View PDF View XML View in Voyant

Senate
28 May 1908

3^rd Parliament · 2^nd Session

ORDER OF BUSINESS
- Close of Session
QUESTION
- POST AND TELEGRAPH DEPARTMENT
QUESTION
- CADETS UNIFORMS
QUESTION
- TORPEDO BOATS
QUESTION
- VISIT OF AMERICAN FLEET
QUESTION
- CUSTOMS OFFICERS’ SALARIES
QUESTION
- CUSTOMS AND EXCISE REVENUE
SEAMEN’S COMPENSATION BILL
CUSTOMS TARIFF BILL
ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATION BILL 1907-8
ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATION (WORKS AND BUILDINGS) BILL 1907-8
QUESTION
- ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATION 1905-6 AND 1906-7
ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATION . (WORKS AND BUILDINGS) BILL 1905-6 AND 1906-7

The President took the chair at 2.30 p.m., and read prayers.

page 11579

ORDER OF BUSINESS

Close of Session

Senator MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES

page 11580

QUESTION

POST AND TELEGRAPH DEPARTMENT

Senator VARDON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Before asking the Vice-President of the Executive Council a question, without notice, I beg to call his attention to the following two paragraphs in the progress report of the Cabinet Committee in relation to the post-office -

The Present Practice and Future Policy of the Department in connexion with Applications for the Extension of postal, Telegraphic and Telephonic Services in Country Districts, and particularly in Remote and Sparsely-Populated Parts of the Commonwealth.

This question is one demanding a more exhaustive inquiry than it has, up to the present time, been possible to undertake.

Conclusion. too. In view of a number of complaints which have been made, and the many matters submitted for investigation in each State, the collection and consideration of the necessary details precedent to deciding upon them cannot be undertaken Ministerially except during a long recess.

I desire to know whether the Ministry intend towait for a long recess to prosecute those inquiries, or whether they contemplate theappointment of a Royal Commission for that purpose?

Senator BEST:
Protectionist

– My honorable colleague, the Prime Minister, will probably be making a statement on the’ subject in the course of the day.

page 11580

QUESTION

CADETS UNIFORMS

Senator NEEDHAM:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister representing the Minister of Defence, upon notice -

Is it customary to charge the members of the Cadet Forces for their uniforms?
If so, what is the amount?
If a charge is made for uniforms, and in view of the fact that the cadets are principally recruited from among the sons of the working classes, will the Minister consider the advisability of remitting this charge, and providing a simple and inexpensive regulation dress free of cost?

Senator KEATING:
Minister for Home Affairs · TASMANIA · Protectionist

– In reply to the three questions, the Minister of Defence informs me that -

The Government provides towards cost ef uniform 7s. 6d. per annum per head. The average cost of the uniform is about22s. 6d. per suit. A suit of uniform should last a cadet three years. It would then be fully paid for by the Government. The present uniform worn by cadets, I may say, was approved by the Education Departments concerned, which bodies would require to be consulted if any alteration is contemplated. The question of the initial cost, and the fact that only portion of that cost is paid by the Department, is receiving the attention of the Minister.

page 11580

QUESTION

TORPEDO BOATS

Senator NEEDHAM:

asked the Minister representing the Minister of Defence, upon notice -

Have the officers who were despatched to Great Britain to prosecute inquiries into the construction of torpedo boats for the purposes of Australian defence yet presented their report?
If not, what is the reason for the delay?
If the report has not yet been completed, will the Minister take immediate stepsto expedite the completion and presentation of same, and place the information before members?

Senator KEATING:
Protectionist

– In answer to the honorable senator’s questions, the Minister of Defence informs me that -

Consideration of this matter is proceeding Before any final action is taken, full information will be furnished, . as suggested by the honorable member.

Senator NEEDHAM:

– That answer does not state specifically when the report is likely to be completed and presented to members.

Senator KEATING:

– I am not in a position to inform the honorable senator when the report will be completed, but I obtained that answer from the Minister of Defence since z o’clock. I do not know that he would have been in a position at. the moment to state specifically when he would be able to furnish the information, butI can state that he is expediting the matter as much as possible.

