said anything upon this question, but I find that last year I had a few words to say with reference to the amendment moved by Senator Givens. The Minister, in moving the third reading of the Bill, asked us to permit it to be cleared out of the way. I do not complain of his anxiety, because he must realize that the Bill is an apple of discord that has been thrown amongst honorable members, and that it may very well be left in abeyance until matters of far. more urgent importance have been dealt with. So far, I have not spoken on the main question at all, and I may be asked why I did not speak upon the motion for the second reading. Like- Senator Mulcahy, 1 was under the impression, and reasonably so, that the majority of senators were opposed to the principle contained in the Bill, and I thought that I would be serving the best interests of the country by refraining from speaking, and thus facilitating the progress of the business, The opponents of the Bill understood that Senator Keating was on their side, and were astonished to see him voting for it. Last year the honorable senator expressed his feeling very strongly against the Bill, but did not record his vote upon the division that took place shortly afterwards. I am not finding fault with the honorable senator, because I take it that he knows his own business. He can pledge Tasmania to the expenditure of £1,000 or £100,000 if he chooses. That has nothing to do with me as the representative of another State. I am merely concerned to account for the impression in the minds of a number of the opponents of the Bill. We know the reception which the Bill met with when it was first brought before us. The representatives of Western Australia did not suppose for a moment that they had any chance of carrying it. Only one or two honorable senators spoke, and the mea sure was talked out by Senator Dobson. Last year the Bill was replaced on the business-paper by resolution, and was very fully debated. Honorable members who advocated the proposed survey quoted long extracts from reports that had been submitted years ago, and from the opinions of persons who had been sent out at the cost of the Western Australian Government to explore the country, and collect information for the enlightenment of the Federal Parliament. After all this information had been cited, the Senate deliberately, by nineteen votes to ten, decided that they would not further consider the question unless the South Australian Parliament gave its consent to the construction of the line. I now ask why we should stultify ourselves and make the Senate look ridiculous in the eyes of the people by coming to a contrary decision? I, for one, decline to be a party to the Senate’s stultifying itself in this way. There is another reason for voting against the Bill on the present occasion. When we considered it last year, there was no immediate chance of eliciting the opinions of the people upon it. There is such a chance now. When I was travelling through Queensland, prior to the last election, the Western Australian railway was never mentioned. There was a sort of general idea that Western Australia and South Australia desired to be connected by railway, but it was never considered that the Commonwealth would be asked to construct that line. The subject was first brought prominently before the people of Queensland at a meeting in Brisbane, which was addressed bv the Prime Minister, Mr. Deakin. I happened to be present, and heard what he said. When he explained the project, a laugh went up. No one thought that the honorable gentleman was in earnest in advocating the line as a Federal project. It was considered that, while the people of Western Australia and South Australia might desire to be connected by railway, the Commonwealth was not called upon to incur the expenditure. The matter was referred to at some length in the newspapers at the time. I have not extracts from them to quote to the Senate, but I am quite sure that the proposal was ridiculed. Not that I lay much stress upon articles published in newspapers, because I am well aware that they are frequently written by men who have not sufficient information, and whose writings are coloured by the views of the proprietors of the journals for which they write. I do not attach as much value as Senator Walker does to newspaper extracts. He has, to-day, quoted ;i long screed from the Sydney Morning Herald, to the effect that there is reason for making further inquiry into the proposal. But we are all aware that leadingnewspapers have frequently upheld propositions which would have been most disastrous if they had been adopted by the Parliaments of the States concerned. I remember that a few years ago, the Sydney Daily Telegraph supported a projected tramway steal. I am satisfied that if what was then contemplated had been accomplished, the people of New South Wales would have regretted it from the moment when they parted with their tramways until they were compelled to buy them back again. Foi yi-ars, in Queensland, we were cursed with black labour, not because there was not an agitation against it, but because newspapers which pretended to represent public opinion had sufficient influence to induce the Parliament of the State to maintain a policy that was in direct opposition to the opinions of the majority of the people. “Very frequently, newspapers manufacture public opinion rather than represent it. Long screeds from journals like the Sydney Morning Herald ought to have very little influence upon our minds, though such an extract as Senator Walker quoted may be verv soothing to him. It must be very comforting to know that his attitude on this question commends itself to the Sydney Morning Herald, and to see his own speeches, to a large extent, reproduced in the form of articles in its columns. The States which we represent will be very seriously affected if the proposed undertaking be. carried out. Senator Mulcahy has already put before us the position that is occupied by Tasmania. I desire to view the matter from a Queensland .standpoint. I am aware that supporters of the line will exclaim. “ Let us think continentally in matters of this kind. Let us view it as if we were entirely independent of State influences.” Personally, I am not prepared to pledge the State of Queensland to an expenditure of probably £650,000 upon the construction of the proposed railway. I contend that the question of its construction cannot be dissociated from that of the survey of the route which it will traverse. In the course of his speech, Senator Pearce quoted, a. number of ex- tracts from the utterances of members of the’ Western Australian Parliament, who advocate secession because they consider that this Parliament has failed to carry out. an alleged promise that the transcontinental railway should be constructed. I propose, by way of reply, to put before him the view which is entertained - not by irresponsible members of the Queensland Parliament - but bv the Treasurer of that State. That gentleman, in speaking of the financial results of Federation, to Queensland, said-

Two years ago, in referring to this matter, I said - “A sud’den drop of £70,000 in our revenue is, of course, a serious matter in itself, and quite sufficient to disorganize our finances for the year.”

Senator Millen:

– From what is the honorable senator quoting?

Senator TURLEY:

– From the last financial statement delivered by the Queensland Treasurer. The tables relating to it were ordered to be printed upon the 28th August, 1906. ‘ He continued -

But the worst aspect of the situation is that another Government has first call upon about one-fourth of our whole revenue, and that it is impossible for us even to forecast what we shall receive until the Federal Treasurer has told us how much he means to retain.

Senator Col Neild:

– I call attention to the fact that there is not a quorum present. Quorum formed.]

Senator TURLEY:

– The Queensland Treasurer said -

The following table shows the falling off that has taken place in the Customs and Excise revenue of this State since Federation : -

– I think that the honorable senator is mistaken. Our indebtedness is large, but I do not believe that if is as great as he suggests. I would remind the Senate that Queensland has never called upon any of the other States to assist her in building her railways, or to share with her the losses incurred in respect of them. According to quotations read by Senator Dobson, the leader of the delegates from Western Australia at the Federal Convention distinctly stated that that State was financially so sound that if necessary she could construct at her own expense a transcontinental railway to the South’ Australian border. None of us would have any objection to Western Australia constructing lines all over that State, and offering South Australia, substantial compensation for the right to extend this line over the border ; but when she demands that the other States, which have borrowed largely in order to construct at their own expense railways from which, in some cases, they have received no return, should bear the cost of this survey, she makes a request that is unjustifiable. I hope that the Senate will reject it. Let us look a little further into the results of railway construction in the different States. If honorable senators will refer to page 575 of Coghlan’s Australian and New Zealand Statistics for 1903-4, the last- edition published, they will find that in every State of the Commonwealth, with the exception of Western Australia, losses on the operation of the railway systems have had to be made up from the Consolidated Revenue. In Queensland in 1899-1900 the loss amounted to 1.35 per cent. ; in 1900-1 to 2.67 per cent. ; 1901-2, 2.01 per cent.; 1902-3, 2.44 per cent.; 1903-4, 1.56 per cent. The only State that showed a surplus on the management of the railways was Western Australia, and Coghlan states, that in 1899-1900, Western Australia not only succeeded in paying working expenses and interest on the cost of the construction of her railways, but made a net profit on their working of 2.29 per cent. I do not think that there is another State in the Commonwealth which has ever shown a profit of 2 per cent, on the working of her railways. The profit made in Western Australia in 1 900-1 was .83 per cent.; in 1901-2, .07 per cent.; in 1902-3, .27 per cent. ; and in 1903-4, 1.07 per cent. During the period referred to the New South Wales railways in one year only, 1900-1, showed a profit over working expenses and interest on cost of construction to the extent of .19 per cent.

Sitting suspended from 12.5J to 2.30 p.m.

