Senate
2 April 1908

3^rd Parliament · 2^nd Session

QUESTION
- LAUNCESTON POST OFFICE
PRINTING COMMITTEE
QUESTION
- FEDERAL CAPITAL SITE
PRIVILEGE : SELECT COMMITTEE UPON PROCEDURE
EXCISE TARIFF BILL
CUSTOMS TARIFF BILL
OFFICERS COMPENSATION BILL
- Second Reading
AUSTRALIAN INDUSTRIES PRESERVATION BILL
SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT
ADJOURNMENT
- Suspension of Standing Orders : Absolute. Majority - Remounts for India

The President took the chair at 11 a.m., and read prayers.

page 10003

QUESTION

LAUNCESTON POST OFFICE

Senator CLEMONS:
TASMANIA

– Can the Minister of Home Affairs furnish any information this morning with reference to the inspection of and report upon the Launceston. Post Office, promised to me some time ago?

Senator KEATING:
Minister for Home Affairs · TASMANIA · Protectionist

– The inspection with a view to report, in regard to the state of affairs at the Launceston Post Office, which was promised at the request of the honorable senator,has taken place, andI am informed, bythe PostmasterGeneral -

The inspector detailed for the purpose recommended that the Launceston Post-office staff be increased by two telegraphists, two assistants, and one clerk, and the Deputy PostmasterGeneral, Hobart, reported that an amount had been placed on the Additional Estimates of ther Department of his State to cover those appointments.

Prior to the receipt of the inspector’s recommendation, however, recommendations had been received from the- Deputy Postmaster-General for the appointment of two assistants at Launceston. These appointments were approved, and the papers relating thereto were referred’ to the Deputy Postmaster-General last month foT necessary action.

The positions of telegraphist and clerk will receive consideration as soon as funds are available.

page 10003

PRINTING COMMITTEE

Report presented by Senator Henderson.

page 10003

QUESTION

FEDERAL CAPITAL SITE

Visit to Tooma

Minister of Home Affairs, upon notice -

Was the recent expedition of Federal members to Tooma organized by the Department, and, if not, by whose authority and direction was it conducted ?
How many members of the Federal Parliament reached Tooma?
How many had returned by a p.m. on Tuesday, the 31st March?
The average number of breaksdown per motor car engaged in the conveyance of the party?
Are the motor cars in question the pro perty of the Postal. Department, or is it intended to purchase them?
Is it considered that the delivery of letters will be facilitated by the use of these or similar cars?

Senator KEATING:
Protectionist

– The answer to the honorable senator’s questions is - 1 to 6. It is regretted that the honorable senator did not accompany the party as expected. A number of members had expressed a wish for some months past to visit Tooma, and arrangements were made as usual for conveyance. All the members of the party reached Tooma, and all but six had returned on Tuesday, tit 2 p.m., the others being delayed owing to breakdown of. some of the motor cars. I cannot say how many. The motor cars are not the property of the Postal Department, nor is it intended to purchase them or utilize them in the delivery of letters.

page 10004

PRIVILEGE : SELECT COMMITTEE UPON PROCEDURE

Senator BEST:
VicePresisident of the Executive Council · Victoria · Protectionist

– A message was yesterday received from another place, informing us that a Select Committee had been appointed, to join a Select Committee of the Senate; to inquire and report as to the best procedure for the trial and punishment of persons charged with interference with,’ or breach of the powers, privileges, or immunities of either House of the Parliament, or of its members or committees. The Committee was given the necessary power to send for persons, papers, and records, and four members have been nominated to it, I therefore move -

That a Select Committee be appointed, to join with a Select Committee of the House of Representatives, to inquire and report, as to the best procedure for the trial and punishment of persons charged with the interference with or breach of the powers, privileges, or immunities of either House of the Parliament, or of the Members or Committees of each House.
That the Members of this Senate upon such Committee be Senators Colonel Neild, Henderson, Turley, and Chataway ; two to be. a quorum.
That such Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records ; and that the first meeting of the Committee be held in the Senate Committee-room on Wednesday next, the 8th April, at 16.30 o’clock -a.m.
That a Message be sent to the House of Representatives conveying the above resolutions.

– That is only one of several statements of the kind. A Sydney newspaper asserted that 10,000 was subscribed for the purpose.

Senator CLEMONS:

– I have not the other statements at hand, but I certainly desire that this one shall ba inquired into. The Committee should be asked to report or these charges. This certainly ought not to be allowed to drift into, a “ sort of don’tdoitagainwarning ; if you do, we have means to deal with you.” That is the way in which the motion appeals to me.

Senator TRENWITH (Victoria] [11.29.]. - I seems to me that the necessity for this proposition arises from history. Parliament has had to rely on a procedure so inefficient that it has simply been able to call offenders to the bar and to say in effect to them, “ You have behaved very badly,” and then let them go. What we now seek is to obtain a procedure by which we may deal effectively with offences comnitted either before or after the adoption of the procedure recommended by the Committee. To ask the Committee to inquire into these charges would be to call upon it to take action under a form of procedure that we know to be inefficient. The sooner a Committee of this kind gets to work the sooner we may proceed to take action if necessity arises, and render unlikely a repetition of the offences alleged to have been committed. Personally, I do not see any charge against members of Parliament in the statement read by Senator Clemons. It is true there is a charge made against agents of endeavouring to influence Parliament, but the allegation to which I should take exception would be one that Parliament had been improperly influenced.

Senator Givens:

– Is an attempt to influence Parliament not an offence i

Senator TRENWITH:
VICTORIA

– Certainly, but it is not an offence on the part of Parliament.

Senator Clemons:

– There is said to have been an expenditure of money.

Senator TRENWITH:

Senator STEWART:

– I shall be very glad if the Minister will. I have no desire to say anything about the alleged charges against members of Parliament, because that question does not crop up on the present motion. But I should like to hear the Vice-President of the Executive Council give us some information as to why he desires the appointment of a Select Committee rather than to obtain- a definite opinion from the legal advisers of the Government.

Senator BEST:
VicePresident of the Executive Council · Victoria · Protectionist

– I regret very much that for one reason or another considerable misapprehension has been shown concerning the motion now before the Chair. The position is simply this : That Parliament for years past has been subjected, to defamatory and slanderous statements. As a rule, Parliament has been content to listen to those statements with contempt - a contempt that in many cases they deserved. But latterly matters have . become more acute by reason of alleged charges of corruption having been made in some newspapers. We thereupon looked round to ascertain what was the remedy, and we found that for years past the State Parliaments had been content to rely upon the most feeble of remedies. In our Standing Orders, for instance, it is provided that -

Any senator complaining to the Senate of a statement in a newspaper as a breach of privilege shall produce a copy of the paper containing the statement in question, and be prepared to give the name of the printer or publisher and also submit a substantive motion declaring the person in question to have been guilty of contempt.

– It might be an indication that some senators objected to the appointment of a Select Committee, but did not object in any way to the personnel proposed.

The PRESIDENT:

– If it is so desired, I shall put the motion in parts.

Question - That a Select Committee be appointed, to join with a Select Committee of the House of Representatives, to inquire and report as to the best procedure for the trial and punishment of persons charged with the interference with or breach of the powers, privileges, or im- munities of either House of the Parliament or of the members or Committees of each House - put. The Senate divided.

21 5

AYES: 0

NOES: 0

Majority-

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative. ,

Question - That the members of this Senate upon such Committee be Senators Colonel Neild, Henderson, Turley, and Chataway ; two , to be a quorum - resolved, in the affirmative.

Question - That such Committee have’ power to send for persons, papers, and records, and that the first meeting of the Committee be held in the Senate Committee Room on Wednesday next, the 8th April,’ at 10.30 o’clock a.m. - proposed.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Question - That a message be sent to the House of Representatives conveying the above resolutions - resolved in the affirmative.

page 10014

EXCISE TARIFF BILL

In Committee. (Consideration resumed from1st April, vide page 9951).

Clauses 2to 9 agreed to.

Schedule.

Introductory paragraphs agreed to.

Tobacco manufactured, n.e.i., made in Australia, both from imported and locally-grown leaf, per lb.1s. 3d., and on and after 5th October, 1907, is.

The CHAIRMAN:

– In my opinionand should the honorable senator differ from it he will, of course, be at liberty to. refer my ruling to the President - he can only move to insert a new item in this schedule dealing with confectionery containing glucose. He cannot move the insertion of any item dealing with confectionery containing paraffine wax or plaster of Paris. In the schedule to the Customs Tariff Bill, there wag an item dealing with confectionery which included confectionery containing paraffine wax and plaster of Paris as well as glucose, but in the schedule now under consideration, no item dealing with confectionery is included. When the Senate went into Committee in the first instance on these Bills, I intimated that, in my opinion, theCommittee had not the power to make requests for the insertion of new lines not appearing in the schedules. Senator Clemons will note that there is no proposal in this schedule dealing with confectionery. There was such a proposal contained in the . schedule to the Customs Tariff Bill, and it was, therefore, competent for the Committee to deal with a request covering confectionery containing glucose or other substances.’ There is, however, in this schedule an item dealing with glucose, and as confectionery is made containing glucose; the honorable senator would, in my opinion, be in order in proposing a request for the insertion of a special item dealing with confectionery containing glucose. As there is no line in the schedule dealing with either confectionery, paraffine wax, or plaster of Paris, I do not think it would be competent for me to receive a request for the imposition of an Excise duty on confectionery1 containing either of those substances, or any substance not dealt with in the schedule as it stands. As I said at the opening of my remarks, should the honorable senator think it advisable he can obtain the ruling of. the President on the point. I shall not have the slightest objection to the adoption of that course. The ruling I have now given is consistent with what I said when we first went into Committeeon these Bills and with a ruling given in connexion with the Bounties Bill.

Senator Clemons:

– I am sorry that in the circumstances I did not privately consult with you, sir, before I raised this question. You will agree that the point you have raised is an extremely important one.

The CHAIRMAN:

– If the honorable senator proposes to dissent from my ruling I suggest that he should not raise the point until we come to the item glucose. I have called on the item tobacco, and no such request as the honorable senator has suggested could be moved in connexion with that item. If after we have dealt with the item now before the Committee, Senator Clemons will move his proposed request. I shall rule that I cannot receive it, and then the honorable senator will be at liberty to take such action as he thinks desirable.

Senator STEWART:
Queensland

– I wish to move a request for the omission of the word “both” and the words “ locally grown.” The first item would then read -

Tobacco, manufactured, n.e.i., made in Australia from imported leaf.

My object is to provide for a different duty in the case of locally-grown leaf. If I succeed in getting these words deleted. I shall move a request for the insertion of a new item to follow that now under discussion - “ From locally-grown leaf, per lb., gd.”

As honorable senators will understand, the intention is to give a certain amount of protection and encouragement to the growth of tobacco in Australia, I move -

That the House- of Representatives be requested to amend the item “ Tobacco, .manufactured n-e.i., made in Australia,” by leaving out the word ‘.’ both “ and the words “ and locally-grown.”

Senator FINDLEY:

– It seems to me “that there are innumerable difficulties in the way of carrying out the request, and to a. great extent it would open the door to those who would be dishonest.

Sitting suspended from 1 to 2.15 p.m.

Senator FINDLEY:

– When the Committee adjourned for lunch, I was pointing out that the seeming impossibility of giving full effect to the request of Senator Stewart made it almost impossible for rae to record a vote in its favour. I was stating, that the Australian grower to-day has a protective duty to the extent of ‘ is. 6d. per lb., and that if the request which the Committee has already made to another place be agreed to, he will’ have a further protection of 3d. per lb., that is a protection of is. 9d. per lb., on the unstemmed tobacco, and of 2s. 3d. per lb. on the stemmed tobacco. I “am satisfied that even if the present request were carried, it would not cause any larger consumption of Australian tobacco. The smokers will have that which suits them best, and, say what we will, the average smoker prefers the tobacco made from the imported leaf. If we reduce the Excise duty, who is to be advantaged? I agree with Senator Clemons that the Australian grower will get no further advantages, because there will be no additional consumption of Australian leaf. The pipe smoker will not get the advantage; he will have to pay, I think, the same price if the Excise duty be reduced as he is paying to-day. Then into whose pockets would . the reduced Excise go? There is no doubt that it would go into the pockets of that combine which has almost a monopoly of the Australian market, and which we know is making immense profits in connexion with this industry. For these reasons, I feel that I cannot support the request.