Senator NEEDHAM:

– Will the Minister of Home Affairs ask his colleague to make a statement as to when the report is likely to be completed and presented to Parliament ?

Senator KEATING:

– I havealready informed the honorable senator that I have done so, and that the Minister of Defence was not in a position at the time to inform me specifically when he would be able to furnish the information to the Senate. I am certain that when my colleague is in a position to do so, he will, as the result of the inquiries. I have already made, furnish me with the information, ‘and I “shall then be pleased to’ acquaint the honorable senator.

page 11581

QUESTION

VISIT OF AMERICAN FLEET

Senator MILLEN:
for Senator Mulcahy

asked the Vice-President of the Executive Council, upon notice -

Whether in the scheme of expenditure in connexion with the visitof the United States of America Fleet, the Government intend making provision for increased and cheapened means of transport between the States not immediately participating in. the reception, so that citizens representing these States may have a fair opportunity of joining in this national welcome?

Senator BEST:
Protectionist

– The matter will be considered by the Reception Committee.

page 11581

QUESTION

CUSTOMS OFFICERS’ SALARIES

Senator CHATAWAY:
QUEENSLAND

asked the VicePresident ofthe Executive Council, upon notice -

Whether- it is a fact that the Minister of Trade and Customs stated in the House of Representatives that the average annual increase . in the salaries of his. officers since Federation was as follows: - Tasmania,£72; Western Australia,£40; South Australia,£27; Victoria, £21; New South Wales, £20; Queensland, £5. Is the small increase in Queensland due to the higher rates paid before Federation? If not, what is the explanation of the discrepancies between the increases in the States, and more especially that between the increases of salaries in Queensland and Western Australia?

Senator BEST:
Protectionist

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

The Minister did not make the statement referred to in the House of Representatives, but the figures quoted are correct. The small increase in Queensland is due to the higher average rate of salaries paid in that State before Federation.

page 11581

QUESTION

CUSTOMS AND EXCISE REVENUE

What is the total amount of the netrevenue from Customs and Excise from 1st July, 1901, to 30th June, 1907, not including in any year, in the case of Western Australia, its special revenue as provided in section 95 of the Constitution. Act?
What is the total (estimated) amount of net revenue from Customs and Excise contributed by the respective States from 1st July, 1907, to 30th June, 1908?

Senator BEST:
Protectionist

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

This is the amount of an estimate made by Collectors of Customs in April. Subsequent returns make it doubtful whether so much will be received.

page 11581

SEAMEN’S COMPENSATION BILL

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

– Pursuant to a promisemade to this Chamber, and also to permit of circulation, I move -

That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act relating to compensation to seamen for injuries suffered in the course of their employment.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 11581

CUSTOMS TARIFF BILL

Bill returned from the House of Representatives with a message acquainting the Senate that, having regard to the fact that the public welfare demands the early enactment of the Tariff, and pending the adoption of joint Standing Orders, the House of Representatives refrained from the determination of its constitutional rights or obligations in respect to the message received from the Senate in reference to the Bill, and resolved to consider the said message; that the House had now made certain amendments originally requested, with or without modifications, and had not made others.

Motion (by Senator Best) agreed to -

That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the message being at once considered and all consequent action taken.

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

– I desire at the outset to draw the attention of honorable senators to a somewhat unusual, if not unnecessary paragraph, in the message. I refer to the statement regarding the action of another place in refraining from the determination of its constitutional rights or obligations in respect of the . Senate’s message. No one in this Chamber could take exception to another place availing itself of any opportunity to assert what it claims to be its rights, powers and privileges under the Constitution, but when a message is sent to us with such a clause as I have just indicated, incorporated in it, it becomes the duty of the Senate to have some regard also to what it claims to be its undoubted rights, powers and privileges under the Constitution. In this connexion I desire to follow the precedent that was established in1902. at the instance of my honorable and learned friend, Senator Symon. On that occasion a similar message came to the Seriate, and when the Order of the Day was called on Senator Symon .moved an amendment, which was ultimately carried, in these words Hansard, XII., 15836) - ; .