Western Australian senators that it is absolutely necessary to have the railway built?

Senator TURLEY:

– So I do. I am not denying that Western Australia thinks that she requires the survey to be made, and the railway to be constructed. I am not quarrelling with the Western Australian senators who impress that view upon us. I was in Western Australia some time ago, at the invitation of the Western Australian Government, who treated me remarkably well ; and although not pretending to have an extended knowledge of the affair’s! of that State politically, commercially, or industrially, I have no doubt that the Western Australian senators honestly and straightforwardly represent the opinions of the majority of their people. I believe they are doing their best in the interests of their State; and why should I be denied the right to do exactly the same in the interests of the State I represent? Up to the present the public debt of Queensland amounts to £41,545,000. We have .spent on our railways about £25,000,000, and in the year 1901-2 there was a charge on the Consolidated Revenue in respect of those railways of £513,128 over and above the interest earned.

Senator Clemons:

– What is the interest bill?

Senator TURLEY:

– I think it is between £3 75. 6d. and £3 10s. per head.

Senator Col Neild:

– I rise to order. I submit that the business now being discussed is not in accordance with the sessional order passed on the 14th June, which reads -

That on Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday during the present session^ Government business take precedence of all other business on the notice-paper, except questions and formal motions, and except that private business take precedence of Government business on Thursday up to the tea adjournment, and that, unless otherwise ordered, private orders of the day take precedence of ‘private notices of motion on alternate Thursdays.

If we have come to that pass when we have to depend upon mere resolutions, then God help the Senate in regard to the orderly conduct of its business. It means that, instead of having sessional orders, as in the Legislative Assembly of New South Wales, we have a disorderly array of contradictory resolutions, with no credit to the Senate, or to the representatives of the Government.

The PRESIDENT:

– According to standing order 127 the Senate cannot rescind a resolution unless it follows a certain procedure. The point is that such procedure has never been adopted.

Senator Col Neild:

– I th’ank you, sir, for drawing my attention to the standing order, which says -

An order, resolution, or other vote of the Senate, may be rescinded ; but no such order, resolution, or other vote may be rescinded during the same session, unless seven days’ notice be given, and at least one half of the whole number of senators vote in favour of its rescission : Provided that, to correct irregularities or mistakes, one day’s notice only shall be sufficient.

Undoubtedly the resolution of nth September would have been effective if, in the resolution of 14th June, the words “ unless otherwise ordered “ had been i’nserted. lt is quite clear that standing order 127 has not been complied with, and that therefore the resolution of nth September is not binding. I think that you, sir, will see with me that the point of order is absolutely good, and that* there is now nothing left for Senator Playford to do except to throw himself on the mercy of the Senate in some ordinary way.

The PRESIDENT:

– I am very much afraid the point raised by Senator Neild is right. I make that statement, because I have to bear a certain portion of the blame as well as the officers of the Senate, because we ought not to have permitted the motion of the nth September to be carried without calling attention to the fact that the first part of the resolution of the 14th June could not be altered or amended unless it was rescinded. There is no val;d difference between the two resolutions. One cannot be called a sessional order and the other not a sessional order. What is a sessional order? It is an order of the Senate which will continue during the session. Both, of these sessional orders will continue during the session, so’ that they are both on a par. The resolution of 14th June says -

That on Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday during the present session Government business take precedence of all other business on the notice-paper, except questions and formal motions, and except that private business take precedence of Government business on Thursday up to the tea adjournment, and that, unless otherwise ordered, private orders of the day take precedence of private notices of motion on alternate Thursdays.

Senator Millen:

– Can you accelerate business ?

The- PRESIDENT.- This is not accelerating business. We have made a mistake, and we must go back.

Senator Sir Josiah Symon:

– The immediate question is what is to be done with’ the business, and I suggest that first of all we ought to get rid of the present situation - clear the’ way. I suggest that Senator Turley ask leave to continue his remarks, and that Senator . Playford then move that the Kalgoorlie to Port Augusta Railway Survey Bill be made an order for some future day. Under the ruling that Bill cannot further be proceeded with now.

Senator Turley:

– The question. is whether that Bill is properly before the Senate.

Senator Millen:

– It raises the question whether S’enator Turley can be regarded as having spoken.

Senator Lt Col NEILD:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT

-Col. Gould. - I should like to re-echo the question of Senator Symon, and also to raise the point whether Senator Turley may be regarded as having spoken.

Senator Clemons:

– I have not done so. I have in no way disputed your ruling. I submit that Senator Drake will not be in order in disputing the ruling you gave with regard to the conduct of business up to 6.30 p.m. If the honorable senator wishes to make some observations with respect to the procedure subsequent to 7.45 p. m. I withdraw my objection.

The PRESIDENT:

CONSTITUTION ALTERATION (NATIONALIZATION OF MONOPOLIES) BILL

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 5th September (vide page 4062), on motion by Senator Pearce -

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator Pearce:

– The honorable senator said -

The only evidence given on which the Commission ought to have entered up a finding, and which I am going to bring under the notice of the Senate, was the evidence of Mr. Jacobs in reference to the price paid in the Regie countries.

Senator MILLEN:

– Exactly, and the honorable senator interjected -

It is not what the Commission says, but what Mr Jacobs says.

The only evidence towhich I referred there was the official translation of the French Regie report, certified to by the Consul for France, and put in by Mr. Jacobs. He was merely the individual by whose hand it was presented to the Commission. Therefore, to say that I have taken his evidence is not only untrue in itself, but is utterly misleading. It is simply playing with the facts. It is no more his evidence than it could be said to be my evidence if I took certain figures out of Coghlan’s statistics. If I were to assume that, because I had taken certain statistics from his work they were mine, it would be very rightly put down as a piece of unwarranted presumption. Therefore, for Senator Pearce to charge me with using the evidence of Mr. Jacobs when I was using the figures from the French Regie report, was not only misleading, but, I think, intentionally so. Again, when I was dealing with certain facts, the honorable senator referred me to Mr.. Ferguson. I presume that for that reason he is prepared to accept Mr. Ferguson as a witness on the points which were in dispute between him and me. In order that I shall not incorrectly place the matter before the Senate, I propose to invite the attention of Senator Pearce to that portion of my speech which is reported on page 4047, and in which he made this interjection -

Why. did not the honorable senator quote the evidence of Mr. Ferguson, the Inspector of Excise, on the point as to the price of leaf and the price of tobacco in those countries?

On the same page Mr. Ferguson said -

In France special qualities are sold at lower prices than to the general public to soldiers, sailors, hospitals, and to those within a certain distance from the Frontier.

I invite special attention to that. Senator Findley, by interjection, distinctly said that I had been ‘misled when I affirmed that the French Regie had sold tobacco at a lower price on the Frontier; but my statement is borne out by Mr. Ferguson’s evidence. He also said -

Unmanufactured tobacco, cigars, &c, are practically prohibited.

Yet it was declared by my honorable friends opposite that a man in France can get any tobacco’ he likes, and, in fact, that the Government would import it for him. Mr. Ferguson went on -

But those who can afford somethng better than the States factories can produce are permitted to import for personal use only a quantity up to twenty-two pounds per annum on payment of about 13s. per lb. Foreign-made cigars are imported by the Regie to a limited extent. Twenty per cent, is added to their cost, and then a duty of13s. is also levied. Wages vary according to the proficiency of the men from 2s. 9d. to 3s.11½d. per day. The women receive from1s.2½d. to1s. 7d. per week of ten hours. I have not been able to ascertain the price given by the Regie, but I noticed in a trade journal that in France in 1903, France imported from the Philippine Islands 315,391 lbs., the value of which was about 2½d. per lb.

– My reply is too long for an interjection ; and, besides, an interjection is out of order.