Senator CLEMONS:
Tasmania

– I had intended to move a request to the effect that all the ingredients used in the manufacture of this article should also be dutiable. But, on inquiry, I found that, while a very large proportion of outside material is used by the manufacturers in the preparation of manufactured tobacco, they have to pay Excise duty on the weight of the outside ingredients, and get the whole of those ingredients free of import duty under departmental bylaws. I think it is very hard that they should. I admit that I cannot cure the evil by submitting a request for an amendment of this line in the schedule. It is strictly, relevant to the issue, however, whether they should be afforded further assistance by a remission of the Excise duty. They undoubtedly gain a slight advantage. I propose to read again a very interesting statement which was made here in reply to an inquiry. On’ the 24th September, 1902, Senator Pulsford asked the following question -

What are approximately the average quantities of the various articles which are being delivered free of duty to the tobacco manufacturers - as referred to in the questionanswered on the 28th August - per’ month, for the whole Commonwealth?

The honorable senator was informed that the monthly average for the Commonwealth was estimated as follows -

Sugar, 19,884 lbs. ; liquorice, 21,706 lbs. ; glucose, 2,240 lbs. ; glycerine, 17,342 lbs. ; gum arabic, 303 lbs. ; block juice, 161 lbs. ; essential oils, 42 gallons; flavoring essences, 32 gallons; tags, -2 tons; starch, 200 lbs.; cigarette papers, £171 .value; spices, 5,063 lbs.; vaseline, 18 lbs. ; dry ingredients, 146 lbs. ; spirits, 1,280^ gallons.

The CHAIRMAN:

– If the honorable; senator submits a request now for the insertion of a new paragraph, I shall have to rule that it cannot be received, but if he submits a request in connexion with the item “Glucose,” I shall rule that it can be received.

Senator CLEMONS:

– I move-

That the House or Representatives be requested to insert after the item “Snuff,” the following new item : - “Confectionery containing Glucose, Paraffine Wax or Plaster of Paris, per lb., 2d,”

The CHAIRMAN:

– For the reasons I have already given, this is a request which! I consider that I cannot receive.

Senator Clemons:

– I beg to submit a’ formal dissent from the ruling.

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Clemons has handed in a formal dissent from my, ruling in these words -

I dissent from the Chairman’s ruling to the effect that he cannot receive a request that theHouse of Representatives insert a new item’ as follows : - 11 Confectionery, containing glucose, paraffine wax or plaster of Paris,- 2d. per lb.”

In the Senate:

The Chairman of Committees. - I have to report that in Committee on a Bill for an Act relating to duties of Excise, when considering the schedule, after having dealt with the item Snuff, Senator Clemons moved a request to insert the following new line - “ Confectionery containing glucose, paraffine wax, or plaster of Paris, per lb., 2d.”

I ruled that I could not receive that request, because it was a request to insert a new item in the schedule to the Bill, and not a request to amend or omit an item already in the schedule. I did so in accordance with what I take to be a direction contained in section 53 of the Constitution, which provides -

The Senate may at any stage return to the House of Representatives any proposed law which the Senate may not amend, requesting by message the omission or amendment of any items or provisions therein. And the House of Representatives may, if it thinks fit, make any of such omissions or amendments with or without modifications.

J am not called upon to construe the Constitution, but we have no Standing Orders to guide us in this matter, and it seems to me that section 53 of the Constitution means that in respect of an item in a schedule to a Bill we can only request its , omission or amendment, and that we cannot insert any new item or provision in the Bill. I intimated to Senator Clemons that I thought he could to some extent deal with the matter he proposed to raise under the item “Glucose “ in the schedule, which was under consideration, by moving a request for the insertion of a sub-item under that line, making confectionery containing glucose .liable to an Excise duty. However, -that point does not arise at this stage. My ruling was that the honorable senator could not move his request for the insertion of a’ new line in the schedule, .seeing that it did not propose the amendment or omission of any existing item- in the schedule.

Senator Clemons:

– I have listened attentively to. what the honorable senator has said, because, although the matter was incidentally referred to in Committee a little time ago, I had not been able to grasp the real objection to -my request. In making his statement the Chairman ‘called attention to section 53 of the Constitution, and I venture to say that I am -sorry such a reference was made. I do not wish again to bring under the consideration of the Senate, and consequently “to suggest for the consideration of honorable members in another place, any’ question of the limitation of the powers of. the Senate. As you, sir, have been a member of the Federal Parliament since the inauguration of

Federation, I need not remind you that this matter was threshed out at very great length some years ago, and the conclusion then arrived at was that in the moving of requests, even . upon Money Bills, and notwithstanding section 53 of the Constitution, there is practically no limit placed upon the powers of the Senate. I shall make* no further reference to the bearing of the constitutional section quoted, because, although the Chairman of Committees referred to it, I . do, not think that he attaches very much importance to the reference since he did not proceed to argue upon that basis. With respect to any limitations imposed by our own Standing Orders, I might remind you, sir, of a ruling which you gave a short time ago. Though, before you gave that ‘ ruling, I had dissented from the views it enunciated, I may remind you that it was given in connexion with a reference to you upon a question somewhat similar to that- which ;has now arisen. I have no means -at hand of quoting the exact words’, you .used in giving that ruling, but,’ ‘putting the matter in simple language, -you ruled that in the Senate we do not amend these’ Bills, but request another place to do .certain things. In this case, I proposed that we should request another place to insert something that does’ not now appear in the schedule.

Senator Best:

– The previous ruling was given in connexion with the Bounties Bill.

Senator Clemons:

Senator Colonel Neild:

– The request in this case is similarly related to an item in the schedule to the Excise Tariff Bill.

Senator Best:

– It has no such relation, and that is just the point. I understood that the ruling of. the Chairman of Committees to whichI have referred, and with which I agree, was accepted. We have to deal here with an exactly parallel case, because practically the same words are used in the Excise

Tariff Bill as appear in the Customs Tariff Bill. I quote from clause 5 of the Excise Tariff Bill-

The duties of Excise specified in the schedule are hereby imposed according to the schedule, as from the time of the imposition of such duties or such later dates as are mentioned in the schedule.

– The proposal deals with confectionery containing certain ingredients. Clearly that means taxation on those things when they are contained in confectionery.. I think that is a bar to this request. In . addition, the Chairman of Committees has established a practice which up; to. the- present we have adopted, but which, of course, does not bind us if we see the necessity of departing from it and establishing a new practice, but unless there proves to be a necessity, and the Senate affirms that necessity in some corporate way, we must be bound by the practice already established. I am inclined to think that you yourself have upon at least one <k> casion confirmed the spirit of the Chairman’s ruling in that connexion.

The PRESIDENT:

– The question submitted to me is not quite on all-fours with that which arose in connexion with the Bounties Bill. As the matter has been referred to, it may be well for honorable senators to see clearly what was the con; elusion arrived at by both Houses in regard to the Sugar Bonus Bill. That will clear away a certain amount of difficulty- in the minds of some honorable senators. There being a difference qf opinion in regard to the Sugar Bonus Bill as to the power of the Senate to propose an amendment which would have the effect of increasing the burden of taxation upon the people, the Senate contended that it had that power, but when the Bill was returned from the Senate with amendments, Mr. Speaker is reported in Hansard of 9th July, 1903, page 1963^ as having said -

I think that my position requires me to point out to the House that this message covers an amendment made by the Senate in the Bill, which amendment is of such a nature that it would, Si passed, “ increase “ a “ proposed charge or burden on the people,”- and that it isin direct contravention )of sub-section 3 of section 53 ‘of the Constitution that such an, amendment should be made by the Senate. The alteration, if sought, should have been by request, and not by amendment.

This led to a considerable amount of debate in both Chambers, and eventually the Senate decided to make a request. When that came before another place, Sir. Edmund Barton, who was then Prime Minister, is reported in Hansard of 24th July, 1903, page 2610, to have observed—

We have given close consideration’ to that question, and we have come to this conclusion : that where the Senate can amend, it ordinarily is not able to suggest; but where its amendment cannot be by way of increase it is intended By the Constitution that it should retain the power of suggestion, as in other .cases. ‘ Where the Senate admittedly could not make an amendment to increase’ the burdens of the people, it can, as in other cases, make a suggestion which, if adopted by us and carried into effect, would increase the burdens upon the people.

Therefore, with regard to a Bill of such a character as the Sugar Bonus Bill, it is clearly and definitely laid down that this Chamber is enabled to amend in some res’pects and to suggest amendments in other respects, where the suggestion is with a view of increasing the burdens of taxation upon the people. But there is a distinction beteween that Bill and this. Although any allusion to the Constitution as limiting our powers has been deprecated, I feel that upon a matter of this sort we cannot avoid turning to the Constitution to see what powers are conferred upon us. If we attempted to exceed the powers given to us by the Constitution, the other Chamber naturally .would resent our, action, and point out to us where we- had made a mistake, if. it were a mistake. .Thea

Ave should have to retrace- the steps we. had taken. It is therefore much better, when a matter ‘ can be clearly and definitely settled, that we should not attempt toignore the Constitution under which we exist, however much Ave may desire the fullest possible power and liberty for the Senate. I quite agree that we should not limit our powers where Ave can possibly avoid it, but we cannot ignore trie Consti- tution. Section 53 of the Constitution provides first that -

Proposed laws appropriating revenue or moneys or imposing taxation shall not originate in the Senate.

This Bill is unquestionably a law imposing taxation, and therefore we cannot originate it. The next sub-section provides that -

The Senate may not amend proposed laws imposing taxation.

Then follows the provision that -

The Senate may at any stage return to the House of Representatives any proposed law which the Senate may not amend - such as this one - requesting by message the omission or amendment of any items ‘or provisions therein.

– I was only asking for the President’s guidance in order to save time..

In Committee :

Item (Starch) agreed to.

Amylic Alcohol and Fusel Oil, 12s. per gallon.

Senator KEATING:
Min move a request to the House of Representatives to make the duty in respect to amylic alcohol and fusel oil 13s. par gallon, instead of 12s. The duty on spirits n.e.i. under the Excise (Spirits · Tasmania · Protectionist

Tariff Act amounts to 13s. per gallon, and amylic alcohol and fusel oil, if they are to be excisable, should really come under the same rate as spirits n.e.i. Honorable senators will observe that amylic alcohol, and fusel oil appear as a new item in the schedule of Excise duties. ‘ The reason for that is that they are specifically mentioned for the firs’t time in the Customs Tariff Bill, where an import duty is imposed on them. They are included in the schedule to this measure in order that tha Excise duty may also be shown. I move -

That the House of Representatives be requested to - make the duty on Amylic Alcohol and Fusel Oil 13s. per gallon.

Request agreed to.

Glucose, per cwt., 4s.; and on and after nth October, 1907, is.

Senator PULSFORD:
New South Wales

– - I am somewhat surprised 1,0 find that with an import duty of £& per ton a moderate Excise duty equal to -£4 per ton has been cut down to 20s. per ton, and therefore I propose to ask the House of Representatives to rec’on’sider the matter, with the view of restoring the Excise duty of £4 per ton.

Senator Story:

– Are you not in favour of keeping duties low?

Senator PULSFORD:

– I am, and lam in favour of keeping protection low. ‘ I am in favour of admitting glucose free altogether, and having neither Customs nor Excise duties; but it is absurd, from my point of view, that we should charge one dealer in glucose a duty of per ton, and another man only j£r per ton. I am not sure what the value of glucose per tora is.

Senator CLEMONS:
Tasmania

. -Senator Pulsford knows that I agree with him on broad principles, but really the question before the Senate is - Shall we increase the Excise and increase the cost of the article? - because I admit the increased Excise means an increased cost, just as in the same way an increase in an import’ duty means an increased cost. I am sorry to say that Senator Pulsford, myself, and others have missed our chance. Feeling as we do, we ought to have reduced the import duty. It is too late now to do that.