That Message No. 59 of the House of Representatives in reference to the Senate’s requests on the Customs Tariff Bill be printed and taken into consideration on Tuesday, 9th September; this House- affirming that the motion of the House of Representatives in receiving and dealing with the reiterated requests of the Senate is in compliance with the undoubted constitutional position and rights of the Senate.

Now, sir., I propose to invite the Senate, before we proceed with the consideration of the message of the House of Representatives, to re-affirm that resolution. The object of so doing is to make it quite clear that we give not even a tacit assent to the suggestion which appears in the message that has been remitted to us, as to the claims made by the other place. The Constitution no doubt speaks for itself, and there is a possibility that it is open to more than one interpretation. But I think that so far as our rights are concerned they are clear and undoubted that this Chamber has the power and authority to reiterate its requests at any stage and at any time when it thinks proper.

Senator Colonel Neild:

– And as often as necessary.

Senator BEST:

– I have said so ; as often as necessary. In saying so much I am appealing to honorable senators to realize that this is no party matter. It is a matter that to some extent may be claimed to affect and does affect the rights and powers of the Senate. I quite admit that, while we claim the right to reiterate our requests as frequently as we like, the other Chamber has the right to say yea or nay as to whether it will make the amendments requested. To some extent, I thought that this matter had been disposed of, because on subsequent occasions since 1902, in regard to the class of Bills which we have not the power to amend, but in reference to which we have the power to make requests, in the terms of section 53 of the Constitution, we have exercised that power. In 1906 we had before, us an Excise Spirits Bill. In regard to that measure, requests were made by the Senate to the House of Representatives. The House agreed to some and disagreed with others. The’ Senate twice pressed two requests, and the amendments were finally made by the House of Representatives. On that occasion no question of privilege was raised. On the 25th September, 1906, the same Bill was returned, to the House of Representatives With requests. Consideration of the Senate’s requests then took place, and -some were adopted. On 8th October, consideration of the House of Representatives’ message took place, on which occasion three requests, Nos. 4, 5, and 6, were pressed. On 10th October, on the Bill being returned to the House of Representatives, with a message pressing requested amendments, two requests ‘ modified in certain particulars were adopted, and one requested amendment was made. On 10th October the Bill was returned from the Senate with a message intimating that it again pressed its requests, and the House of Representatives agreed to the requested amendments. Now, I have said that that Bill was practically of the same character as the one with which we are dealing on the present occasion. The requests of the Senate were dealt with, and iri some cases the amendments were made without any protest ; in fact, I think the words ot the message were that the House of Representatives had “ now made “ the amendments. Later on, I find that in reference to the Appropriation Bill of 1903-4 requests were made by the Senate in regard to certain items. I believe that the other place had reduced the salaries of one clerk and two messengers. This Chamber insisted, by request, on the re-instatement of those, . salaries. The Bill was returned from the House of Representatives. The Senate adhered to its decision, and sent back the Bill pressing its requests. On that occasion the form of procedure that was adopted elsewhere^ - I will not set forth the reasons for adopting that ] procedure, but it was stated that any constitutional question was thereby . avoidedwas for the Prime Minister to move to lay aside the Bill, and. to introduce a new Appropriation Bill, with the items in dispute inserted as requested by the Senate. So that the effect of pressing our requests in regard to that Bill was that the amendments were ultimately made. Now, I do not think that any good purpose is likely to. be served by any undue enlargement on what our rights and privileges are. We have a clear knowledge and certainty -in our own minds as to what they are. It behoves us on every occasion to see that’ the Constitution is loyally carried’ out, and that whatever powers are given to us by its terms are firmly and strictly adhered to. I therefore consider that, as the leader of the Senate for the time being, it is my duty to move, as I now do -

That Message No. 33 of the House of Representatives in reference to the Senate’s requests on the Customs Tariff Bill be taken into consideration forthwith; this House affirming that the action of the House of Representatives in receiving and dealing with the reiterated requests of the Senate is in compliance with the undoubted constitutional position and rights of the Senate.

Honorable senators will ‘ observe that I have adopted the wording of the resolution ‘ which we unanimously carried in 1902 ; and I feel sure that the Senate will see its way on this occasion to accept the motion unanimously.

Senator MILLEN:
New South Wales

– But ?. public journal could not throw out the Bill.