Senator MILLEN:

– The honorabe senator was not afraid of being ruled out of order when I spoke previously. I am discarding a good many of his interjections in contradiction of statements I made, because I should weary the Senate if I followed him through them all. When I spoke previously I pointed out that Senator Findley, by interjection, had stated that under State nationalization of this industry we should be employing more men for less hours and for the same result. The honorable senator challenged me when I made that statement. I asked him whether he would defend it, and he said he would if he had made it. I then asked him whether he denied having made it, and he was not ‘prepared to do so. I have since gone to the trouble to find out where the statement appears, and it is to be found at page 3002 of Hansard for the 17th August of this year. During the honorable senator’s speech Senator Playford interjected -

Would there not be as many unemployed cigar operatives walking about the streets under st State monopoly ? and in reply Senator Findley said -

Not at all. I am satisfied that if the industry were nationalized to-morrow, every operative, who is now walking about the streets, would not only be fully employed, but would en joy more reasonable hours and better pay than now prevails.

A little further on he said -

Under a well regulated system of society the hours of the employes could be reduced and employment afforded for those who are at present idle.

As a matter of fact the growers were not aware what leaf was sent to England.

And when Senator Gray interjected -

Does the honorable senator infer that the manufacturers in this connexion did what was wrong.

The honorable senator replied -

From my experience of the manufacturers, I think that they are capable of anything.

That is the verdict of an official who judged the competition. Senator Pearce has often said that nothing like 8d. per lb. has been paid for a stock of first-class leaf. But if he looks at question 2563 he will find that, apart from the trash, 8d. per lb. was paid for not less than 24 per cent, of the total quantity, and /d. per lb. for 34 per cent, of it. I mention those facts in order ‘ to show that a very considerable quantity of that tobacco did realize a very good price indeed. But that is apart from the experiment. The tobacco was sent home, and on the 7th August, there appeared in the Sydney Evening News a statement which evidently was obtained by its representative from the officials of the Department, and which, after reciting the conditions of the competi-:ion, contains this passage - .

– That is largely on account of prejudice.

Senator MILLEN:

– What is the good of telling me that an article I have to sell is worth £5, but owing to prejudice the public will give me only £2 10s. ? I rely on the evidence of official witnesses rather than on that of tobacco growers and interested parties. I think that the evidence of Mr. Ferguson is abundantly clear on the point that the production of Colonial leaf is defective to-day, but we are not producing the article which is required by the Australian taste. I want now to deal with the statement of Senator Fearce that if Australian tobacco is worth 4½d. in London, then, with the duty added, it ought to be worth is. 10½d. here. I propose to make a quotation from’ the speech of Senator Pearce on page 3628 of Ilansard -

T drew attention, when dealing with the Australian Industries Preservation Bill, namely, the lessening the cost of production, and the increase of profits to the manufacturers. There is indisputable evidence that in the case of certain brands of tobacco, there has been an increase of. price since 1901. Of course, I know that the combine contend that this is due to the Tariff, but it is significant that in some States the Tariff, so far from warranting an increase in price, should have been followed by a decrease. In South Australia,’ for example, practically no local leaf was used prior to Federation. Every bit of leaf which entered South Australia at that time had to pay a duty, and the Excise was not higher then than it is at present ; therefore, the throwing down of the Inter-State barriers opened to the Australian manufacturers a market - for local leaf. Ever since, those manufacturers have been largely using local leaf, which, of course, pays no duty ; and in their sworn evidence they give the average price as under 5d. per lb.

Senator MILLEN:

– Now the honorable senator is guessing. The following is an extract from Mr. Alston’s evidence : - 1379. Did Kronheimer Ltd. ever propose to you, or to retailers generally, to fix the prices at which you should retail the brands of tobacco which they distribute? - Never. 1380. Did they ever propose to you to fix the prices at which you should retail certain brands of cigars? - Never. 1 381. Then what is the meaning of the following letter, which appeared in the Australian Tobacco Journal, of 21st June last? -

Here is the letter which was addressed to the editor of the Tobacco Journal -

MINIMUM RETAIL PRICES.

(To the Editor.)

Sir, - I would like to know, if you have the information at hand, whether the Tobacco Trust intends to make minimum prices at which their goods must be retailed. - Yours, &c,

Query.

Newcastle, 20th June, 1905.

To that letter the editor affixed the footnote, which is, in substance, the statement which Senator Pearce put into the mouths of “we.” This is the foot-note-

It is very unlikely at present, while Sir William Lyne and other socialists are accusing the “Trust” of raising prices against the consumer, and declaring that the industry ought, therefore, to be taken over by the State. Kronheimers have shown themselves willing enough to help the retailers to stop the cutting evil ; but in the interests of the whole trade they would be foolish to give the socialists a handle to use in favour of State monopoly. - (Ed. A.T.J.)

The evidence then proceeded -

Do you think there is any authority for that statement? - The replies I gave to your questions are absolutely correct, so far as I am concerned.

Did they ever approach you or suggest to to you to fix the retail price of cigars? - No, sir, never.

With regard to the probable results of the nationalization of the industry, we have every reason to believe that it would be distinctly beneficial from a revenue point of view. France, Italy, Austria, Hungary, and Japan, all derive large revenues from this source. France in 1902 obtained a net revenue of ^13,297,464. Italy, 1902, ^6,419,237; Austria, 1901, ^6,107,000. Japan, after sending officials to study the financial system of European Governments, and after trying the system of taxation by ‘Customs and Excise duties, took over the whole tobacco industry last year, and made it a security for her Avar loans, to the extent of ^60,000,000. France has a revenue from tobacco per head of population of 6s. 10¾d., or of 3s. i-4d. per lb., the average retail price for all forms of tobacco, cigars, and cigarettes being 4s. 1½d. per lb. (See Mr. Jacob’s statement, question 6257), the average wholesale price being 3s. 10.7c!. per lb.

Senator MILLEN:

– Senator Pearce has referred to a year in which the revenue from the industry amounted to upwards of £4,000,000, and I am justified in showing that in another year it had fallen to £2,753,412’. That might be due to some adjustment’ of taxation .consequent upon the cessation of the war, but I mention it to show that it would not be safe to assume that Japan derived a permanent revenue of £4,000,000 from the industry. The honorable senator anticipates for the Commonwealth, should the industry here be taken over by the States, a revenue of £400,000, but that must be cut down by a number of deductions for which the honorable senator has made no allowance. He has allowed nothing for interest upon the cost of resuming the industry, and I take it that he does not propose confiscation. He has allowed nothing for. interest orr capital or wear and tear, and nothing for higher wages, whilst he knows as well ha I do that we have a. minimum wage provision in our Public Service Act, and the industry in the hands of the State would come under the operation of that section. The honorable senator lias not allowed anything for higher prices ip growers, and it is clearly the intention that there should be higher prices paid to growers ; and a most important factor is, that fie has assumed that all cigars, cigarettes, and tobacco are to be sold in single packages, that every cigar is to be sold, at per cigar, when he knows that a very great quantity are to-day purchased in bundles and dozens at a lower price. Further, the honorable senator has allowed only 20 per cent, for cost of distribution., whereas it will be found that at question 1 113 Mr. Carter^ the witness on whom the honorable senator relied for his estimate, said that 25 per cent, was not enough to allow in the tobacco business. Yet the honorable senator works out his figures on a 20 per cent, basis for distribution. When all these deductions are allowed for it will be found that instead of a revenue of £400,000 being derived from the nationalization of the industry, this amount must be considered a gross over-estimate. It is, I think, clear that bv a slight adjustment of taxation to-day the Commonwealth, under existing conditions, could obtain more revenue from this industry than we could ever hope. to obtain from it under a system of nationalization.

Debate (on motion by Senator Findley) adjourned.

Motion (by Senator Pearce) proposed -

That the resumption of the debate be an order ofthe day for this day week.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Sitting suspended from 6.35 to 7.45 p.m.

page 5008

KALGOORLIE TO PORT AUGUSTA RAILWAY BILL

Third Reading

Order of the day read for the resumption of the debate on motion -

That this Bill be now read a third time.

The PRESIDENT:

In Committee (Consideration resumed from’ 19th September, vide page 4864) :

Schedule.