Senator KEATING:
Minister of Home Affairs · Tasmania · Protectionist

– In regard to Senator Pulsford’ s proposal I wish to say that as the schedule was introduced in the House of Representatives it was proposed to make the Excise duty on glucose 4s. per cwt, but my colleague in another place thought that if glucose was to be used in Australia it was desirable that what we use should be manufactured in Australia under our own supervision, and therefore the duty was reduced to1s. per cwt.

Request negatived.

Senator CLEMONS:
Tasmania

– I move -

That the House of Representatives be requested to amend the item “ Glucose “ by adding the following new sub-item : - “ Glucose, Confectionery containing, per lb., 2d.”

In common with other members of the Tariff Commission I have given this question the most earnest and careful consideration. Honorable senators may be reminded that in the schedule to the Customs Tariff Bill the Committee has inserted a request to the House of Representatives to add a new item making confectionery containing glucose and certain other ingredients dutiable at 4d. per lb. This was decided upon because we thought that an import dutyof 4d. per lb. would practically prohibit confectionery glucose coming into Australia.

Senator Givens:

– It will be a very strong deterrent, anyway.

Senator CLEMONS:

– I agree with Senator Givens in that. As to why it was desired to prohibit confectionery containing glucose coming into Australia I will read the report of the Tariff Commission on the subject signed by myself, Mr. Fuller, ex-Senator Higgs, and Senator McGregor -

Important and definite evidence was given on this subject by Mr, Wilkinson, Government Analyst for Victoria. Hisevidence, detailed on pages 527-529, may be summarized as a clear indication that the use of glucose in confectionery is undesirable and unnecessary : that it means a commercial advantage to manufacturers and a disadvantage to consumers, and that it is used as a substitute for sugar or fruit juices. This opinion was supported by a manufacturer. It was further confirmed by the crossexamination of a witness in Victoria. An important witness, who to some extent defended the use of glucose, had no objection to provisions for identifying confectionery in the manufacture of which glucose had been used ; as to the amount of glucose in imported confectionery ; in locally manufactured.

The recommendation made was that confectionery of any kind whatever containing glucose, and certain other ingredients, should be subject ‘ to a duty of 4d. per lb. The report I have read was approved of by two free-trade members of the Tariff Commission and two protectionist members. I should like to make some reference to the actual evidence we took. The signatories to the recommendation I have quoted were influenced largely by the evidence of Mr. W.. P. Wilkinson, Government Analyst for Victoria and Analyst of the Central Staff of the Department of Trade and Customs. While I deprecate personal allusions, I venture to say that, in my opinion, we could find no better guide in the Commonwealth than that gentleman. Opposition to my proposal has already appeared before the Committee in a circulatory form. I would sooner be wrong with Mr. Wilkinson on a matter of this sort than right with those who want to use glucose for commercial advantages. Because, after all, the question is whether we shall make an honest and determined effort to improve the quality of the articles which we allow to be made in our midst, or whether we shall lean to commercialism, and have regard not merely to the facilities afforded to manufacturers, but to their possible profits. While we are at times apt to boast of the advance in Australian legislation dealing with food adulteration and kindred subjects, I venture to state that, in very many respects, we are still, despite all our progressive notions and ambitions, very far behind older countries. The object of my request is to make an effort to reach the level which has been attained in Europe. In Switzerland there was passed, in 1899, a law forbidding the use of glucose in food. In Germany there was a politically-inspired scientific inquiry, and the resolutions which were arrived at are all set forth in strange language, because it represents a translation of the original text, in Mr. Wilkinson’s report. In scientific attainment England cannot pretend at times to get beyond Germany.

– It costs a little more per ton than does sugar. Is it likely that the makers of confectionery would import glucose at a duty of -£8 per ton, bringing its cost up to £22, when they could get sugar at between £i& and -£20 per ton, unless they derived a commercial advantage from its use? There is not the slightest doubt that they do. Mr. Wilkinson disclosed to the Tariff Commission the advantage which they derived, and other competent authorities on the subject have confirmed everything that he said. The special property of glucose which makes confectioners give £22 for it, as a’gainst, perhaps, /j8 per ton for sugar, is that it has a wonderful property of absorbing water. It is obvious that if a manufacturer, by putting in 1 lb. of glucose, can absorb into the confectionery :i: lb. of water, and sell the whole product at the price of his confectionery, he is doing better than he could do if, by putting in a pound of sugar, he managed to absorb about one-eighth of a pound of’ water. I will admit that that is not the only reason, but that is why they want the article. They also say that the use of glucose makes’ the product “ more chewy.” In regard to the quantity the confectioners use, let me quote the evidence of a Victorian manufacturer, and it will show why the manufacturers are reluctant to touch the question of glucose. They would much rather it was left untouched. I propose to quote from the evidence given by Mr. Hoadley, who came before the- Tariff Commission in Melbourne, as giving a fair indication of what is being done in the confectionery trade in connexion with the use of glucose. I direct the attention of the Committee to the answers given by. this witness, and to the way in which he gave his evidence. I quote from page 568 of the Minutes of Evidence, Vol: II., question 3829 - .

You are asking us to assist you with regard to sugar? - Yes.

Will you tell me ,the composition of your jujubes? - Principally gum and gelatine.

The jujube I refer to now is the jujube of’ which you reduced the price by 3¼d. a lb. yesterday ; what is that made of ? - From gum principally. . .

Wholly gum? - -Sugar and gum.

Is there any glucose in it? - Yes.

Then why do you not answer distinctly, and say what is in it; are the contents of that jujube one-third ‘ glucose, one-third gum, and one-third sugar? - It is about that.

I invite the Committee to notice what was the demeanour of this witness. He was first asked what was in his jujubes, and his answer was glib, prompt, and ready, “ Gum and gelatine.” His next answer was “ Gum principally,” and he was still evading the question and reluctant to make an admission. Then’ he was asked whether they were made wholly of gum, and he said, “ No, of sugar and gum,” and he would not make any admission except to a leading question. He was then asked the ordinary leading question, “ Is there any- glucose in them?” and then he admitted that his jujubes consisted of onethird glucose.

Senator Lynch:

– It had to be dragged out of him.

Senator CLEMONS:

– As Senator Lynch says, it had absolutely to be dragged out of him, and his final answer was that his jujubes contained one-third gum, onethird glucose, and one-third sugar. I could quote largely from the evidence to show what is going on, and I may be permitted to quote from evidence given by a manufacturer who objected to the use of glucose and said why. A witness named Caffrey was asked -

Do you. make glucose jujubes? - I have great objection to using glucose.

Why ? - I consider it deleterious to health.

Do you _ consider that is a fair statement to make about jujubes made of glucose? - I believe that it is injurious in whatever form it- is consumed. I am only giving you- my personal idea of its effects. I find it- has a tendency to produce constipation in children, when a confection made of pure sugar would not do so.

With regard to the adjective “chewy,” to which I have referred, I may say that’ this witness was asked -

Is it not found that glucose keeps a lolly softer than sugar?- It has a tendency to produce a lolly that will be “chewy,” and that is the lolly I spoke of as likely to produce constipation.

We know that that is one of the effects of the use of glucose.

Senator McGregor:

– These are indiarubber lollies.

Senator CLEMONS:

– I agree with Senator McGregor that that would be the best description of them. I am glad that he and I are at one in this matter. I have perhaps occupied more of the time of the Committee than I should have done, but I feel earnestly and strongly in this matter, and fortunately it is one with which we can deal quite apart from any fiscal consideration. Whatever happens, I am delighted that in regard to the imported article we have inserted an item in the Customs Tariff which we hope and believe will have the effect of prohibiting the importation of confectionery containing glucose. My pleasure on that account would be very largely added to if we could succeed in preventing the use of glucose by Australian manufacturers of confectionery.’ Reverting for a moment to the commercial aspect of the question, I am satisfied that if Australian manufacturers were bold enough to face this question fairly, and advertise to every one that they sold no confectionery containing glucose, they would not merely enhance the estimation in which they are held by the public in deciding to produce an article of high quality, but they would also undoubtedly increase their own profits. I cannot imagine why they do not see that. They have not now the opportunity to say that they cannot afford to do so, because we permit the importation of confectionery containing glucose. I should have been prepared to go to the length of imposing a duty of 6d. or 8d. per pound to prevent the use of glucose in imported confectionery. But it is equally desirable that it should not be used in confectionery locally manufactured. Honorable senators whoare animated by a desire to promote the establishment of industries in Australia should make a determined effort to see that self-respecting manufacturers are guided by a desire not merely to make good profits and pay good wages, but also to produce a superior article of which

Australians can be proud. Honorable senators of the Labour Party would not only join with me, but would desire to lead me in an effort to improve the wages conditions in any Australian industry, and I ask them especially to say now that they are animated by a desire to achieve the object I haveindicated.

Senator Givens:

– Did the honorable senator quote the evidence given by. Mr. Wilkinson as to the indigestibllity of glucose ?

Senator CLEMONS:

– I did, but I could quote further evidence given by that gentleman. I quote the following three questions and answers from his evidence -

You would not, I suppose, encourage the use of glucose in preference to the use of sugar? - No, I would not.

You would tend to discourage its use? - Yes.

The only way we can discourage it is by means of the Tariff? - That is the most direct method.

He was also asked this question -

You are distinctly of opinion that the use of glucose should not be permitted in jellies or wines unless a declaration to that effect ‘ is made? - Its use in wine is prohibited under the Wine Act of Victoria.

I am glad to know that in the State of Victoria, at any rate, it has been decided that there shall be no glucose used in the manufacture of wine. I go further, and ask the Commonwealth Parliament to decide that there shall be no glucose in any article of food, and certainly not in confectionery. ‘ I feel that I have delayed the Committee too long, and I offer an apology and excuse. The apology, that I think the subject very important, and the excuse, that I have given it much consideration quite outside my labours in connexion with the Tariff Commission. I have not been content to rest upon the authority of Mr. Wilkinson, high as his authority on the subject is, but I have taken privately every step by questioning, verbally and through correspondence, the best authorities on the question.

Senator Lynch:

– Isnot Mr. Wilkinsonconnected with the administration of the Pure Foods Act in Victoria?

Senator CLEMONS:

– He is the Government Analyst of Victoria, and the analyst specially retained by the Commonwealth Department of Trade and Customs, and stands as high in his profession as any one in the Commonwealth. I have had his opinion confirmed by every inquiry I made from the best sources to which I could go for sound information on this subject. I have had correspondence with Mr. Wilkinson apart from the evidence he gave before the Tariff Commission, and he is as strongly as he possibly can be of the opinion that we might do decidedly beneficial work in the interests of every one in the community if we practically prohibited the use of glucose in confectionery. I say, finally, that in so doing we should be inflicting no injury on any protected manufacturer in Victoria. We have removed from our Australian manufacturers all competition from glucose confectionery imported from abroad. We have imposed a duty of 4d. per lb. upon imported glucose confectionery, . and, in suggesting the imposition of an Excise duty of 2d. per lb. on confectionery in which glucose is used, I am careful to preserve the same modicum of protection that has been decided upon under the Customs Tariff Bill.

Senator KEATING:
Minister of Home Affairs · Tasmania · Protectionist

– No member of the Committee can take the -slightest exception to the time which Senator Clemons has- occupied in submitting his request. Some time back, when we were dealing with the items in the Customs Tariff, the honorable senator dealt earnestly and at some length with the use of glucose in imported confectionery. I speak for myself, and, I think, for several other members of the Commit- tee, when I say that the arguments brought forward by the honorable senator on that occasion against the use of glucose in confectionery were very strong indeed. He greatly impressed the Committee and Ministers. So much- so that when we had listened to what he had to put before us, we took steps to make further inquiry into the whole question of the use of glucose in any article of food. The honorable senator, on the occasion to which I refer, quoted Mr. Wilkinson, and referred to the fact that he had given evidence before the Tariff Commission strongly discouraging the use of glucose in articles of food. After reading Mr. Wilkinson’s evidence and the honorable senator’s remarks, the Customs authorities thought it necessary to make inquiries as to the exact effect of glucose upon the human system. Before consulting Mr.’ Wilkinson, reference was made to Dr. Norris. the Chairman of the Board of Public Health of Victoria, and the officer charged with the administration of the Health Acts of that State. That course was thought desirable because Dr.