Senator MILLEN:

– It is perfectly true that a public journal could not throw out the Bill. But before so extreme a course is taken, we must ‘ assume that another place, bv a determined refusal’ of our requests, forces the Senate into such an extreme position that there is nothing left for it but to reject the Bill. I venture to say that, on this occasion, we have not vet arrived at that stage. . If the view I take is correct, that the Senate, representing the States in equal proportion, has cast upon it a certain duty, and is now carrying out functions imposed upon it by the Constitution; if it be the intention of the Constitution that it should exercise these powers, no member of it ought, and I am sure none will, do anything which would abrogate the powers, duties, and responsibilities which the Constitution, places upon us. If there is to be an amendment of the Constitution ; if the people are dissatisfied with the Senate as at present constituted, the proper way to proceed is not by permitting any encroachment upon its duties - and I prefer that word to all others in this connexion - but by direct appeal to the people to say to what extent the duties of the Senate should be limited. On this matter, may I quote one sentence from, the Prime Minister, uttered “on an occasion similar to this, six or seven years ago -

If it is ever sought to reduce the Senate to the position occupied by the Upper Houses of the Parliaments of the States, it’ will be necessary for the people to signify thai they are in favour of such a change in the Constitution.

If the electors are dissatisfied, if it is thought that ‘the Constitution is not working smoothly, the proper way to secure an amendment is, not by stretching it in any direction, not by the Senate surrendering any of its legitimate powers, but by ‘placing the matter fairly and fully before the electors, and leaving them to determine whether or not it shall be amended. I have had no desire to say anything which might be regarded as militant in itself. Whether I have succeeded or not, I have at least attempted to put forward a defence of what I regard as the duties of the Senate, and to indorse the appeal of the VicePresident of the Executive Council, that it will not in any way allow its powers to be dulled, or to drift into a position- of impotence, because if ever that stage did arrive, I am sure that every one will agree with me that the death-knell of the Senate would have been sounded, and we should have made a great stride towards unification, an event for which, whatever the future may hold in store for us, I venture to think we are not yet ripe. After thinking the matter over, I propose to submit an amendment, with a view to inviting discussion, and frankly intimate that, should it appear that a consensus of opinion is against me, I shall not press it, because I recognise the great value of unanimity. I move -

That the following words be added, “ and that so much of this resolution as affirms that the action of the House of Representatives in receiving and dealing with the reiterated requests of the Senate is in compliance with the undoubted constitutional position and rights of the Senate be embodied in the message to the House of Representatives.”

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON (South Australia) [3.16]. - I wish to congratulate the Vice-President of the Executive Council upon having moved, verbatim et literatim, tlie resolution which was unanimously carried by the Senate in 1902, when exactly the same question arose in connexion with the then Tariff. I had the honour of moving that proposition in opposition ,fo the then Government and -its leader here, Senator O’Connor. But, as a result of the debate, in which the whole constitutional position was very fully reviewed, it’ was the unanimous conclusion that these reiterated requests were in pursuance of and conformity with- our undoubted rights, and the constitutional position of the Senate, and that we ought to affirm that on its records. Accordingly, the amendment which I had moved in the form of the proposed resolution on this occasion was unanimously adopted ; and I feel sure that there cannot be two opinions as to the existence of. these rights and powers of the Senate under the Constitution, and as to its being our undoubted duty to exercise them when the occasion arises. We should be failing in the exercise’ of our constitutional functions if we refrained from doing so, and we should also be equally failing in our constitutional duty if we abstained, for any reason, from placing on record our clear opinion as to the powers and rights which we possess. If on a Bill of this description we made a request to the other House, we should be placed in a most humiliating position if, on that request being rejected, we could not repeat it as often as we thought necessary in the discharge of our duty. Why, sir, we should be in a worse position than the importunate widow, the essence of whose offence was the reiteration of her request. If we were to be debarred from giving effect to that importunity by the reiteration of our request with adequate reasons, we should be in a more humiliating position than any Legislative Council which ever existed in this or any other country. I feel sure, as Senator Best has said, that the unanimous judgment of the Senate in 1902 will be unanimously indorsed on this occasion. But I am afraid that I cannot agree with the suggestion that we should communicate to the other House that our re-affirmance of the resolution of’ that year. I think that it is undesirable to do that. In 1902, I did add those ‘words to roy amendment, but it was pointed out, I thought then, and still think with very great force, that the effect of that would be to challenge the other House to come on, so to speak, and fight. What impressed my mind then and impresses it now is, that the language which the- other House has embodied in its message amounts to merely an intimation that it has refrained from determining its rights- and obligations, whatever they may be.