Spirits, viz. : -

Senator PLAYFORD:
South AustraliaMinister of Defence · Protectionist

.- When the Bill was last before the Committee the point was raised that a portion’ of clause 11 of the Spirits Bill, which provides that Australian spirits must be matured, should not operate until a certain date. I promised honorable senators that I would look into the matter, and see if I could meet the objections levelled at the clause. It was pointed out that clause n of the Spirits Bill conflicted with the second paragraph of clause 2 of the Bill now before us, and in order to meet the case I have had an amendment drafted to strike out all the words after “ Provided “ in the second paragraph of clause 2, and to insert in lieu” thereof the words - “ that spirits distilled wholly from grape wine and spirits n.e.i. may, until the thirty-first day of December, One thousand nine hundred and seven, inclusive, be delivered at the respective rates of duty specified in the Excise Tariff 1902.”

This amendment will enable spirits to be taken out of bond for human consumption, and which have not been two years matured in wood, on payment of the same duties as now, namely, ns. on brandy,’ and 13s. on all other spirits.

Senator Best:

– - It is quite clear that stocked spirits which have been two years in bond may go into consumption at any time.

Senator PLAYFORD:

– All such spirit may be cleared out of bond at the rate provided under the Excise Tariff Bill. The question can be discussed when I propose that clause 2 be reconsidered. Senator Symon agrees with the proposed amendment, but I understand .that Senator

Clemons desires to make a slight addition with the object of providing that brandy shall not have the slightest advantage over spirits n.e.i.

Senator CLEMONS:
Tasmania

– The suggestion is that the Committee should pass this item on the promise of the Minister that he will recommit clause 2 in order that we may make the alteration indicated. I think we are perfectly safe in permitting the item to pass on such an understanding. But I would point out that if - brandy made from grape wine is put into human consumption at any time before 1907, and it has not been matured by two years storage in wood under Excise supervision, it will be subject to an Excise duty of ns. The provision will utterly and entirely defeat the object that the Tariff Commission had in view when it framed its recommendation, which has met with the cordial approval of a large majority of the Committee. I am convinced that if we permit raw spirits to go out immediately under a duty of its., it will be sent out by the distillers in preference to storing it for two years in wood. In other words, the Australian distiller will much prefer to pay an Excise duty of ns. on his raw spirit, and send it out for consumption as brandy than to keep it maturing in wood for two years, and then have to pay an Excise duty of only 10s. I wish to make him store it in wood in order to secure a good name for Australian brandy. The members of the Tariff Commission are at one that unless the distiller stores his spirit in wood for two years, he will not do what we desire he should do. I am going to suggest later on that we should make him pay an Excise duty of 13s. if he desires to put his spirit at once into consumption, with the alternative that if he keeps it in wood for two years we will let him take it out of bond at an Excise duty ot 1 os.

– - I was very glad to hear the speech of Senator McGregor, because I expect that he will join with me in seeking to raise the Excise duty on pure grape brandy. If he is prepared to allow a reduction of 6d. pes gallon on imported spirit, surely he will give similar facilities to the local distiller. We have been accustomed to a difference of 3s. between the Customs and Excise duties, but here it is proposed to make a difference of 4s1. per gallon, where it is not wanted, because the industry has been doing very well. We ought not to do away with a very large source of revenue which is required. In accordance with the opinion of six out of eight members of the Tariff Commission, the difference ought to be fixed at 3s. 6d. per gallon, and four considered the present duty of 3s. sufficient.

Senator Lt.-Col. GOULD (New South Wales) [8.57]. - I find that the statement of Senator McGregor is substantially correct. In their supplementary recommendations, four Commissioners say -

Applying to imported spirits the principles of the recommendations of the Commission in respect of Australian spirits the undersigned members of the Commission are of the opinion that, provided the preceding recommendations are adopted by Parliament, a differentiation of one shilling per gallon less than the existing Customs duty should be made in respect of imported bulk brandy distilled wholly from grape wine by pot still or similar process of a quality not inferior to that indicated in Excise recommen- dation (1), and imported bulk whisky made entirely from barley malt by the pot still or similar process of a quality not inferior to that indicated in Excise recommendations, (3), certified in each case to be such by a Commonwealth analyst.

Again, in schedule B, I find this statement -

We recommend no change in existing rates of duty on imported spirit ; but if the foregoing set of Excise duties be adopted, we recommend that bulk spirit imported into the Commonwealth, and imported bulk spirit reduced and bottled in bond within the Commonwealth, shall be entitled to an allowance for under proof similar to the allowance of Excise duty on spirits produced in Australia upon evidence being given to the satisfaction of the Minister that a period of at least two years has elapsed since the distillation of the same, provided no such allowance shall be made on any strength less than 16.5 under proof.

Honorable senators will see that a proposal is made by the Government to make an allowance on brandy less than 16.5 under proof. At present a spirit 16.5 under proof pays the same duty as proof spirit does. In that way a considerable advantage is given to the local ‘production over imported spirit. I think that adi the arguments go to show that, apart from the recommendations of the Tariff Commission, it would be a reasonable thing to increase the Excise by is., in order to put grape brandy in the same position as it stands under the Excise Tariff of 1902. I move -

That the House of Representatives be requested to amend item (t) by leaving out the figures “10” and inserting the figures “n.”

Senator PLAYFORD:
Minister of Defence · South Australia · Protectionist

– I do not think that the honorable senator has given sufficient reasons why we should alter the schedule as proposed. The Tariff Commission has recommended that grape brandy distilled in a pot still, matured by storage in wood for a period of not less than two years, and certified by an officer to be pure brandy, shall pay 10s. per gallon. The other branch of the .Legislature has adopted that recommendation, and I ask the Committee to adhere to it.

Senator DRAKE:
Queensland

.- I am sorry that we cannot obtain an estimate of the effect upon the revenue of any alterations that may be proposed in the schedule. We know that the whole schedule is estimated to reduce the revenue by £70,000 or £80,000, but we do not know what will be the effect of an alteration in any particular item. The question of revenue is a serious one. I point out that if the recommendations of four members of the Tariff Commission were carried out - that is to say, if brandy were allowed to come in at a reduced import duty - the effect would be to reduce the amount of protection on the article to 3s. If the second rider attached to the Commission’s report’ were carried out the effect would be to reduce the protection to 3s. 6d. There is not the slightest possibility of the Government acting upon either of those recommendations in the direction of altering the import duty. But we might safely adopt the recommendation of the members of the Tariff Commission who signed the second rider, so far as the amount of protection is concerned. As four members of the Commission have proposed to reduce the margin to 3s., making the duty ns.y -and two members have proposed to reduce the margin by 6d., which would be equivalent to; altering the Excise to 10s. 6d., I think we might reasonably add 6d. to the Excise for the sake of securing more revenue.

Senator McGregor:

– The honorable senator is losing sight of the preference to be given to grape and malt spirits.

Senator DRAKE:

– I do not think that I am. The proposal is to reduce the import duty upon pure malt whisky or pure malt brandy. If that alteration is not made those articles will pay 14s. on importation. Senator McGregor himself recommended that the import duty should be reduced by 6d. That clearly was a proposal to reduce the margin of protection .to 3s. 6d.

Senator McGREGOR:
South Australia

– If the conditions proposed with regard to Australian brandy were applied to imported spirits the protection would be only 3s. 6d. against brandy and whisky of the same quality and having the same guarantee and maturity. But Senator Drake will see that if we raised the Excise by 6d., there would be only a protective margin of 3s. 66. against all other classes of brandy and whisky that would come in at an import duty of 14s. That is what I intend to stand out against as strongly as I can.

Senator Lt.-Col. GOULD (New South Wales) [9.9]- - Senator McGregor should bear in mind that he approved of giving an allowance for under proof spirit. That in itself would be something like a protection of 6d. or is. per gallon.

Senator CLEMONS:
Tasmania

– I wish to ask Senator Playford whether the Government is prepared to adopt that part of the recommendations of the Tariff Commission which says -

We recommend no change in existing rates of duty on imported spirit ; but if the foregoing set of excise duties be adopted, we recommend that bulk spirit imported into the .Commonwealth, and imported bulk spirit reduced and bottled in bond within the Commonwealth, shall be entitled to an allowance for under proof similar to the allowance of excise duty on spirits produced in Australia, upon evidence being given to the satisfaction of the Minister that a period of at least two years has elapsed since the distillation of the same, provided no such allowance shall be made on any strength less than 16.5 under proof.