Norris is a pathologist, and Mr. Wilkinson an analyst pure and simple. The ‘ report which Dr. Norris furnished to the Comptroller-General of Trade and Cus-toms; on 23rd March, 1908, was very brief, but to the point. It was to the effect that glucose is not necessarily an injurious article for human consumption, but that it may be, and is, used in certain circumstances, in connexion with the manufacture of jams from what may be called spent fruits, or fruits of which the juices have already been extracted and used for other purposes. Dr. Norris’ . report, which speaks for itself, is as follows -

From the physiological point of view, there can be no objection to the use of glucose in confectionery and other foodstuffs. This is, of course, on the assumption that proper standards of purity for the substance are fixed and maintained, a course which is necessary in view of the fact that the substance is now largely prepared by chemical means, and that bv the use of impure chemicals the finished product may be impure. In this connexion, I’ inclose a copy of the standards fixed under our Pure Food Act, for different forms of commercial glucose.

To show the absurdity of objecting to glucose as a foodstuff, only one physiological fact need be mentioned, viz. : - That cane sugar is valueless as a tissue food until it has been converted in the digestive tract into what is practically glucose, whereas glucose can be absorbed and utilized bv the system without any digestion or fermentation.

Glucose is the sugar of fruits, and a large proportion of the cane sugar used in the manufacture of jam is, by the action of the fruit acids, in the presence of heat converted into glucose.

Senator Findley:

– There is a remarkable difference there between the Chairman of the Board of Public Health and the analyst.

Senator KEATING:

– I shall read Mr. Wilkinson’s report shortly. The final para-, graph of Dr. Norris’ report deals with the uses to which glucose can be improperly put in connexion with the . manufacture of jam -

Perhaps it may be well to mention the one objection to the use of glucose in jam manufacture, viz. : - That owing to its freedom from liability to crystallization, -it can be used to make jams from inferior fruit, or partly exhausted fruit pulp, the juice of which has been used to make syrups or jellies. This, however, is a matter which should be controllable by other means.

That is the opinion obtained from the chief public pathologist of Victoria. He distinctly states that glucose is more digestible than ordinary cane sugar, and that the process of digestion of cane sugar actually involves its conversion into glucose.

Senator Findley:

– He also says that inferior fruit can be made to appear like good fruit by the admixture of glucose.

Senator KEATING:

– I said that Dr. Norris drew particular attention to the possibility of its use in making Jams from inferior fruit or partly exhausted fruit ..pulp, the juices of which had been used to make syrups or jellies. After receiving that report, the Department invited a communication upon the subject from Mr. Wilkinson, the Government Analyst of .Victoria, who also acts, as Senator Clemons stated, as the analyst for the Central Department of Trade and Customs for the Commonwealth. His report, received on ist April, 1908, reads as follows -

In evidence before the Tariff Commission I endeavoured to make the point clear that authorities on food and food analysis do not regard the use of glucose in foodstuffs as detrimental, provided the glucose used is pure. Since the date of that evidence additional information on this subject has appeared, and I attach translation hereto of the recently expressed authoritative opinion of the President of the Imperial Department of Health, Berlin. It is to be noted that the opinion is expressed that it has never been proved that commercial glucose is injurious to health, and that no objections can be raised against its use from a health point of view. Another- authority, Dr. Wiley, Chief of the Bureau of Chemistry, United States of America, in his work on Foods and their Adulteration, Philadelphia, 1907, states on page 485 : - “ Glucose containing harmful substances : - The bleaching of glucose by sulphurous acid naturally leads to the introduction into candies of this substance. It is present in minute quantities, however, and, if the glucose is carefully made, I may add - negligible quantities. The danger of over-sulphuring must not be forgotten, and it is difficult to draw a line of demarkation between what may be regarded as negligible and injurious quantities. The abandonment, therefore, of the use of sulphur must be regarded as’ the only safe way of protecting the consumer against an adulteration of this kind.” Dr. Wiley also states on page 384 :- “ In the present state of our knowledge, glucose is not regarded by the majority of hygienists as a substance injurious to health. Ii it be injurious, it is due more to a lack of care in manufacture than to any inherent properties. Pure glucose, being simply a hydrolyzed production of starch, cannot be regarded as a substance injurious^ to health. The objections to glucose which have been legitimately made are due to the fact that the acids which have been used in converting the starch, and also the sulphurous acid which has been used in bleaching the product, have not been entirely removed. It appears that the glucose used for food purposes can be freed from all objection by inverting the starch with which it is made with diastase and avoiding the use of all bleaching reagents. The glucose thus made would not be water-white, nor is it desirable for edible purposes that it be so, since it is always, except, perhaps, in the manufacture of certain candies, used in connexion with natur ally coloured food products. There is no reason to believe that a glucose made as above, and possessing, as it naturally would, an amber or reddish colour would be made less desirable than a product which is absolutely colourless. Thissuggestion, therefore, is made to the manufacturer pf glucose for edible purposes, in the in’terests of public health, and to avoid any possible condemnation of the glucose by reason of the method of manufacture, namely, that the use of acid in the manufacture of glucose be discontinued, that malt or some other form of diastase be substituted, and that bleaching, except by passing through animal charcoal, be entirely omitted. The product made in this way would be free from the objections which hav been, and ma-v in the future still be, urged with reason against, the use of the article at the present time.”

Senator Clemons:

– Is it not a fair commentary on that to say that it is a laboured argument to .prove a negative result ? The most that it is hoped to prove is that glucose is harmless, and not that it has the value of sugar.

Senator KEATING:

– I followed Senator Clemons’ argument with regard to Mr. Wilkinson’s, statements, and will deal with it immediately. Mr. Wilkinson goes on to say -

Hutchison, the well-known English authority on food, states in his book on Food and Dietetics, 1906, page 274, that - “ Commercial glucose, on account of its incapability of crystallizing, is often used to make jam from inferior fruit or from the remains of fruit, the juice of which has been used to make fruit syrups and jellies. Such jam may have a good appearance, but is deficient in fruit flavour. It is, however, quite wholesome and nutritious.”

I come now to Mr Wilkinson’s concluding remarks. As typewritten, I’ may say, the word “ not “ appears, but the ComptrollerGeneral of Customs and the officers and I, too, consider that it is a slip, and that the word should be “now.” I will read it first with the word “ not,” and afterwards with the word “ now “ -

As a matter of fact, it is not (now ?) known that the glucoses (monosaccharids) are more easily of digestion than sucrose or cane-sugar (disaccharids), for in the’ process of digestion sugar cannot be assimilated until it has been converted in the alimentary canal’ into glucoses (dextrose and laevulose) for .the action of the enzyme ferments.

Glucose containing an undue proportion of sulphurous acid compounds, as I stated before the Tariff Commission, would certainly be objectionable for use in foods, as the compounds of sulphurous acid, as proved by the experiment of Wiley and the Health Department of Berlin, are decidedly poisonous to human beings. The fixation of standards in regard to the permissible proportions of sulphurous acid compounds in glucose and other foods (is) vested in State control under the several State Health Acts and Pure Food laws.

The last sentence seems to be involved, as apparently the word “is” has been omitted.

Senator Clemons:

– Mr. Wilkinson does not say that.

Senator KEATING:

- Mr. Wilkinson stated -

As a matter of fact, it is now known that the glucoses (monosaccharids) are more easy of digestion than sucrose or cane-sugar (disaccharids), for in the process of digestion sugar cannot be assimilated until it has been converted in the alimentary canal into glucoses.

The relative digestibility of glucose is greater than that of sugar, according to the testimony of both the Government Analyst and the Chief Health Officer of Victoria.As far as the prohibition of the use of glucose in . Germany is concerned, it is quite evident from the report made in order to enable a reply to be given to the petition, that they intend to discourage the use of glucose in order not to decrease the consumption of beet sugar-. I think the Com mittee will see. that it is not advisable to adopt any course with regard to glucose and its use in the Commonwealth that would indicate that the Committee had made up its mind that under no circumstances should it be used at all. We have dealt with the question of the importation of confectionery, of which glucose forms an ingredient. I contend that the better coursefor us to take is to so frame our measures as to practically make it impossible for any person who desires to use glucose in the Commonwealth to use any other glucose than that manufactured here under our own supervision.

Pure glucose, is wholesome and nutritious, and is more easy of digestion than cane sugar, for before cane sugar can be digested it has to be changed to dextrose and laevulose. Dextrose is chemically the same as pure glucose. Therefore, provided the glucose is pure, it is not undesirable in confectionery.

Question, No. 2 was. “ Is it necessary in confectionery ? ‘ ‘ The reply to that was as follows -

Certain forms of confectionery “which are popular can be made by the aid of glucose, and cannot be made from cane sugar alone. In this respect glucose is necessary in confectionery:

The third question asked was, “ Is glucose of commercial advantage to manufacturers?” To that’ question Mr. Hargreaves replied -

From the point ofview of question 2, it is a commercial advantage. If the question implies that glucose can be used as an adulterant to cheapen the manufacture, it would appear that there is no commercial advantage in its use, since glucose is dearer than cane sugar.

The fourth question was, “ Is it a disadvantage to consumers?” To that the reply was-

Having regard to the answers to questions 1 and 3, pure glucose is not a disadvantage to consumers with respect to either their healths or their pockets.

Mr. Hargreaves was also asked whether glucose is a substitute for cane sugar. He replied -

In respect to confectionery, glucose cannot be regarded as a substitute for cane sugar.

The sixth question asked was,”Is glucose a substitute for fruit juices?” The reply was -

Glucose is not a substitute for fruit juices in confectionery.

Mr. Hargreaves was also asked whether glucose is not more dangerous in confectionery than plaster of Paris; Honorable senators will see from the reply that glucose is not such a dangerous article to hearth as Senator Clemons would make us’ believe.

Senator Clemons:

– Who sent those questions to Mr. Hargreaves?

Senator STORY:

Can you give any information about its chemical properties or physiological effects? - Yes. I have here two or three articles on the subject of its use, translated principally from the German Journal of Foods and Food Products. I have condensed them, and perhaps I may read them.

On the question of the unrestricted use of starch syrup in the preparation of foods, he said that two German writers had recently discussed the various uses of starch syrup in the preparation of foods and emphasized that -

Starch syrup is now much purer, and it -is prepared so that there can be no hygienic objections to its general use.

That statement is quoted by a witness who, according to Senator Clemons, has condemned the use of glucose in unmeasured terms.

Many fruit jellies, marmalades, keep better and retain a better appearance when prepared with starch syrup than with cane sugar.

That statement is quoted by a witness who, Senator Clemons wants the Committee to believe, has absolutely condemned glucose.

Many confectioneries, as caramels (rock- drops), bon-bons, &c, if a permanent transparency is desired, or the. pralines, soft shimmer cakes, and fondants, to obtain a. delicate taste and melting on the tongue, cannot be made without the use of starch syrup’ in conjunction with ordinary sugar - the best contain . up to 50 per cent, of it.

– It is an impure article afany time.

Senator VARDON:

– That is a matter of opinion. Senator Story has read replies from Mr. Hargreaves, the Analyst for South Australia, stating that there is no impurity in glucose when it is made up to stahdard. In the south-east of South Australia potatoes are very largely grown. I was in that part of the State a year or two ago, and saw acres of ground literally full of potatoes, into which the fork was not put because the potatoes were not worth digging at theprice then obtainable. One of the objects of the new factory in South Australia is to give potato-growers a better market for their produce. No doubt glucose is used very largely in confectionery, and it is thought that if its use is restricted in the wav proposed, the effect upon that industry will be very damaging. The whole gist of the matter is not whether glucose should be used, but whether it should be of a standard quality so that it shall not be injurious. Senator E. J. Russell made reference to the regulations issued under the Pure Food Act of Victoria, and to the standard set up for glucose. It is provided in Victoria that it shall not be used in confectionery unless it conforms to that standard. If Senator Clemons will propose that glucose shall not be used in confectionery unless it is up to standard, he will accomplish what he is really aiming at. He should add to the word “ glucose “the words”if containing more than 1 per cent, of ash, estimated on the basis of a degree of concentration equal to at. degrees Baume, or containing arsenic.” He would then be quite sure that the material used was up to standard, and could not be injurious.

Senator Findley:

– Does not the honorable senator’s suggestion presuppose that arsenic is occasionally present?