Senator W RUSSELL:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– Why cannot the Senate treat . the other House in the same way ?

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:

– The motion, as my honorable friend will see, goes a little further and expresses the judgment of the Senate upon the action of the House of Representatives. We do not say that we refrain from deciding, or that we acquiesce in refraining from deciding, but we go further, as we are entitled to do, and as we ought to do, and affirm -

That the action of the House of Representatives -

Senator TRENWITH:

– That is so. ‘

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Motion (by Senator Best) agreed to -

That so much of the message as refers to the requests of the Senate in the Bill be referred to the Committee of the Whole.

In Committee:

Item 143. Sheet Lead and Lead Piping, per ton, 50s. ; and on and after -15th November, 1907, free.

Senate’s Request. - Make the duty (General Tariff) per ton, 20s.

House of Representatives’ ‘Message. - Amendment not made.

Senator BEST (Victoria - VicePresident of the Executive Council [3.40]. - I desire at the outset to inform honorable senators that the result of the considera-. tion of the Senate’s message by the House of Representatives has been that of the forty-one requests made by us eighteen have been accepted outright, fifteen requested amendments have not been made, and eight requested amendments have been adopted with modifications. The only commentary that I desire ‘ to make in re.gard to those figures is that the House of Representatives have endeavoured to meet us in a very fair and reasonable way. I also desire to direct attention to the fact that the schedule is divided into three parts. The items do not follow each other in numerical order as they did in the schedule which we considered on a former occasion. The first part ‘ deals with original requested amendments of the Senate which the House of Representatives, though again requested to do so, has not made. The second part of the schedule shows the original requested amendments of the Senate which the House of Representatives at first did not make, but has now made with modifications. The third part is what’ may be called the n.e.i. division. It shows how the House of Representatives has dealt with certain of the Senate’s original requests for amendments, which amendments the House of Representatives st first either did not make, or made in part only, or with modifications. It is neces- sary for honorable senators to understand the plan upon which the schedule has been prepared, because it will be necessary for me, when dealing with certain items, to jump from one part of the schedule to another. The first item has relation to sheet lead and lead piping. Originally the Government proposed a duty of 50s. per ton. The House of Representatives made the item free. The Senate requested that a duty of 20s. per ton should be imposed. The House of Representatives again finds itself unable to accept our request. Under the circumstancesI move -

That the request be not pressed.

Motion agreed to.

Item 175……

Screws n.e.i., including Sash Screws and attachments, ad val. (General Tariff), 5 per cent. ; (United Kingdom), free.

Senate’s Request. - Make the paragraph (General Tariff), free.

House of Representatives’ Message. - Amendment not made.

Senator BEST:
VicePresiof the Executive Council · Victoria · Protectionist

[3.46J. - The other place on two occasions has declined to accede to our request in reference to screws n.e.i. The matter involved is a small one of preference. Under the circumstances I moye-

That the request be not pressed.

Motion agreed to.

Item 268. Stone and Marble -

Marble unwrought, including rough or scabbled from the pick, ad val., 10 per cent.

Senate’s Request. - Make the paragraph free.

House of Representatives’ Message. - Amendment not made.

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

– It will be remembered that the original proposal of the Government was that the duty on marble unwrought should be 10 per cent. The Senate requested that the commodity should be made duty free. I submit that a duty of 10 per cent. on the unwrought stone is not an unreasonable impost when it is borne in mindthat we have most excellent deposits of marble in New South Wales. Tasmania and South Australia. On wrought marble there is already a duty of 30 per cent. So that there is a very fair margin between the duties on wrought and unwrought stone. I move -

That the request be not pressed.

Motion agreed to.