– I have asked for a recommittal of the Bill.

Senator BEST:

– But the first thing is the adoption of the schedule, and then it is for the honorable senator to move for the concession in regard to imported spirits. Otherwise, we should be placed in a distinctly false position. At this stage we are not prepared to give proper consideration to the proposal about the import duties,because we do not know whether the Excise duties are going to be adopted. I ask Senator Clemons to assist in passing the Excise duties, when we shall be able to consider the other matter.

Question - That the House of Representatives be requested to amend item (1) by leaving out the figures “ 10,” and inserting the figures “ 11 “ - put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 9

NOES: 14

Majority … … 5

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Request negatived.

Senator Lt.Col. GOULD (New South Wales) [9.24]. - Some honorable senators consider that it would be reasonable if the Excise duty were made 10s. 6d. instead of 10s., and in order to give them an opportunity to express their opinion, I move -

That the House of Representatives be requested to amend item (1) by inserting after “ 10s.” the figure “6d.”

Question put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 0

NOES: 0

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Request negatived.

Item agreed to.

Item 2 -

Blended wine brandy, distilled from grape wine, and containing not less than 25 per cent. of pure grape wine spirit (which has been separately distilled by a pot still or similar process at a strength not exceeding 40 per cent. over proof), the whole being matured by storage in wood for a period not less than two years, and certified by an officer to be brandy so blended and matured, per proof gallon. . .11s.

Senator BEST:
Victoria

– It seems to me that this item is somewhat ambiguously worded. As I read it the foundation of this blended wine brandy must be wine. I know that several honorable senators read it otherwise. As regards the 25 per cent. of the blend referred to, it need only be rectified up to 40 per cent. over proof, whilst, as regards the proportion of 75 per cent., it may be rectified to any extent, but it must be wine spirit.

Senator Playford:

– That is quite clear.

Item agreed to.

Item 3 -

Blended spirits, distilled partly from grape wine and partly from grain, and containing not less than 25 per cent. of pure grape wine spirit (which has been separately distilled by a pot still or similar process at a strength not exceeding 40 per cent. over proof), the whole being matured by storage in wood for a period not less than two years, and certified by an officer to be spirits so blended and matured, per proof gallon. . . 12s.

Senator DRAKE:
Queensland

.- I move -

That the House of Representatives be requested to amend item (3) by leaving out the word “grain,” and inserting in lieu thereof the words “other materials.”.

If the request be agreed to it will bring the item into conformity with the recommendation of the Tariff Commission, with this difference only, that whereas the Tariff Commission referred to blended “ brandy “ in their recommendation the item refers to blended “ spirits.”

Senator Turley:

– It is an additional item, is it not? The Tariff Commission’s recommendation refers to item No. 2, and item No. 3 is an extra item.

Senator DRAKE:

– We have passed item No. 2, and I direct attention to the fact that item No. 3 refers to blended “spirits,” . and “ spirits “ may be brandy, I should like to point out to Senator Best, who, I think, advanced an argument the other day which was based partly on the supposition that grain must be barley-

Senator Best:

– No, it might be oats, wheat, or rye.

Senator DRAKE:

– Or rice, or any other kind of grain. What is required of this particular blend of spirits is that it shall be composed of 25 per cent. of spirit distilled from grape wine under certain conditions. With regard to that I have nothing to say ; but it is provided that 85 per cent. of the blend may be composed of spirit distilled from any kind of grain, in any way. From what we have heard in the course of the debate, if it is distilled from barley it will be more suitable for whisky than for other spirits. If used for other spirits it must be distilled to a high degree of strength, usually by means of a patent still. So that we have a provision here for the use of 75 per cent, of what is called silent spirit distilled from grain in such a way that the peculiarities attaching to the grain are removed, and it becomes a product which, according to experts, is absolutely indistinguishable from spirit distilled from molasses. What I am asking is that the discrimination against molasses spirit, which it is not asserted is unwholesome, shall be removed. I claim that with regard to the proportion of 75 per cent, of the blended spirits dealt with in this item, there should be no bar against spirit distilled from molasses.

Senator PLAYFORD:
South AustraliaMinister of Defence · Protectionist

– This matter was very fully debated in another place. It is a fact that the Tariff Commission did recommend that these spirits should be blended so far as regards the proportion of 75 per cent, with spirit obtained from any source, but after due consideration the Government came to the conclusion that the blend should be spirit distilled from grain. Grain spirit blends naturally with whisky. The blended spirits dealt with in the item represent really what is known as the ordinary brandy of commerce. Item No. 2 does not refer to the brandy of commerce, but to an absolutely pure wine brandy.

Senator Turley:

– The spirits dealt with in item No. 3 will not be the brandy of commerce after, this legislation is passed.

Senator PLAYFORD:

– No; so far as we are concerned, it will be blended spirits. The only question is whether we should allow a blend of molasses spirit, potato spirit, and all kinds of spirits with the spirit distilled from grape wine, or whether we should allow a blend only of a grain spirit. The question was decided in another place in the way shown in the item, after a very considerable amount of discussion, and I think without any division. Although I cannot make out so good a case for the use of grain spirit only, in this instance as I can with regard to whisky-

Senator Best:

– It is vital as regards whisky.

Senator PLAYFORD:

– It is vital as regards whisky, and in this case I ask honor able senators to pass the item as it has been sent up to the Senate. I have no doubt that this blended spirit would be improved by providing for the use of a grain spirit rather than for molasses spirit or other inferior spirits.

Senator Col. NEILD (New South Wales) [9.38]. - I rise to ask the Minister whether he thinks it is consonant with the dignity of the Senate that every time he speaks he tells us what we ought to do because of something that “has been done somewhere else. Unintentionally, I have no doubt, the honorable senator is reducing the status of the Senate to a mere place of record by the adoption of this practice. I ask him to avoid the constant repetition of directions on the ground that something has been done somewhere else. Dealing with the requested amendment, I hardly like the phrase which Senator Drake proposes to insert in lieu of the word “grain,” because it would cover distillation from any kind of material.

Senator Drake:

– I followed the report of the Tariff Commission.

Senator Col NEILD:

– Here is another error due to slavishly following what somebody else has done. We should have a little bit of originality about our proceedings. We had some originality this afternoon. Let us keep it up. I would ask Senator Drake if he cannot devise some phrase which would be more acceptable than an all round proposition covering distillation from anything under Heaven. I know what the honorable senator desires to accomplish, and I am with him. I desire that at least under this item of the schedule the wholesome spirits distilled from molasses, which is in itself a wholesome material, may have a show. The schedule also provides for whisky to be distilled from grain. Any kind of grain would “fill the bill.” Under the clause grain which was musty, weavilly, semidestroyed, or rotten, would be grain, and I think could be used for distilling purposes. Surely spirit distilled from such grain would not be as wholesome to the consumer as spirit distilled from molasses ! The great natural industry of Queensland should not be excluded in the interests of other States which do not produce molasses. The cane-growers of New South Wales have just as much right to be considered in this legislation as have the grain-growers of South Australia or Victoria. If Senator Drake can modify his amendment as I have suggested, I shall be very happy to vote with him.

Senator CLEMONS:
Tasmania

– I do not think that the amendment of Senator Drake is as bad as the clause. If honorable senators will refer to clause 7 of the Spirits Bill, they will see that it attempts to carry on the effort which has been made to give a distinctive importance to the very best qualities of spirits which can be produced in the Commonwealth. It reads as follows : -

An officer may, at the request of the distiller or blender of any spirits, give a certificate in the prescribed form certifying that the spirits are ‘”” Australian Standard Brandy,” or “Australian Blended Wine Brandy,” or “Australian Standard Malt Whisky,” or “Australian Blended Whisky,” or “ Australian Standard Rum,” as the case requires.
When an officer has given a certificate that any spirits are “ Australian Standard Brandy,” or “ Australian Blended Wine Brandy “ -

At that point the descriptions, and the certificates stop. The only other descriptions are “ Australian standard malt whisky,” “Australian blended whisky” - which, correspond with the two classes of brandy - and “Australian standard rum.” The object of the clause was to secure the production of spirits in the best possible manner. But when we turn, to clause 3, we find that there is no description or certificate provided for. The descriptions were not contained in the Bill as it was originally drafted, but were inserted in the other House. The clause comes in as an absolute hybrid. It is suggested that we should make special provision for a kind of brandy. Suppose that it was made from 25 per. cent, of grape wine and 75 per cent, of grape spirit, that would not be brandy. Still, it could be sold as brandy.