Senator VARDON:

– It has been stated in evidence that there are sometimes traces of arsenic. We should, therefore, provide in the way which I suggest that there must be no arsenic in glucose. One manufacturer states -

Since the confectionery trade has used glucose, it has been the means of increasing the variety and keeping quality of sweets, and it is almost as essential as sugar in the confectionery of today. In all boiled confectionery the use of glucose adds to the lustre and brilliancy of the goods, and it has a decided tendency to prevent their becoming sticky and prevents granulation for a considerable period. In all the other softer classes of confectionery the use of glucose improves the texture and consistency and renders the resultant manufactures of a lesser sweetness (there is such a thing as having some kinds of confections too sweet). With the use of glucose confectioners have considerably altered the consistency of the old-fashionecl Comfit pan goods, such as aniseed balls and sugar almonds, which used to be made hard and brittle, but now do not affect the most fragile teeth.

The use of glucose is a matter of considerable importance. The testimony of scientific men is somewhat conflicting, but if Senator Clemons will add to his request the words which I have suggested, I shall be glad to support him as by that means we can provide that nothing injurious shall be used in the manufacture of confectionery.

Question - That the House of Representatives be requested to amend the item “ Glucose” by inserting the following new sub-item. - “ Glucose, Confectionery containing, per lb., 2d.” (Senator Clemons’ request) - put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 12

NOES: 12

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Request negatived.

Item (Invert Sugar and Invert Syrup), item(Saccharine, . &c), and item (Golden Syrup, &c), agreed to.

Title agreed to.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The question is that I report the Bill to the Senate, with a request for an amendment, and ask leave to sit again on receipt of a message from the House of Representatives in respect of the said Bill.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill reported with a request.

Motion (By Senator Best) proposed-

That the report from the Committee of the Whole on the Excise Tariff Bill be adopted, and that the Committee have leave to sit again on receipt of a message from the House of “Representatives “in reference to such Bill.

Senator Colonel Neild:

– I take it that the effect of a request having been made in this Bill is tantamount to an amendment having been made in an ordinary Bill, and that notice must . be given before a motion is submitted for the adoption of the report. We are nof required, without notice, to adopt the report on a Bill in which amendments have been made, and I submit that the same rule must be applied to a Bill’ on which requests have been agreed to by the Senate. The PRESIDENT.- The procedure that has hitherto been adopted in connexion with Bills of a similar character to this, is that where a report has been submitted with a request, the Senate has adopted that report forthwith, but that may have been done in consequence of no objection having been raised. We have no standing orders specifically setting forth what is to be done in such a case, but our practice Is that the adoption of a report cannot be proceeded, with at once if there are any amendments reported. In this case we have a request reported, and I think the reasoning in the one case would apply to the other case. The Journals of the Senate in connexion with the first Excise Tariff Bill state -

Senator Best also reported that the Committee recommend that the Customs Tariff Bill be returned to the House of Representatives, with a message conveying the requests of the Senate to the House of Representatives to make certain amendments in the Bill as set forth in -a schedule to the message, and

That the Committee have leave to sit again on receipt of a message from the’ House o’f Representatives.

Ordered - That the report from the Committee be considered to-morrow.

Our Standing Orders do not deal specifically with cases of this character, but do deal with cases where we have an ordinary Bill reported, and there it is necessary to have a later date fixed for the adoption of the report. If any objection is taken to the report at the present time the proper thing would be to make it an order of the day for to-morrow.

Senator Colonel Neild:

– I do riot object to this motion, but we are in rather a novel position. I want to move the recommittal of the Customs . Tariff Bill on one or two specific items only, and if the report on the Bill is adopted I shall be unable to move such a motion. Also I wish to see the schedule of the requests that have been made, because I want to know what it is necessary to do.

The PRESIDENT:

– As there is no objection to the report of this Bill being taken at once, I will put the question to the Senate, and the question of adopting the report of the other Bill can be dealt with when it comes up.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 10041

CUSTOMS TARIFF BILL

Bill reported with requests.

Senator BEST:
VicePresident of the Executive Council · Victoria · Protectionist

– I move -

That the Standing Orders be suspended to enable the report to be adopted forthwith.

Senator Colonel Neild:

– I Object to this motion. No notice has been given, and there is no reason for such extraordinary haste.

Senator BEST:

– Standing order No. 433 which deals with this matter, is as follows -

In cases of urgent necessity, any Standing or Sessional Order or Orders of the Senate may be suspended on motion duly made and seconded, without notice ; provided that such motion is carried by an absolute majority of the whole number of senators.

The PRESIDENT:

– Under the standing order quoted by the Vice-President of the Executive Council, the motion . has moved can be submitted to the Senate without notice, but it will be necessary for it to be carried by an absolute majority - that is nineteen senators must vote for the suspension of the Standing Orders to enable the report to be adopted.

Senator MILLEN:
New South Wales

– While I admit at once the relevancy of the matter under consideration1 to the standing order quoted by the VicePresident of the Executive Council, I think the Senate might have expected some explanation of the necessity for the motion, but I assume that the honorable senator will remedy that omission later on. I am, as the honorable senator . knows, ‘ desirous of bringing the session to an . early close ; but I think that before we make such a wide diversion on so important a Bill from the procedure established some reasons should be given. Whilst I am desirous of assisting the Vice-President of the Executive Council to complete the business of the session, I think the Senate should be told where the urgency comes in. If there is no other business for the Senate to do to-morrow we might follow the ordinary, course and take the report on the Bill then, but if there is business that requires our attention to-morrow, the VicePresident of the Executive Council , has some reason for the motion he has submitted. I am hopeful that the honorable senator will’be able to tell us that the Esti mates will be ready for us to go on with tomorrow. So far as I can see,there is a very grave danger of the Senate being left without anything to do, and if there is no work that requires our attention to-morrow there is no reason why we should not deal with the report On the Customs Tariff Bill then. There can only be urgency if it is necessary to get the Customs Tariff Bill out of the way, so as to make way for other public business.

Senator Pearce:

– By getting the Bill to another place to-morrow, a day will be gained there.

Senator MILLEN:

– The Prime Minister has stated that when the Estimates have been dealt with, another place will- deal with the Federal Capital Bill.

Senator FINDLEY:
VICTORIA · ALP

– Start again.

Senator MILLEN:

– I do not think the honorable senator is fair. I have done everything to expedite the passage of the Tariff, but it is one thing to adopt the unusual course proposed, which is only intended to be adopted in cases of great urgency, and another thing to adopt it in order to avoid an hour or two’s work tomorrow. Some reason should be given why we should pass over the safeguards provided by the Standing. Orders. If the passage of the motion means that we shall be left without any- work to-morrow, I am utterly opposed to it; but if the VicePresident of the Executive Council can assure us that by giving effect to the present motion the Senate will be able to proceed with otherbusiness to-morrow, I shall support him.

Senator PULSFORD:
New South Wales

– I wish to intimate my intention to move for the recommittal of the Bill.

Senator Colonel Neild:

– You can do it by moving an amendment.

Senator PULSFORD:

– I do not wish to be put in the position of losing my opportunity of moving for the recommittal of the Bill. If the motion is passed, Will I have an opportunity of moving in that direction ?

The PRESIDENT:

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Motion (by Senator Best) proposed -

That the report from the Committee of the Whole on the Customs Tariff Bill be adopted, and that the Committee have leave to sit again on receipt of a message from- the House of Representatives in reference to such Bill.

Senator PULSFORD:
New South Wales

– - I move -

That the Bill be recommitted for the reconsideration of clause 6.

I wish to explain the grounds on which I desire a recommittal of the clause dealing with the area of preference. In the first place, let me draw’ the attention of honorable senators very briefly to the history of the agitation on behalf of what is known as preference. I suppose the first movement in that direction took place inthe ‘ ‘ eighties at a conference held in London. At that time a delegate from Cape Colony, Mr. Hofmeyr, made a proposal that there should be an Empire agreement, whereby a Tariff charge equal to 2 per cent, on imports from all foreign countries into every part of the British Empire should be made, with the view to getting together a special fund for defence purposes. The ground which was taken by Mr. Hofmeyr and those who supported him was that it was an Empire movement, and that the object was to consolidate and strengthen the Empire. Mr. Hofmeyr defined his views in this way -

The feasibility of promoting a closer union between the various parts of the British Empire by means of an Imperial Tariff of Customs, to be levied independently of the duties payable under existing Tariffs, on goods entering the Empire, from abroad, the revenue derived from such Tariff to be devoted to the general defence of the Empire.

That was something like the first stage of the movement. I shall now refer to what took place at the Ottawa Conference which was held in 1894, when the first definite steps with regard to preference were taken. But I should like to have a quorum present, sir. [Quorum formed.]I was anxious to have as many senators present as possible, because I am quite certain that to the majority of the Senate the history of this agitation is unknown, and it is important that senators generally, should know what has been done in the gast and what the position is to-day. At the Ottawa Conference of 1894 the following resolution was carried -

That this Conference records its belief in the advisability of a Customs arrangement between Great Britain and her Colonies by which trade within the Empire may be placed on a more favorable footing than that which is carried on with foreign countries.

In 1897, when Canada brought in her Tariff, a preference was granted to the whole of the British Dominions. In her revised Tariff of last year I find thelollowing provision in regard to preferential rates -

The rates of Customs duties, if any, set forth in column 1, “British Preferential Tariff,” shall apply to goods the produce or manufacture of the following British countries when imported direct from any British country : -

United Kingdom ;

the British Colony of Bermuda;

the British Colonies commonly called the British West Indies, including the following : - The Bahamas; Jamaica;

Turks and Caicos Islands ; the Leeward Islands (Antigua, St. ChristopherNevis, Dominica, Montserrat, and the Virgin Islands) ; the Windward Islands (Grenada, St. Vincent and St. Lucia) ; ^Barbados ; Trinidad and Tobago ; “ [d) British Guiana ;

British India;

Ceylon ;

Straits Settlements;

New Zealand ;

Cape of GoodHope ;

Natal;

Orange River Colony ;

Transvaal ;

Southern Rhodesia; .

any other British Colony or Possession admitted to the benefit of the British Preferential Tariff, in Canada, in the manner hereinafter provided -

Senator Colonel Neild:

– - Shall I ‘ be debarred from moving for the recommittal of an item earlier than that referred to by Senator Millen? .

The PRESIDENT:

– No.

Senator Pulsford:

– Ey leave, I should like to amend my motion by including clause 8 also.

Motion, by leave, amended accordingly.

Senator Colonel NEILD (New South Wales) [5.40]. - I desire the reconsideration of item 17, “Table Waters,” with a view to substitute for the duty of 25 per cent, under the general Tariff a duty of is. 3d. per dozen, and of 9d. per dozen on imports from the United Kingdom. I intend to propose a much higher duty than that which the Government submitted. The great bulk of the mineral waters imported are cheap Japanese and German waters, the price of which varies from 8d. to is. per dozen. A duty of 25 per cent, ad valorem upon these importations would amount to a mere fraction, no more than 2d. or 3d; per dozen. ‘ The imported English waters are. twice as costly and therefore under the schedule as it stands an enormous advantage is given to the Japanese vendor of cheap waters, there being no United Kingdom preference. The English Malvern Spring- Water, which, in half-pint sizes, costs is. 7d. per dozen, as compared with an average of- one-half, or less than one-half that price for Japanese’ and German waters. Unhappily, I had not an opportunity to bring the matter under the attention of the Senate before, because the second-reading debate terminated unexpectedly on the second day. I had an urgent call to Sydney, which I could not set aside, and so missed my opportunity to deal with the matter at the proper time. I, therefore, ask a little consideration from the Vice-President of the Executive Council. I have some confidence that my proposal will be assented to, because it would involve higher duties than the Government has proposed, an increase in the revenue to be derived from the Tariff, and, at the same time, a more equitable arrangement as between the vendors of different table waters. Another matter I wish to have reconsidered is the flashlight test of kerosene. This is dealt with, so far as I know, in item 234, paragraph pp, because the Tariff, iii. its amended form, is not before honorable senators, and I may not be accurately describing the item. That is one of the reasons why I did not desire that, at this stage, the consideration of the Bill should be hurried. I understand that we have agreed to a flashlight test of 97 degrees, and I wish the test to be reduced to 73 degrees. I wish to submit a lower flash point than 97 degrees, for reasons contained in what seems to be an important communication, that only came to hand to-day from one of the Farmers and Settlers’ Associations of New South Wales. The secretary writes in these terms -

I would like to point out that by fixing the flash test at 97 degrees F., such brands of kerosene oils as “Royal Daylight” and “ Petrol ite,” which flash at about 86 degrees F., will be classed under the item “ Oils n.e.i.,” dutiable at ‘6d. per gallon.