Item 118. Curtains and Blinds n.e.i. (not including blinds attached to rollers) ; Curtain Clips, Bands, Loops, and Holders; and Blind Tassels and Acorns, ad val. (General Tariff), 25 per cent. ; (United Kingdom), 20 per cent.

Senate’s Request. - Make the item free.

House of Representatives’ Message. - Amendment not made when first requested? The following modification now made - Duties made 20 per cent. General Tariff, and 15 per cent. United Kingdom preference Tariff.

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

– The original proposal of the Government in this case was that the duties should be 25 and 20 per cent., whilst the Senate requested that the item should be made free. Now a compromise has been suggested by the House of Representatives. They have endeavoured to meet the Senate by reducing the duties to 20 and 15 per cent. I move -

That the modification be agreed to.

Motion agreed to.

Item 177. Electrical Machines, &c. . . .

Dynamo Electric Machines over the capacity of 500 horse-power, ad val., 12½ per cent.

Senate’s Request. - Leave out “ 500 “ and insert in lieu thereof “ 10.” Make the paragraph free.

House of Representatives’Message. - Amendment not made when first requested. Now made with modification, viz., “500” omitted, “10” not inserted, but “200” inserted in place thereof. Amendment not made as regards alteration of duty.

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

– Honorable senators will recollect that we had a very long discussion regarding dynamo electric machines. The original proposal of the Government was that they should bear a duty of 121/2 per cent. when over the capacity of 500 horse-power. The item was greatly mutilated, if I may be pardoned for saying so, by striking out “500 horse-power” and substituting “10 horse-power.”

Senator Findley:

– Mutilated by wishywashy protectionists.

SenatorBEST. - In the duty column the Senate requested that 121/2 per cent. should be left out and the word “ free “ inserted. The other place have seen fit to suggest a compromise, which,’ I understand, was accepted very generally elsewhere. They propose to substitute 200 horse-power for 500, and for 10 as requested by the Senate.

Senator Mulcahy:

– That is what I wanted to do, and it is a fair proposal.

Senator BEST:

– The effect will be that these machines when over the capacity of 200 horse-power will pay 121/2 per cent., but those with a capacity up to 200 horse-power will pay 20 per cent. Seeing that the House of Representatives have endeavoured to meet us, I trust that we shall accede to their modification. I move -

That the modification be agreed to, andthat the request as to duty be not pressed.

Senator LYNCH:
Western Australia

. -i should have thought that request number 90 (item 177, paragraph a) would have been dealt with before the item under consideration.

Senator Best:

– It really does not matter which we deal with first.

Senator LYNCH:

– On the merits of the question, I have to say that I shall cave in very reluctantly. We do not desire to continue indefinitely our difference with the other place. But I wish to intimate that later on I shall ask the Committee to agree to a request with the object of making the Tariff more consistent.

Motion agreed to.

Item 177. Electrical Machines, &c. -

Electrical Apparatus and Fittings consit ting wholly or partly of metal n.e.i., including Switches Fuses, and Lightning Arresters, ad val. (General Tariff), 15 per cent.; (United Kingdom), 10 per cent.

Senate’s Request. - Make the paragraph free.

House of Representatives’ Message. - Amendment not made when first requested. The following modifications of wording now made : - “Apparatus and” omitted; “n.e.i. including” omitted, and “viz. - “ inserted in place thereof ; after “ Switches “ a comma inserted - Amendment now made as regards alteration of duties.

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

– I direct the attention of Senator Lynch and those who supported him in connexion with this item to the fact that another place has practically accepted the Senate’s request. They have excepted only a few connexions, which will come under item 178, paragraph c, “ Electrical Appliances, n.e.i.,” and be dutiable at 171/2 per cent. and 121/2 per cent. This will show how far another place has gone in accepting the suggestion of the Senate. In the circumstances, I move - .

That the modifications be agreed to.

Motion agreed to.

Item 177. Electrical Machines, Appliances, and parts thereof -

Dynamo Electric Machines up to the capacity of 500 h.p., including Static Transformers and Induction Coils for all purposes; Electric Fans, ad val. 20 per cent.

Senate’s Request. - Leave out “ 500 “ and insert “ 10.”