Senator Staniforth Smith:

– It could not be labelled brandy.

Senator CLEMONS:

– There is no provision to prevent the article from being labelled anything. It would really be a hybrid. It would be an Australian product, in which no Australian could take any pride. I do not think that there ought to be such a provision made, and I would much sooner see it struck out. If such a mixture could be produced, it ought to come under the item of “ spirits, n.e.i.” At any rate, we ought not to encourage distillers to produce it. I intend to oppose the clause. By his amendment, Senator Drake is practically asking the Committee to allow Joshua Brothers or any other firm to take spirits which they can purchase at 9d. per gallon, and by the use of 75 per cent, of that spirit and 25 per cent, of grape wine produce an article subject to an Excise duty of only 12s. per gallon. My only fear is that if the amendment were made such spirits would be largely produced and consumed. What I would suggest to the Minister is that he should strike out the item.

Senator GIVENS:
Queensland

.- It is evident that the “ brandy of commerce “ has been produced in order to perpetrate a fraud upon the public. There is no compound brandy which is not distilled wholly from grape wine. In the two previous clauses we have provided for different blends of brandy, namely, pure grape brandy and blended brandy, and having done that we have done all that is required. I am inclined to agree with Senator Clemons that the best thing we can do with blended spirit is to let it come under the item of “ Spirits n.e.i.”

Senator Clemons:

– If it were struck out it would automatically come under that item.

Senator GIVENS:

– If there is a possibility of the clause being passed I shall vote for the amendment, because I desire to insure that the public shall get as pure a spirit as possible. There is no doubt that the arguments of Senator Drake in that connexion are unanswerable. The Minister said that grain spirit blended naturally with wine spirit. But I hold that it is an unnatural union. One of the main objects of the Bill, I think, is to establish a high standard of Australian liquor. Therefore we should not do anything which would militate against its accomplishment. If, however, we gave a protection of 2 s. per gallon to blended spirit of this kind, it would not be likely to tend in that direction. It should be borne in mind that the blended spirit would also come into competition with pure Australian malt whisky, and with blended whisky. If it were allowed to compete with blended whisky it would injure an article which is eminently safe and good. I have heard medical men say that the worst drink a man can take if he has to drink atall is bad brandy. I do not intend to encourage the perpetration of a fraud upon the public. I feel inclined to vote against the clause, but if it is not possible to secure its omission, I shj.ll support the amendment, because spirits distilled from molasses are, I hold, just as good as spirits distilled from grain.

I do not think that that should be encouraged, and no vote of mine shall encourage it.

Senator STANIFORTH SMITH:
Western Australia

– I am strongly of opinion that by this item we are proposing to allow the distillation of a class of spirits which will not be creditable to the Commonwealth.

Senator Turley:

– Not the distillation but the blending.

Senator STANIFORTH SMITH.Will it be possible for spirit of this class to be labelled as brandy?

Senator Playford:

– No.

Senator STANIFORTH SMITH:

– Sup pose that it is manufactured and exported, could it be labelled by the exporters as Australian brandy?

Senator Playford:

– Of course, the exporters could tell all sorts of lies.

Senator STANIFORTH SMITH:

-I think that we should strike out the item. If distillers are going to prepare a. liquor which will not be creditable to the Commonwealth, and which is a blend between grain and grape spirit, it should pay Excise duty as spirits, n.e.i., and only receive the advantage of the difference between the Excise duty and the export duty - namely,1s. per gallon. What is proposed, however, is to permit the manufacture of a spurious kind of spirit, and to give to it the enormous protection of 3s. per gallon. It has been argued by Senator Neild that molasses is a very wholesome material from which to manufacture so-called brandy. The stuff from which this spirit is made is certainly not fit for food. I can assure the Committee that the so-called molasses which is used for spirit distillation is stuff that even a blackfellow would not eat. It is simply the dregs or residue remaining after all the wholesome molasses has been extracted. I have seen such stuff sold in Java for 5s. per ton.

Senator Col Neild:

– I was talking about Australian molasses.

Senator STANIFORTH SMITH.The Australian molasses from which the distillers obtain a large amount of their spirit is material which no one would think of using for purposes of food. There is, of course, a market for good molasses in more than one form. There is a market for it as golden syrup.

Senator Givens:

– That is made from pure sugar.

Senator STANIFORTH SMITH.The colour proves that it is not made from pure sugar, which is white. We ought not to give a substantial protection to distillers to produce a spirit which will not be creditable to the Commonwealth, and which is 25 per cent, grape spirit, and 75 per cent, grain spirit ; the grain, as Senator Neild has pointed out, meaning any kind df grain. We ought not to allow the enormous loss of revenue which will undoubtedly result from permitting the wide margin of 3s. between the import duty and the Excise. If we struck out the whole item, it would still mean giving a margin of1s. to the distillers. The present Excise is 13s., and the export duty 14s., the protection being ample. I shall vote for excising the item.

Senator Lt Col NEILD:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT

-Col. GOULD (New South Wales) [10.2]. - I wish to reiterate what I have already said on the motion for the second reading - that in item 3 we propose to impose an Excise of 12s. on blended spirits distilled partly from grape wine and partly from grain; and that in item 5 we propose to impose an Excise of11s. on blended whisky made partly from barley malt and partly from grain. It appears to me that an undue advantage is proposed to be given to distillers from grain over and above that given to the distillers from grape wine. Whatever we doin regard to blended spirits distilled partly from grape wine and partly from grain we should do with regard to blended whisky. Let them come in as spirits n.e.i.

Senator DRAKE:
Queensland

– I desire to withdraw my request on the understanding that honorable senators desire to strike out the whole of item 3.

Request, by leave, withdrawn.

Motion (by Senator Drake) proposed -

That the House of Representatives be re. quested to leave out item (3).

Senator Lt Col NEILD:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT

-Col. GOULD (New South Wales) [10.5]. - What does the Minister propose to do with respect to item 5 if we request the House of Representatives to omit item 3? It would not be fair to treat the whisky industry differently from the brandy industry. I certainlydo not like to see the distillation of wine-spirit put at a disadvantage as compared with the distillation of blended whisky and brandy.

Senator PLAYFORD:
South AustraliaMinister of Defence · Protectionist

– Honorable senators will observe that the scheme of the schedule is to charge an Excise duty of10s. on pure brandy,11s. on blended brandy, 10s. on pure whisky, and11s. on blended whisky. Brandy and whisky are treated precisely on the same lines. What we are dealing with is blended spirit, which it is proposed shall’ pay a higher duty. It is known as the brandy of commerce. It should not receive anything like the same amount of protection as pure whisky and brandy. I observe that this matter was considered by the Tariff Commission, who support what is proposed.

Question - That the House of Representatives be requested to leave out item (3) - put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 16

NOES: 8

Majority …… 8

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Request agreed to.

Item 4 agreed to.

Item 5 -

Blended whisky, distilled partly from barley malt and partly from other grain, containing not less than 25 per cent, of pure barley malt spirit (which has been separately distilled by a pot still or similar process at a strength not exceeding 45 per cent, over proof), the whole being matured by storage in wood for a period of not less than two years, and certified by an officer to be whisky so blended and matured, per proof gallon,11s.

Senator DRAKE:
Queensland

– It is provided that blended whisky shall consist of not less than 25 per cent, of pure barley malt spirit, whilst the balance of 75 per cent, may be made from other grain. It seems to be fully established that, unless there is some special restriction as to the method of distillation, molasses spirit is as wholesome as that produced from grain. According to the item as it stands, any kind of grain may be used for the production of 75 per cent, of the spirit forming the blend. My desire is to permit of the use of molasses spirit in making up blended whisky, and I should be content if the word “ materials “ were substituted for the word “ grain.” I am not particularly wedded to that term, but am willing to adopt it, because it has been recommended by the Tariff Commission. If it would prove more acceptable to the Committee, I should be prepared to substitute the word “molasses.” With regard to 75 per cent, of the proposed blend, it would be absolutely necessary to distil the spirit to a high degree of purity in order to eliminate the deleterious elements, and the product in the form of silent spirit would be indistinguishable from the molasses spirit, which would be just as wholesome.. I move -

That the House of Representatives be requested to amend item (5) by inserting after the word “grain,” line 2, the words “‘or molasses.”