Senator Vardon:

– Those are all fuel oils.

Senator Colonel NEILD:

– Exactly -

The brands- of oils mentioned are for use in oil engines, which are now vastly used by farmers in shearing and chaff-cutting, &c. The action of the Senate in making them dutiable at 6d. per gallon will prohibit their importation, with the result that all users of oil engines will have to pay in future a higher price for a higher flash test oil than is required. Nor does the higher flash test give as good results in oil engines as the oils which flash quicker and give a greater amount of power.

The facts stated in that letter may materially alter the. views of honorable senators “as to the desirability of practically excluding those fuel kerosene oils. This is a matter of great consequence to a large number of consumers, and I’ submit the proposal in the interests of the great body of those who use oil engines. Another matter that I should like the Committee to reconsider is contained, I believe, in item 410, although I cannot be sure, as about a dozen amendments were submitted on that item last night. I desire to omit “ sensitized’ films and aristotv pe .paper,” and add a new paragraph as follows: - “Photographic sensitized films and aristotype paper, free.” It was stated last night, no doubt in the best of faith,that those articles were made in the Commonwealth.

Senator Best:

– -Aristotype? Yes.

Senator Colonel NEILD:

– I have excellent authority positively contradicting the statement. I have here a declaration signed by some of the leading photographers of Melbourne, and also the assertion of a large Melbourne dealer in photographic materials, so that I am not . coming -here as a champion of my State, or of anybody connected with it. In this communication a. strong protest is made against the unhappily inaccurate statement made in. this Chamber last night as to photographic sensitized films and aristo-type paper being made in the Commonwealth. That is positively denied, and in the circumstances I undertook to seek the recommittal of the item, so that the Committee might reconsider a decision which was clearly arrived at under a misapprehension. The fact that I have limited matters so much will, I hope, plead with the Ministry and with honorable senators in the direction of granting the reconsideration which I ask for. For my own part, I will pledge that no material time will be occupied in the consideration of these items if they are recommitted. I therefore move - -

That the following words be added to the motion - “also items 17; 2.34, requested paragraph I’F; and 410, in respect of photographic sensitized films.” »

Senator Millen:

– Does the honorable senator propose to deal with sensitized paper under item 410 ?’

Senator Colonel NEILD:

That the following words be added to the motion - “also items ro6, 107, ro8, 114,* 117, 120, 123 paragraph b, and 132.”

Senator Givens:

– Why not reconsider the whole Tariff?

Senator MULCAHY:

The PRESIDENT:

– I propose to submit the propositions seriatim, so that it may be open to honorablesenators tovote on each question as they think fit.

Question - That the Bill be recommitted for the reconsideration of clauses 6 and 8 - put. The Senate divided.

AYES: 3

NOES: 22

Majority…… 10

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Motion negatived.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Question - That the Bill be recommitted for the reconsideration of item 17 of the schedule - put. The Senate divided.

AYES: 3

NOES: 22

Majority … … 19

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Motion negatived.

Question - That the Bill be recommitted for the reconsideration of item 234, paragraph pp, of the schedule - resolved in the negative.

Question - That the Bill be recommitted for the reconsideration of item 410 of the schedule - resolved’ in the negative.

Question - That the Bill be ‘ recommitted for the reconsideration of item 106 of the schedule - resolved in the negative.

Question - That the Bill be recommitted for the reconsideration of item 107 of the schedule - resolved in the negative.

Question - That the Bill be recommitted for the reconsideration of item 108 of the schedule - resolved in the negative.

Question - That the Bill be recommitted for the reconsideration of item 114 of the schedule - resolved in the negative.

SenatorFindley. - Let the other proposals be put together.

Honorable Senators. - Hear, hear.

Question - That the Bill be recommitted for the reconsideration of items 117, 120, 123, paragraph b, and 132 of the schedule - resolved in the negative.

Original question - That the report from the Committee of the Whole on the Customs

Tariff Bill be adopted, and. that the Committee have leave to sit again on receipt of a message from the House of Representatives in reference to such Bill - resolved in the affirmative.

Sitting suspended from 6.35 to 7.45p.m.

page 10051

OFFICERS COMPENSATION BILL

Second Reading

Senator BEST:
VicePresident of the Executive Council · Victoria · Protectionist

– I move -

That this Bill be now read a secondtime.

– Parliament can do what it likes at any time.

Senator Gray:

– The Government have not been very generous if we are to judge, by this Bill.

Senator FINDLEY:

Senator PULSFORD:

– I noticethat this Bill has been in existence now for many months, haying passed another place in November or December last. It seems pitiable that all theses widows should be kept so long on tenter-hooks while we have been discussing a miserable Tariff.

Senator GRAY (New South Wales) vernment upon what they are doing in this Bill. My only fear is that they have not fully recognised the necessities of the widows in the amounts which theiy are giving. A total sum of£2,440 at 5 per cent, is only£120 a year to be divided amongst eleven of them. There is very little bread about that, and I see still less butter. . I take it that the Government would not have brought forward the Bill unless they felt that there was a certain obligation upon them, in view of the fact that if the officers had remained in the State service certain sums of money would have been paid to them. I assume that the Government have fixed these amounts proportionately to those sums. I do not know whether the Vice-President of the Executive Council meant to indicate that the power to grant compensation of this kind is to be left i the future in the hands of the Minister. If so, fuller details should be given to us of the system to be followed, so that we may fully appreciate what we are doing.

Senator Best:

– We onlydea.I with the cases mentioned inthe Bill.

Senator GRAY:

– Thenis thepower of the Government to be limitedtothecases now before us?

– I thought the Government were going to bring in such a scheme ?

Senator DE LARGIE:

– I hope they will do it soon. Seeing that the cases dealt with in the Bill have stood over for so long, I think they might have been allowed to stand over until a scheme on broader principles than supplying the needs of a few individuals for the time being was brought down. I know most honorable senators will support the measure, as I intend to do, but I think many of us. in our better judgment, may have a suspicion that we are taking a step in the wrong direc-tion. Very often our sympathy gets the better of our judgment in such cases. At any rate, I am. glad to see the Government bringing down proposals of this kind from time to time. The party to which I belong have always tried to make the Government the model employer, so that it might be an example to private employers in the way of providing compensation when servants come to an untimely end. I am sorry the measure cannot be extended to take in all the widows ‘in the community who are in a. similar position to those being dealt with. That is the most regrettable aspect of the measure, but, seeing we cannot remedy it, I suppose we shall be obliged to accept the Bill. I hope the Government, will bring down a well-thought-out scheme, so that, instead of having cases brought before us in this way, the persons to receive compensation will know exactly what they are entitled to. That would be a more satisfactory thing than to have political influence used when the widow of some public servant requires help. That is what I am afraid of under the present circumstances, and such a state of affairs will not commend itself to this Parliament. We may be setting a very bad precedent by passing the Bill, and, later on, we may see the foolishness of the whole affair. However, I do not think any of us have the heartlessness to oppose a measure of this kind.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee :

Clause1 -

This Act may be cited as the Officers Compensation Act 1907.

Senator PULSFORD:
New SouthWales

– I think it is clear that the date should be 1908. There is also the possibility that when we have gone through the measure we may wish to alter the word “ Compensation,” and, perhaps, put in the words “ Special allowances,” or something of that kind. I move -

That the clause be postponed.

Motion agreed to; clause postponed.

Clause 2 -

There shall be paid out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund, which is hereby appropriated accordingly, the following sums : -

Senator BEST:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · Victoria · Protectionist

.- This case, briefly stated, is that at the end of 1899 Lieut. -Colonel Bayly proceeded to South Africa. He was very ill when there suffering from enteric and exposure to cold. He returned to Australia in 1 90 1 very ill again, gradually becoming more decrepid until 24th August, 1904. He then went under a course of treatment unsuccessfully. He retired on the 17th of April, 1905. A. Medical Board reported on the 24th of July, 1905, that his . case was hopeless. He was’ suffering from paraplegic ataxia, resulting from exposure and enteric when on active service. Lieut. -Colonel Bayly died on the 21st September, 1906. The Military Finance Regulations, paragraphs 128 and 129, provide that compensation may be recommended by a Board appointed to inquire into the case, to the widow and family of anv member of the Permanent Forces who dies of any disease contracted on duty. It is provided that the. amount of compensation is not to exceed three years’ pay, regulated by scale from the maximum down to half the maximum amount. The Military Board has considered the matter, and recommend that a sum equal toone-fourth of the three years’ pay be granted to Mrs. Bayly. Lieut. - Colonel Bayly’s salary when Commandant in South Australia was£650 per annum, so that a quarter of three years’ pay would be£487 10s. Mrs. Bayly is in destitute circumstances, and is dependent on the charity of a few relatives.

Senator Mulcahy:

– Is this “ other “ expenditure ?

Senator BEST:

– Yes.

Senator MULCAHY:
TASMANIA · PROT; NAT from 1919

– Is there no obligation on the part of the Defence Department of the State in which this .. officer served some years before he left for South Africa ?

Senator BEST:

– I dealt with that question before my honorable friend returned to the Chamber. For some years after the Commonwealth was established it was the practice to refer these cases to the State Governments, who, as a rule, consented to the payments which were charged as “ transferred “ expenditure. But for some reason or other, which I will not pretend to deal with at this juncture, the, State Premiers cannot see their way to consent to these particular cases being debited to “transferred” expenditure. We think, however, that, rather than that the relatives of these Commonwealth officers should suffer, we should meet the obligations so far as the gratuities are concerned.

Senator CHATAWAY:
Queensland

– I desire to ask the VicePresident of the Executive Council if he is prepared to express an opinion as to whether, if the Commonwealth had not been established and this, officer had remained in the employ of ‘the Government of South Australia, he would have got compensation from that quarter?-

Senator BEST:
VicePresident of the Executive Council · Victoria · Protectionist

– I referred fully to that question when I was introducing the measure. In Victoria it was a practice in hard cases, where men had suffered death in the execution of their duty, or whilst in active service, to offer their relatives some gratuity or compensation. An amount for that purpose was usually placed on the Estimates, and probably a similar practice prevailed in the other States. I think that, in the circumstances I have mentioned, the relatives of these officers might have looked forward successfully to the grant of such gratuities by the States Parliaments.

– No. I shall deal with each case as it is reached.

Paragraph agreed to.

To widow of Muster Gunner Price, formerly Military Clerk, Central Administration … … … ‘^110

Senator BEST:
VicePresident of the Executive Council · Victoria · Protectionist

– Master Gunner Price died on the 17th February, 1906, having’ just commenced six months’ leave of absence on full pay which had been granted under the regulations. Had he lived he would have received a halfyear’s pay, viz., £110. He was stationed at Thursday Island and North Queensland between 1896 and 1899. In the latter year he went to South Africa, where he had typhoid fever, and returned to Australia in 1900. A board of medical officers re- ported that the disease from which he died was undoubtedly caused by residence in Thursday Island and North Queensland whilst on service, and that it might have been accelerated by enteric fever “contracted in South Africa/ The Military Board recommended full compensation under the regulations, viz., three years’ pay. The Crown Solicitor has advised, however, that no claim lies against the Commonwealth, because there is no proof that the disease from which Price died was contracted on active service or duty. His widow and young family, three in number,- are in straitened circumstances, and it is desired as an act of grace to grant a sum of £110 to her.

Paragraph agreed to.

To widow of Sergeant-Major Fraser, formerly of the New South Wales Military Forces … … … £30

Senator BEST (Victoria- VicePresident of the Executive Council) [8.43I. - This officer died in England while serving abroad for instruction, and it is desired to pay his widow a gratuity equal to two months’ pay at £180 per annum. The widow and family are in .poor circumstances’.