House of Representatives’ Message. - Amendment now made, with modification, viz., “soo” omitted; “ 10 “ not inserted, but “200” inserted in place thereof.

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

– I think that honorable senators have practically accepted the compromise suggested by another place in this matter. We de sired’ to substitute 10 horse-power for 500 horse-power, and the proposal now made by another. place is to substitute . 200 horsepower for 500 horse-power. We have already agreed to that in regard to the first item of electrical machinery dealt with, and I therefore move -

That the modification be agreed to.

Motion agreed to.

Item 177. Electrical Machines, &c. -

Regulating, Starting, and Controlling Apparatus for all electrical purposes, including DistributingBoards and Switchboards, except Telephone Switchboards, ad val. 20 per cent.

Senate’s Request. - Make the paragraph free.

House of Representatives’ Message. - Amendment not made.

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

– This is one of those comparatively small items in connexion with which I do not think it was really intended that the duty should be abolished, but honorable senators seemed at the time it was dealt with to be possessed with a desire to reduce the duties on all items dealing with electrical machinery. I move -

That the request be not pressed.

Motion agreed to.

Item 177. Electrical Machines, &c. -

Generators for direct coupling to steam Turbines, ad val. (General Tariff), 5 per cent.; (United Kingdom), free.

Senate’s Request. - Leave out the paragraph.

House of Representatives’ Message. - Amendment not made.

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

– It will be remembered that when the Committee proposed to reduce the capacity of dynamos, under paragraph a ot item 177, to 10 horse-power, it was felt that this paragraph of the item would be practically useless, as no generators for direct coupling to steam turbines would be under 10 horsepower. In the circumstances, we decided to request that it should be left out. However, now that we have agreed to the modification made in another place, providing for a capacity of 200 horse-power for dynamos under paragraph a, the retention of paragraph g becomes consequential. I therefore move -

That the request be not pressed.

Senator LYNCH:
Western Australia

– The Minister referred to a modification made by another place as a compromise, but I think that when honorable senators understand the nature of the compro- mise they will be disposed to describe it by some other word. Honorable members in another place have agreed to reduce the capacity of dynamos from 500 to 200 horsepower. Dynamos of the capacity, now provided for would be a popular type of machine, and would suffice for all purposes in many of our industrial enterprises. That is hardly a compromise in the direction intended by the Senate.

Senator de Largie:

– We might as well have fixed the capacity at 1,000 horsepower.

Senator LYNCH:

– Or we might just as well have left the item alone. As I have previously indicated, I intend, as a quid, pro quo, and in order to make the Tariff in some degree consistent, to submit an amendment. .1 move -

That the following words be added to the motion : - “ provided that the paragraph is amended by inserting after ‘ Turbines.’ the words ‘ or High-speed reciprocating Steam Engines.’ “

Amendment negatived.

Motion agreed to ; request not pressed.

Item 115. Carpets, Carpeting, Floorcloths, Floor and. Carriage Mats of any material except

Coir; Lap Dusters; and Floor Rugs and Coverings (including Felts and Pads), ad val. (General Tariff), 20 per cent. ; (United Kingdom), 15 per cent. on and after 8th November, 1907.

Senate’s Request (as amended). - Make the item free.

House of Representatives’ Message. - Duties made 15 per cent. General Tariff, and 10 per cent. United Kingdom Preference Tariff, as originally requested.

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

– Originally the Government proposed duties of 20 and 15 per cent. on this item.. The Senate requested that they should be reduced to 15 and 10 per cent., but its request was not accepted elsewhere, . and then it requested that the item should be made free. The other Chamber has, I think, fairly hit upon a compromise. It has suggested that the duties should be 15 and 10 per cent. I move -

That the request be not pressed, and that the duties as amended by the House of Representatives be agreed to.

Motion agreed to.

Item 120. Gloves -

Gloves, n.e.i., of all kinds and materials, including Mittens, ad val. (General Tariff), 30 per cent., and on and after 14th November, 1907, 15 per cent.; (United Kingdom), 20 per cent., and on and after 14th November, 1907, 10 per cent.

Senate’s Request (as amended). - Make the duties ad val. (General Tariff), 30 per cent. ; (United Kingdom), 20 per cent.