Senator PLAYFORD:
Minister of Defence · South Australia · Protectionist

– I trust that the Committee will not agree to the amendment. Whisky as made in Scotland and Ireland is composed entirely of spirit distilled from pure barley malt or from grain. I have never heard of any such thing as a whisky made of any other than grain spirit. As a rule, in Scotland and Ireland, whisky contains about 25 per cent, of malt spirit. The dextrine in the malt converts the starch in the crushed grain into sugar, and the sugar in the process of fermentation produces alcohol. The spirit is distilled mostly in patent stills, the product of which is often of quite a low alcoholic strength as that made in the pot stills, and is equally as good for human consumption. Whisky blenders in the old country are not permitted to use any other than grain spirit. I would remind honorable senators that we are giving Australian blended whisky a name, and are imposing upon the blenders the necessity to comply with certain conditions. If we attach the name “ Australian blended whisky “ to a product composed partly of pure barley malt spirit and partly of spirit produced from molasses, we shall interfere seriously with the reputation and sale of the article.

Such a product might be called rum or “molasses spirits.” If the words “any other materials” be used, the spirit might be made from potatoes, beet, or any other material, and the Australian blended whisky would not sell. If the whisky made in the Commonwealth is to have a good name, it must be made from pure malt; and, when so made, it will be certified as Australian standard malt whisky. There may, however, be a blended Australian whisky, the materials of which are clearly set forth in the Bill.

Senator CLEMONS:
Tasmania

– I should like to point out the difference there is between the proposal before us and the recommendation of the Tariff Commission. In dealing with the question of blended whisky, theTariff Commission recommend that such shall be whisky “ which shall have been separately distilled by the pot still, or similar process, at a strength not exceeding 35 per cent, over proof.” The proposal in the Bill is that this blended whisky shall have been distilled at a strength not exceeding 45 per cent, over proof. The Commission had a lot of evidence as to the different methods of distillation, and we came to the conclusion that if whisky be wanted - although I admit the point is in doubt - it ought to be distilled in a pot still. In progress report No. 2 there is considerable reference to the comparative merits of the pot still and the patent still. I do not need, however, to read more than the following: -

With the patent still, practically all the socalled impurities, which go to give flavour and bouquet, are eliminated, leaving only a silent white spirit.

In Mr. H. Brind’s distillery the pot still is used. In his opinion it produces the best whisky. Joshua Bros. use both patent and pot still. Mr. Henry A. Preston, of Abbotsford, uses a pot still. Mr. C. P. Preston, of the Australian Distillery (South Melbourne), proposes to use a composite still. Messrs. Penfold and Co., and Seppelt and Son (South Australia), have pot stills of an approved type.

This increase up to 45 per cent, represents an intention and a desire to allow this blended whisky to be made by the patent still, whereas the Tariff Commission, in limiting the strength to 35 per cent., showed a desire to almost compel the use of the pot still. All the members of the Tariff Commission attached considerable importance to this point. If honorable senators are going to vote for the item as it is, they will practically encourage the useof the patent stiil, and give effect to the desire of certain distillers to oust the pot still. I believe that the evidence in the United Kingdom and elsewhere is distinctly in favour of the pot still for making the best whisky.

Senator Best:

– I do not think that is strictly right.

Senator CLEMONS:

– May I read to Senator Best the following extract from the report of the Tariff Commission : -

In the United Kingdom a movement is on foot to restrict the use of the expression “ whisky “ to spirit produced by distillation from pure malt, or from malt and corn, in a pot still, and to provide that what has hitherto been called “grain spirit” shall be known as “patent still grain spirit” …

AYES: 8

NOES: 14

Majority … … 6

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Request negatived.

Motion (by Senator Clemons) proposed -

That the House of Representatives be requested to amend item (5) by leaving out the figures “ 45,” line 6, and inserting in lieu thereof the figures “ 35.”

Senator PLAYFORD:
Minister of Defence · South Australia · Protectionist

– I have not been informed as to the reason why in this case there has: been a departure made from the recommendation of the Tariff Commission. It will be observed that, although the distillation of pure barley malt spirit is allowed up to a strength of 45 per cent, over proof, it is not to exceed that limit. The Tariff Commission recommended that it should be allowed to be distilled up to a strength not exceeding 35 per cent, over proof. I should imagine that a sufficient reason was given in the other House for increasing the maximum strength to 45per cent, over proof. I see that some witnesses speak of 35 per cent, over-proof as being the limit to which its distillation should be allowed.

Question put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 15

NOES: 6

Majority … … 9

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Request agreed to.

Senator STANIFORTH SMITH:
Western Australia

– Iam surprised that no attempt has been made, except in regard to the first item, to increase these Excise duties, although we have been told that we shall lose from£60,000 to £80,000 in revenue if the Government proposals are adopted.

Senator Lt Col Gould:

– That is in the first year.

Senator STANIFORTH SMITH.Yes. No doubt the loss in subsequent years will be greater.

Senator McGregor:

– Is not the honorable senator opposed to indirect taxation ?

Senator STANIFORTH SMITH:

– I think that, except in regard to spirits of the finest quality, the Excise should equal the import duty. It is proposed to levy a duty of only11s. per gallon on whisky, 75 per cent, of which may be spirit distilled from rice, rye, or any kind of grain, only the remaining 25 per cent, being pure barley malt spirit. The former Excise was 13s. a gallon. As the import duty is 14s., there is a difference of 3s. a gallon in favour of the local distiller. Senator Clemons has pointed out that pot still whisky costs probably 4s. a gallon to produce, but I do not think that we should give as much protection to a poor spirit such as this blended whisky as we give to blended wine brandy, for instance, which has also an Excise of 11s. I therefore move -

That the House of Representatives berequested to amend item (5) by leaving out the figures “ 11 “ and inserting in lieu thereof the figures “ 12.”

Question put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 12

NOES: 10

Majority … … 2

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affimative.

Request agreed to.

Item, as requested to be amended, agreed to.

Item 6 agreed to.

Item 7 -

Gin, distilled from barley malt, grain, or grape wine, matured by storage in wood for a period of not less than two years, and certified by an officer to be pure gin, per proof gallon, 12s.

Senator STANIFORTH SMITH:
Western Australia

– I hope that the Committee will not insist that gin shall be matured for two years in wood. It was shown during the second-reading debate that it would be a great injustice to subject good gin to treatment that would discolour and injure its sale, because intending purchasers would naturally be suspicious if given an article of the colour of light brandy or whisky. Maturing in wood for two years would provide a deliberate incentive to adulteration. When the spirit is pure white the introduction of adulterants is difficult, but when it is coloured the presence of a foreign ingredient is hidden. We shall not improve the quality of gin by requiring it to be matured in wood for two years. Gin so treated loses its distinctive appearance, and its commercial value must necessarily suffer. I move -

That the House of Representatives be requested to amend item (7) by leaving out the words “ matured by storage in wood for a period of not less than two years.”

Senator CLEMONS:
Tasmania

– - I freely admit that the Tariff Commission has blundered, so far as this question is concerned. We came to the conclusion that all these spirits would be improved by being matured in wood, forgetting that gin, which is highly rectified and colourless, would be injuriously affected by being so treated. Senator Smith’s criticism was quite justified. If these words were allowed to remain in the item injury would be done to the industry. They should not appear in the schedule, as the effect of storage in wood would be to cause the discoloration of gin without any value being added to it by reason of its having matured for the period fixed.

Senator DAWSON:
QUEENSLAND · ALP

– Is any gin distilled in Australia?

Senator CLEMONS:

– I believe that a fairly large quantity is distilled in Queensland. In any case, the Tariff Commission in this respect made a mistake.