Senator CHATAWAY:
Queensland

– In one case two months’ pay was granted to the widow because the officer was entitled to two months’ leave of absence. In another case six months’ pay was granted to the widow because the officer was entitled to six months’ leave, and now it is proposed to grant to this widow only two months’ pay. I desire to know if her husband was entitled to two months’ leave of absence when he died.

Senator BEST:
VicePresident of the Executive Council · Victoria · Protectionist

– I Cannot definitely say that that was so. The fact remains that Sergeant-Major Fraser was in service abroad at the time, and I can hardly say on what basis the two months’ pay has been estimated. The Minister went into the matter, and considered that in the circumstances two months’ pay would be a reasonable compensation. Only £30 is involved.

Senator CHATAWAY:
Queensland

– The Minis-er will recognise that whether the amount involved is £30 or 30’ pence the principle should be the same. T was trying, as I did on the second reading, to arrive at some definite understanding as to the method of compensation adopted. We have dealt with three, cases, and so far they have been very well explained. But we have come to a fourth case, where the Minister will own he has been unable to give any satisfactory explanation.

Paragraph agreed to.

To ex-Gunner Watson, Royal Australian

Artillery, Victoria … … £24

Senator BEST:
VicePresident of the Executive Council · Victoria · Protectionist

– I find that Gunner Watson was granted three months’ leave on full pay under Military Regulation 437. He was then discharged as medically unfit on account of phthisis. He is being supported by his fa’ther, who .is sixty-eight years of age, and who has not means sufficient to support an invalid son. It appears that he .might, under the regulations, have, been granted six months’ leave on full pay prior to his discharge. Had the Department been fully informed of the circumstances, a further three months’ leave would have been granted.- . The gratuity proposed is in lieu of the three months’ leave of absence which would have been granted to him.

Paragraph agreed to.

Senator BEST:
VicePresident of the Executive Council · Victoria · Protectionist

– From the particulars supplied in connexion with this case, I find that Mr. Wilson was a senior lineman in the Construction Branch, Sydney. He died at St. George’s Cottage Hospital, Kogarah, New South Wales, on the 9th November, 1906, from shock from burns received while fixing a telephone cable on to a telephone post at Kogarah. He was not a contributor to the New South Wales Superannuation Fund. Mr. Wilson’s widow’ wrote to the Deputy Postmaster-General, Sydney, intimating that she had been left with two little children, and that when all her late husband’s debts and claims were satisfied, she would have absolutely nothing, and asked for consideration. The Deputy PostmasterGeneral submitted the case as one for special consideration of the Department for granting a gratuity, and the PostmasterGeneral approved, on the 24th June last, that a gratuity of £100 for widow, and£50 for each child, be granted.

Senator Millen:

– Is there anything to show that Wilson’s death was contributed to in any way by negligence on the part of the Department?

Senator BEST:

– I have no reason to believe that there was any negligence on his part, or on the part of the Department. His death was due to one of those unfortunate accidents which will always happen. The case seems to be a pretty hard one.

Senator STEWART:
Queensland

. -I think that this is a case in which we are all agreed that the compensation proposed is wholly inadequate. It appears that this man was killed in the performance of his duty. He did not contribute by negligence or otherwise to his death. His wife was left a widow, and his children fatherless. The breadwinner has been taken from them, and all the compensation the Government propose to give is a sum of £200. I consider that that sum is wholly inadequate, and that this man’s widow and family ought to be a charge upon the Commonwealth until the members of the family are able to provide for themselves, and the widow dies or remarries.

That is a principle which I think the Commonwealth Parliament might very well lay down in such cases. In addition to the lump sum of£200 proposed, I think we should provide the widow with an annuity.

Senator Gray:

– With 10s. per week.

Senator STEWART:

– I do not think that 10s. per week would be sufficient. I understand that the deceased left two children, and£1 per week would not be at all extravagant compensation to pay until the children are able to provide for themselves. After that, the contribution might be’ reduced. The widow of LieutenantColonel Bayly is to be given£487, which is more than double that proposed to be given to the widow of this man Wilson. Her husband was cut off in the flower of his youth, I suppose, and in the full tide of his usefulness as a citizen, a husband, and a father, and I think that his widow and children ought to be a charge on the’ Commonwealth. I do not suppose that it would be competent for me to move an amendment.

The CHAIRMAN:

– If the honorable senator desires to move for an increase in the amount he must do so by way of request, but it is competent for him to move for a reduction by way of amendment.

Senator STEWART:

– I am prepared to move -

That the House of Representatives be requested to vote, in addition to the£200 proposed, an annuity at the rate of £1 per week to the widow of J. Wilson until the youngest child has reached the age of fifteen years. Thereafter, the weekly contribution to be reduced to10s., and to be wholly withdrawn should the widow re-marry.

Senator BEST:
VicePresident of the Executive Council · Victoria · Protectionist

– Before Senator Stewart submits a motion, I have a word or two to say. I have been supplied with some additional information in connexion with the case, and in a memorandum Mr. Young, the Deputy Postmaster- General, says -

In view of the recent special instructions issued as to granting compensation on the death or serious injury of an officer while in the execution of his duty provided there have been a contributory cause in the form of defect in departmental plant, &c, or negligence on the part of the Department through its authorized officers, it is not seen how anv special monetary compensation can be made in the late lineman Wilson’s case, as, although he met his death whilst in the execution of his duty, there was no contributory defect or negligence’ on the part of the Department. It is submitted by Mr. Burgess . (representing the New South Wales Electrical Telephone and Telegraph Construction

Branch Union) that Mrs. Wilson’s appointment as semi-official Postmistress at Marengo is not compensation, but whilst it may be argued that the allowances as Postmistress are only payment for services rendered, yet it must be remembered that the Department has specially afforded Mrs. Wilson the opportunity of earning such allowance, and in that respect it does amount to a material help to Mrs. Wilson, in her sad loss.

Senator BEST:
VicePresident of the Executive Council · Victoria · Protectionist

– I read the official memorandum on the subject, and it indicated most clearly that there was no negligence whatever on the part of the Department. I believe my colleague, Mr. Chapman, did say that some temporary inexperienced hands were engaged on the work in question at- the time the fatality occurred, but I do not think he went so far as to say that any-‘ thing clone by those inexperienced, hands brought about the fatality.

Senator Stewart:

– That is practically what he said.

Senator BEST:

– The point is that the Deputy Postmaster-General - the responsible officer - was asked to report on this particular subject. I have given the House the. result of his report, and it establishes very clearly that there was no negligence on the part of the Department.

Senator CLEMONS:
Tasmania

– I do not attach much importance to the question of contributory negligence on the part either of the Department or the ‘ man who lost his life. There is one good, sound, honest principle that Ought to govern this measure,, as it governs every Workmen’s Compensation Act, and that is that contributory negligence has practically nothing whatever to do with fixing compensation.

Senator Henderson:

– The man has lost his life.

Senator CLEMONS:

– The man has lost his life, and that is sufficient. We all ought to know what is the guiding principle in Workmen’s Compensation Acts. That principle is good enough for me, .and I hope it is good enough for the Senate.

Senator Millen:

– - You are not quite correct in your statement.

Senator CLEMONS:

Senator STEWART:
QUEENSLAND · ALP

– Before the request goes to a vote I should like to say a word or two with reference to the argumentused by Senator Trenwith. He bases his support of the Government proposal on the ground that they have practically provided for the widow and family of this man Wilson. In moving my request I took that into consideration just as fully as Senator Trenwith has done. But it appears to me that the Government are hot doing anything by way of charity for this widow. If she is filling a position in the postal service for which she is receiving.£110 per year, it is to be assumed that she is earning the money, and is entitled to receive it without any stigma of charity being attached to her. I am very glad to know that the Government have provided for this woman to that extent, and I hope they will continue that provision, whether my request be carried or not. But I think that in the case of a woman who has been deprived of her husband, even if she be assured any work for a considerable number ofyears,£200 is not sufficient compensation. I hope that my request will be carried.

Request negatived.

Paragraph agreed to. …. : To widow of S. Burnett, formerly Telegraph Lineman, PostmasterGene,ral’s Department, New South Wales £200

Senator BEST:
VicePresident of the Executive Council · Victoria · Protectionist

– On the nth November, 1902, Mr. Burnett was killed’ on the railway line whilst returning to Armidale on a railway tricycle after attending to some work on his section. ‘He was not a contributor to the New South. Wales Superannuation Fund. His widow’ wrote intimating that he had left her with four children ill-provided for, and asked for pecuniary relief. The Deputy Postmaster-General, Sydney, recommended that an amount of compensation be allowed, and on the 19th January, t9°3j the Postmaster-General approved of that course being, adopted, the Govern- ^ ment of New South Wales being asked to concur in the payment of the amount. The Premier of that State, however, protested against the proposed payment being made solely at its expense.

Senator TURLEY:
Queensland

– - I desire to ask’ whether anything has been done in. the way of providing employment for this widow, because it is desirable to know if the Government are doing the same thing in all cases?

Senator Best:

– I believe not.

Paragraph agreed to.

To widow of W. R. Child, formerly Sorter, Postmaster-General’s Department, New South Wales … £l37

Senator BEST:
VicePresident of the Executive Council · Victoria · Protectionist

– Whilst .on sick leave, on the 14th March, 1905, Mr. Child, who had not attained the age of sixty years, applied to be retired from the service on account of ill-health, but before the necessary Executive authority could be obtained, he died, and the Government of New South Wales declined, under the circumstances, to consent to the payment of a gratuity to his representative. Had Mr. Child been retired as desired, he would have been entitled to a gratuity amounting to £136 7s. 3d. He was not a contributor to the New South Wales Superannuation Fund. If a meeting of the Commonwealth Executive had been held, and the .resignation accepted before he died, his widow would have been legally entitled to the gratuity. It would then have been charged as transferred expenditure to New South Wales. But the New South Wales law and practice prior to

Federation did not allow of a gratuity being given unless the Executive had actually retired the officer. It was held that he could not be retired after his decease.

Paragraph agreed to.

To. widow of G. H.. Chapman, formerly Telegraphist, Postmaster-General’s Department, New South Wales … £297

Senator BEST:
VicePresident of the Executive Council · .Victoria · Protectionist

– On the 24th June, 1901, Mr. Chapman applied to be allowed to retire on account of ill-health. ‘ This application was approved by the PostmasterGeneral on the 1st July, 1.901, but Mr. Chapman had died on the 28th June. The widow applied for payment to her of the gratuity which would have been payable to her husband had be been retired as proposed. He was an ex-contributor to the New South Wales Superannuation Fund, and consequently the amount contributed by him to that fund, plus interest - £122 1 8s. 4d. - was refunded to his representative. Had he been retired in due course he would have been entitled to a gratuity of £296 15s. 6d.. in addition to the amount of his contributions to the fund.

Senator Millen:

– That contribution was made by New South Wales.

Senator BEST:

– Yes. . Paragraph agreed to.

To widow of J. Clarke, formerly Inland Mail Clerk, Postmaster-General’s Department, New South Wales … £39*

Senator BEST:
VicePresident of the Executive Council · Victoria · Protectionist

– This is another case of a gratuity in lieu of six months’ pay. Mr. Clarke died on 18th October, 1906. He reached the age of sixty years on the 17th August, 1906, and on the 27th September stated that he desired to be retired, and asked for six months’ leave on full pay. Owing to the large amount’ of work in progress- at the General Post Office, Sydney, in connexion with the annual mail ‘tenders, he agreed to continue duty until the inland contracts came into operation, about the middle of January, 1907. At the time of his death he was a contributor to the New South Wales Superannuation Fund, and had he been retired, he would have been entitled to a pension. No gratuity, or refund of his contributions to that fund, was payable to his representative. . -Paragraph agreed to.

Paragraph agreed to.

Clause agreed to.

Postponed clause 1 -

This Act may be cited as the Officers Compensation Act1907.

Senator TURLEY:
Queensland

– Senator Pulsford has pointed out that the word ‘ ‘ Compensation ‘ ‘ is not suitably used in the short ‘title of this Bill-. I think that the Minister has proved conclusively in every case that the Commonwealth is under no legal liability, and therefore a correct title should be adopted. That we’ have been granting gratuities is borne out by the recommendations of the heads of the Departments and the PostmasterGeneral. In each case the proposed payment is referred to in official papers as a gratuity, and therefore it is only fair to use that word in the short title: I move -

That the word “ Compensation “ be left out, with a view to insert in lieu thereof the word “ Gratuity..”

Senator BEST:
VicePresident of the Executive Council · Victoria · Protectionist

– I suggest to my honorable friend that there is really not very much in a word. If any alteration is made in the Bill it will involve delay. To begin with, the report of the Committee could not be adopted to-night, and our amendment would have to be approved elsewhere. If we listened to the suggestion of my honorable friend it would be necessary to use the phrase “ Officers’ Widows and Representatives Gratuities Act 1908.” The pre sent short title is comprehensive, and I think meets the situation.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Title.

Senator MILLEN:
New South, Wales

– For the reason which the Minister has just given, I do not propose to move an amendment in the long title of the Bill, but I cannot refrain from drawing, attention to its extremely unsatisfactory wording. It is -

A Bill to provide for compensation to be paid on retirement or on decease of certain officers of the Commonwealth.

The retirement has already taken place, and the officers unfortunately aredead.

Senator Keating:

– Not in allcases.

Senator MILLEN:

– The long title is worded as if the retirement were to take place in the future, and as, if the money were to be paid on a death taking place in the. future. I suggest for the consideration of the draftsman that it would have been better if he had used the following long title - .

A Bill to provide for compensation for certain retired officers and the widows of certain deceased officers.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment.

– Those are good grounds for asking for a suspension of the Standing Orders, but nothing else said was. Under other circumstances I. should object to their suspension.

Motion (by Senator Best) agreed to.

That the Standing Orders be suspended to enable the Bill to pass through its remaining stage .without delay.

Bill read a third time.

– They are purely of a surplus character. They certainly, do not make the clause any worse. I move -

That the amendments be agreed to.

Senator CLEMONS:
Tasmania

– The Minister, said that the first amendment means nothing, or, if he did not say it, he ought to have said it. But it means something to the Senate if we accept it. It is really a curiosity in legislation. I do not suppose that we have ever had such an instance. The clause provided originally that if the Comptroller-General believed that an offence had been committed, he might do certain things. The other place add that if a. complaint has been made in writing to the Comptroller-General that an offence has been committed, and he believes that, it has been committed, he may do exactly the same thing. The amendment is an absolute farce. In the interests of decent draftsmanship, we should not allow such rubbish to be put into an Act. I do not know -who the author of the amendment is, but it is sheer unadulterated rubbish. It is adding to the Bill: so many words without modifying or altering one jot or tittle of its original meaning. Does not the Minister agree with what I am saying ?

Senator Best:

– It is the amendment from another place.

Senator CLEMONS:

– Does the Minister ask us to accept it? . .

Senator Best:

– There is no harm in it.

Senator CLEMONS:

-Surely we have more interest in decent legislation than to be content with the plea that there is no harm in it. The thing is farcical beyond credibility. Why put such stuff into an Act’ simply because it comes from another place? We are not perfect, but no honorable senator could possibly have moved such an amendment. If it had been moved, it would have been laughed out before the last word was enunciated. I hope the Committee will leave the Bill in a decent form.

Motion agreed to.

Resolution reported; report adopted.

page 10072

SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT

Senator BEST:
Vice- Presi dent of the Executive Council · Victoria · Protectionist

– I move -

That the Senate, at its rising, adjourn until 2.30 p.m. on Wednesday next.

We have made excellent progress, and I have assurances that another place will have finished the Estimates by Tuesday next. We shall then be in a position to proceed with them at once when we meet on Wednesday. I propose, by leave, to give the necessary notice to-night to enable the second reading of the Appropriation Bill to be taken forthwith on that day.

Senator PULSFORD:
New South Wales

– In view of the Minister’s statement, we may now take it for granted that his attitude and remarks this afternoon about desiring to get a little time for a little work were largely bluff. I suppose that that is now patent to every honorable senator.

Senator CLEMONS:
Tasmania

– In the event of the Estimates not reaching us in time for consideration on Wednesday, will the Minister be prepared with business for the Senate to go on with ? Senators from distant States will be coming here for 2.30 on Wednesday. Are there any means whereby the Minister can intimate that there will be no work to do. and that it will not be necessary for them to attend?That would be a matter of convenience to senators who have to travel. I understand that the Minister is relying on the Estimates to give us an opportunity for work on Wednesday.

Senator MILLEN:
New South Wales

– Iam disappointed that the Minister has seen any justification for submitting the motion, as I was in hopes that he would be able toannounce that another place was likely to finish the Estimates tomorrow, and that we could go on with them on Tuesday. I gather that there is some doubt of that, and that, therefore, the Minister, Tather than keep honorable senators idling about, has proposed an adjournment until Wednesday. He gave us as full an assurance as any Minister can when dealing with the uncertain and eccentric proceedings of a House of Parliament, that the Estimates would be ready for us by Wednesday. I. assume that he is satisfied that there is very little risk that they will not be. If they are not, I hope he will tell us that we shall not be required to go on with anything else, for I do not view with pleasure the prospect of taking any fresh or serious business this session.

Senator BEST:
VicePresident of the Executive Council · VICTORIA · PROT

– To the best of my information, the Estimates are likely to be here on Tuesday. I am pretty well assured that that is so. If they are here on the Tuesday, we shall be in a position to go on with them on the Wednesday. If they are not here by the Wednesday morning, it will be too late for me to communicate with honorable senators. Another place may be engaged on them until midnight on Tuesday in order to let us have them on Wednesday.

Senator Clemons:

– Unless they finish by midnight on Tuesday they cannot let us have them by Wednesday.

Senator BEST:

– There is no reason why they should not. If the other House finishes with them by that time, it will be seen that it would be too late to attempt to communicate with honorable senators. At present the consideration of the Estimates is the only business I can see before me, and I hope we shall have them here on Wednesday.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 10072

ADJOURNMENT

Suspension of Standing Orders : Absolute. Majority - Remounts for India

Senator BEST:
VicePresident of the Executive Council · Victoria · Protectionist

– I move -

That the Senate do now adjourn.

Senator CLEMONS:
Tasmania

– There is a matter I wish to refer to with regard to the procedure this evening and the validity of certain work we have done. A little while ago there was a motion without notice to suspend the Standing Orders dealing, of course, with a subject with which we were all in sympathy. The President declared the motion to be carried. Standing order 433 reads as follows -

In cases of urgent necessity, any standing or sessional order or orders of the Senate may be suspended on motion duly made and seconded without notice; provided that such motion is carried by an absolute majority of the whole number of senators.

No steps were taken by you, Mr. President, to ascertain whether the motion was carried by an absolute majority of honorable senators. It was obvious to all of us that there were not nineteen senators in the Chamber at the time.

Senator Findley:

– There were.

Senator CLEMONS:

– It is obvious that there were not, but further than that, if there were nineteen senators present, the President did not ascertain that fact, or declare that the necessary majority was present to carry the motion. I do not know whether there is any. risk of the work being invalidated, becauseI am at a loss to know what entry the Clerk will make in the Journals of the Senate. The usual, entry is -

And there being an absolute majority of the senators present, the motion was declared carried.

I venture to say that the Clerk will hardly make that entry at his own risk. I would like to know what entry will be made.

The PRESIDENT:

– I would point out that the motion was submitted to. the Senate, that it was declared carried, and that it was not challenged by any honorable senator, as it might have been if it were considered that an absolute majority of honorable senators was not present.While it has been customary for the President to say, “ There being an absolute majority of members present the motion is carried,” that forms no part of the requirements of the standing order. The order makes a certain provision, and the presumption is that the statutory number of members were present.

Senator CLEMONS:

– I am desirous of knowing whether we are going to establish a precedent in this matter or not. You have indicated, sir, that the invariable practice is for the President to say, “ And there being an absolute majority of members present, I declare the motion carried.”

Senator Best:

– You do not say that is necessary?

Senator CLEMONS:

– It is necessary, for the reason that in the Senate we follow an established practice, and our established practice with regard tothis method of procedure has invariably been for the President to say, “There being an absolute majority of senators present, I declare the motion carried.” If such a statement is not made by the authority of the presiding officer, where is the slightest proof that we have complied with our standing order?

The PRESIDENT:

– It also has to be borne in mind that. the motion was submitted by the leave of the Senate. The Senate gives leave to submit motions when it sees fit, and, in this instance, the Senate appeared to give leave. The matter having been allowed to pass without anv challenge, even if there were ground for challenge at the time, is in itself strong presumptive evidence that the Standing Orders were complied with. An entry will be made in the Journals in accordance with the facts, and as far as I can judge there will be no danger of anything that has been done to-night being challenged.

Senator MILLEN:
New South Wales

– I wish to take this opportunity of seeking some information from the Vice-President of the Executive Council. Some little time ago I asked the honorable senator to make inquiries with regard to the action being taken by the- Government in connexion with a trust or combine amongst horse-breeders being brought about by a circular from the Remount Department of India. I would like to know the result of those inquiries.

Senator Best:

– A telegram has beensent to the Indian authorities! I would ask the ‘ honorable senator to submit the question without leave on Wednesday next.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Senate adjourned at 10.22 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 2 April 1908, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1908/19080402_senate_3_45/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant

Senate 2 April 1908

QUESTION

LAUNCESTON POST OFFICE

Senator CLEMONS:TASMANIA

Senator KEATING:Minister for Home Affairs · TASMANIA · Protectionist

PRINTING COMMITTEE

QUESTION

FEDERAL CAPITAL SITE

Senator KEATING:Protectionist

PRIVILEGE : SELECT COMMITTEE UPON PROCEDURE

Senator BEST:VicePresisident of the Executive Council · Victoria · Protectionist

Senator Gray:

Senator BEST:

Senator Mulcahy:

Senator BEST:

Senator MILLEN:New South Wales

Senator PEARCE:Western Australia

Senator Clemons:

Senator Best:

Senator Millen:

Senator PEARCE:

Senator Millen:

Senator PEARCE:

Senator Mulcahy:

Senator PEARCE:

Senator Millen:

Senator PEARCE:

Senator Best:

Senator PEARCE:

Senator Millen:

Senator PEARCE:

Senator Millen:

Senator PEARCE:

Senator McGREGOR:South Australia

Senator Best:

Senator McGREGOR:

Senator CLEMONS:Tasmania

Senator Best:

Senator CLEMONS:

Senator Pearce:

Senator CLEMONS:

Senator Millen:

Senator CLEMONS:

Senator Millen:

Senator CLEMONS:

Senator Millen:

Senator Best:

Senator CLEMONS:

Senator Best:

Senator CLEMONS:

Senator Best:

Senator CLEMONS:

Senator Millen:

Senator CLEMONS:

Senator Findley:

Senator CLEMONS:

Senator Givens:

Senator TRENWITH:VICTORIA

Senator Clemons:

Senator TRENWITH:

Senator FINDLEY:Victoria

Senator Stewart:

Senator FINDLEY:

Senator Trenwith:

Senator FINDLEY:

Senator Stewart:

Senator FINDLEY:

Senator Clemons:

Senator FINDLEY:

Senator Chataway:

Senator Clemons:

Senator FINDLEY:

Senator Clemons:

Senator FINDLEY:

Senator Pearce:

Senator FINDLEY:

Senator Millen:

Senator FINDLEY:

Senator Millen:

Senator Clemons:

Senate
2 April 1908

Senator CLEMONS:
TASMANIA

Senator KEATING:
Minister for Home Affairs · TASMANIA · Protectionist

Senator KEATING:
Protectionist

Senator BEST:
VicePresisident of the Executive Council · Victoria · Protectionist

Senator MILLEN:
New South Wales

Senator PEARCE:
Western Australia

Senator McGREGOR:
South Australia

Senator CLEMONS:
Tasmania

Senator TRENWITH:
VICTORIA

Senator FINDLEY:
Victoria

Senator FINDLEY:
VICTORIA · ALP

Senator MULCAHY:
Tasmania

Senator ST LEDGER:
Queensland

Senator McCOLL:
Victoria

Senator CHATAWAY:
Queensland

Senator DE LARGIE:
Western Australia

Senator STEWART:
Queensland

Senator BEST:
VicePresident of the Executive Council · Victoria · Protectionist