Senator Lt.-Col. GOULD (New South Wales) [11.10]. - I am glad to have SenatorClemons’ admission that a misunderstanding on the part of the Tariff Commission arose in connexion with the proposal that gin should be matured in wood. It has been clearly demonstrated by some of the leading scientists in Great Britain that gin does not require to be matured for two years, and that it loses its commercial value by being stored in wood, since it not only becomes discolured, but has a tendency to deteriorate.

Request agreed to.

Item, as . requested to be amended, agreed to.

Items1 8 to 10 agreed to.

Item 11 -

Spirit for fortifying Australian wine, subject to Regulations, per proof gallon, 6d.

Senator PLAYFORD:
Minister of Defence · South Australia · Protectionist

– I move-

That the House of Representatives be requested to amend item (11) by inserting after the word “wine” the words “or for making vinegar.”

A similar provision appears in the existing Excise Tariff Act under the heading of “ Spirits for fortifying wine,” and we think it necessary to insert it here.

Request agreed to.

Senator DRAKE:
Queensland

– I have been informed that some little dissatisfaction has arisen in Queensland owing to the officers requiring that only pure grape spirit shallbe used for fortifying Australian wine, although a very pure spirit, 60 per cent, over proof, which I am informed admirably suits the purpose, and with which the vignerons would be perfectly satisfied, is being produced in that State. I believe the matter is dealt with by regulations under the Distillation Act, and I would ask the Minister of Defence to make inquiries with a view of asserting whether this spirit is of the character described by me, and if so, to direct that the vignerons in Queensland shall be allowed to use it.

Senator PLAYFORD:
Minister of Defence · South Australia · Protectionist

– I promise the honorable and learned senator that inquiries will be made.

Item, as requested to be amended, agreed to.

Motion (by Senator Playford) proposed -

That the House of Representatives be requested to add the following new item : - “‘(12) Spirits for the manufacture, from Australian products exclusively, of scents and toilet preparations, subject to regulations, per gallon.. . ros.”

Senator CLEMONS:
Tasmania

– The convenience of honorable senators generally would be studied if the Bill were allowed to remain in Committee until to-morrow. I appeal to the Minister not to proceed further with this proposal tonight.’

Request agreed to.

Ordered -

That clause 2, and item 4, be reconsidered.

Clause 2 -

In lieu of the duties of Excise imposed by the Excise Tariff 1902 on spirits, duties of Excise shall, from the seventeenth day of August, One thousand nine hundred and six, be imposed on spirits in accordance with the schedule.

Provided that spirits distilled wholly from grape wine and spirits, n.e.i., which were on the seventeenth day of August, One thousand nine hundred and six, in the spirit store of any distillery or in any Customs warehouse, may, until the first day of March, One thousand nine hundred and seven, be delivered at the rates of duty specified in the Excise Tariff 1902.

Motion (by Senator Playford) proposed -

That the House of Representatives be requested to leave out the proviso to clause 2, and to insert in lieu thereof the following : - “ Provided that spirits distilled wholly from grape wine and spirits n.e.i. may, until the thirty-first day of December, One thousand nine hundred and seven, inclusive, be delivered at the respective rates of duty specified in the Excise Tariff 1902.”

Senator Clemons:

– It is understood that there will be an opportunity for reconsideration ?

Senator Playford:

– Yes ; I am not proposing to take the Bill out of Committee.

Request agreed to.

Clause, as requested to be amended, agreed to.

Schedule -

Item 4 -

Whisky distilled wholly from barley malt by a pot still or similar process at a strength not exceeding 45 per cent, over proof matured by storage in wood for a period of not less than three years, and certified by an officer to be pure malt whisky, per proof gallon, 10s.

Motion (by Senator Clemons) proposed -

That the House of Representatives be requested to amend item 4 by leaving out the figures “ 45,” and inserting the figures “ 35.”

Senator Playford:

– I shall not call for a. division, but it must not be assumed that I shall not object to the request at a subsequent stage.

Request agreed to.

Item, as requested to be amended, agreed to.

Senator GIVENS:
Queensland

– I wish to ask the Minister if he will see that when the Bill is being dealt with again, honorable senators will be provided with a fair copy showing the amendments made in it?

Senator Playford:

– The clerks will look after that.

Bill reported with requests.

page 5030

REFERENDUM (CONSTITUTION ALTERATION) BILL

Bill received from the House of Representatives, and (on motion bv Senator Keating) read a first time.

page 5030

CONSTITUTION ALTERATION (SENATE ELECTIONS) BILL

Message received from the House of Representatives informing the Senate that it had agreed to the Bill without amendment.

page 5031

CONSTITUTION ALTERATION (STATE DEBTS) BILL

Bill received from House of Representatives, and (on motion by Senator Playford) read a first time.

page 5031

CONSTITUTION ALTERATION (SPECIAL DUTIES) BILL

Bill received from House of Representatives, and (on motion by Senator Playford) read a first time.

Senate adjourned at 11.27 P m-

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 20 September 1906, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1906/19060920_senate_2_34/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant

Senate20 September 1906

TELEPHONE CONDENSER SYSTEM

Senator MULCAHY:TASMANIA

Senator KEATING:Minister (without portfolio) · TASMANIA · Protectionist

QUESTION

KALGOORLIE TO PORT AUGUSTA RAILWAY SURVEY

Senator DOBSON:TASMANIA

Senator PLAYFORD:Minister for Defence · SOUTH AUSTRALIA · Protectionist

QUESTION

DUTIES ON AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENTS

Senator PLAYFORD:Protectionist

Senator Sir Josiah Symon:

Senator PLAYFORD:

Senator Sir Josiah Symon:

Senator PLAYFORD:

QUESTION

ALLEGED AMMUNITION TRUST

Senator DOBSON:

Senator PLAYFORD:Protectionist

CALL OF THE SENATE

The PRESIDENT:

QUESTION

CADETS

Senator DOBSON:

Senator PLAYFORD:Protectionist

QUESTION

PUBLIC SERVICE : APPEALS

Senator PEARCE:for Senator Staniforth Smith

Senator KEATING:Protectionist

KALGOORLIE TO PORT AUGUSTA RAILWAY SURVEY BILL

Third Reading

Senator PLAYFORD:South AustraliaMinister of Defence · Protectionist

Senator O’Keefe:

Senator MULCAHY:

Senator Turley:

Senator Playford:

Senator MULCAHY:

Senator Playford:

Senator MULCAHY:

Senator Playford:

Senator MULCAHY:

Senator Playford:

Senator MULCAHY:

Senator Playford:

Senator MULCAHY:

Senator Clemons:

Senator MULCAHY:

Senator Henderson:

Senator MULCAHY:

Senator Henderson:

Senator MULCAHY:

Senator Findley:

Senator MULCAHY:

Senator Findley:

Senator MULCAHY:

Senator Pearce:

Senator Findley:

Senator Pearce:

Senator MULCAHY:

Senator Findley:

Senator MULCAHY:

Senator Playford:

Senator MULCAHY:

Senator Playford:

Senator MULCAHY:

Senator Playford:

Senator MULCAHY:

Senator Clemons:

Senator MULCAHY:

Senator Clemons:

Senator Findley:

Senator MULCAHY:

Senator Clemons:

Senator MULCAHY:

Senator Pearce:

Senator Findley:

Senator MULCAHY:

Senator WALKER:New South Wales

Senator Styles:

Senator Dobson:

Senate
20 September 1906

Senator MULCAHY:
TASMANIA

Senator KEATING:
Minister (without portfolio) · TASMANIA · Protectionist

Senator DOBSON:
TASMANIA

Senator PLAYFORD:
Minister for Defence · SOUTH AUSTRALIA · Protectionist

Senator PLAYFORD:
Protectionist

Senator PLAYFORD:
Protectionist

Senator PLAYFORD:
Protectionist

Senator PEARCE:
for Senator Staniforth Smith

Senator KEATING:
Protectionist

Senator PLAYFORD:
South AustraliaMinister of Defence · Protectionist

Senator WALKER:
New South Wales

Senator FRASER:
Victoria

Senator STYLES:
Victoria

Senator TURLEY:
Queensland