House of Representatives’ Message - Amendment not made.

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

– As this item was submitted to the Senate it provided for duties of 15 and 10 per cent. We requested that it should be made free, and as that request was not accepted we subsequently requested that the duties should be made 30 and 20 per cent. The other House has not agreed to the last request, but has retained the duties as originally submitted to us, namely, 15 and 10 per cent. I move -

That the request be not pressed.

Motion agreed to; request not pressed.

Item 123. Piece Goods -

Piece goods, woollen or containing wool, viz. : - women’s and children’s dress goods not weighing over 5 oz. per square yard, ad val. (General Tariff), 35 per cent. ; and on and after 13th November, 1907, 15 per cent. ; (United Kingdom), 30 per cent. ; and on and after 13th November, 1907, 10 per cent.

Senate’s Request. - Leave out “ viz. : - women’s and children’s dress goods.”

House of Representatives’ Message. - Amendment not made. Modification (the words “ including women’s and children’s dress flannels “ inserted after the words “dress goods” already made by the House, not altered:, but the following added in each of the duty columns : - “ Up to and including 27th May, 1908.”

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

– I think a great mistake was made in the beginning by another place in inserting this paragraph, by which women’s and children’s dress goods not weighing over 5 ozs. per square yard were brought under duties of 15 and 10 per cent., instead of protective duties of 30 and 25 per cent. It was done under the impression that those lighter goods were not made in Australia. As a matter of fact, samples have been exhibited both of flannels and tweeds which are actually made here, and which in warm climates would be most freely used.

Senator Mulcahy:

– I defy the honorable senator to produce ten yards of such stuff made in any part of Australia.

Senator BEST:

– If the honorable senator had given me timely notice there would have been no difficulty in doing so. Honorable members elsewhere were also in fluenced by the idea that the reduction of the duty would give the humbler classes an opportunity of getting their dress goods cheaper.

Senator Mulcahy:

– I pointed out that the very opposite would be the effect.

Senator BEST:

– The honorable senator is quite right. The experience of the Tariff since the 8th August last year shows that the only class of goods introduced under this paragraph are the most expensive kinds of dress goods.

Senator Mulcahy:

– If the weight had been made6½ ozs. it would have been all right.

Senator BEST:

– That was suggested, but after going fully into the matter the Government determined that it would do an injustice to the local mills. After fuller thought and experience of the Tariff, in the light of the importations that have come under this particular item, the other place have determined to terminate it as from yesterday. The effect will be to throw these goods under paragrapha of item 123 with duties of 30 and 25 per cent. In view of the spirit of compromise that has animated us, I move -

That the original modification of the House of Representatives, together with the further modification, be agreed to.

Senate’s Request. - Make the paragraph free.

House of Representatives’ Message. - Amendment not made.

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

– The original proposal of the Government in this case was practically one for preference. On two occasions we have pressed the request that the item be made free under the general Tariff. The House of Representatives has not been able to accede to our request. I move -

That the request be not pressed.

Motion agreed to.

Item 162.

Senate’s Request. - Add to new paragraph aa (Log Band Saws) the words “ including accessories for same.”

House of Representatives’ Message. - Amendment not made.

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

– Personally, I should prefer to see the words relating to accessories inserted in the item. But I am assured by the Department that it is not a serious matter. The main question is that log band saws should be admitted free. They are the really valuable articles, the accessories being of minor importance. I move-

That the request be not pressed.

Motion agreed to.

Item 176……

Coal Cutting Machines, ad val. (General Tariff), 5 per cent. ; (United Kingdom), free.

Senate’s Request. - Make the paragraph, under General Tariff, free.

House of Representatives’ Message. - Amendment not made.

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

– This is another preference item. We have on two occasions sought to make coalcutting machines free under the general Tariff, but the House of Representatives have refused our request. I move-

That the request be not pressed.

Motion agreed to.

Item 178. Electrical and Gas Appliances, viz. -

Gas Meters, ad val. (General Tariff), 5 per cent. ; (United Kingdom), free.

Senate’s Request (as modified). - Amend paragraph to read as follows : - “ b. Gas Meters not fitted together, or joined in any way.”

House of Representatives’ Message. - Amendment not made.

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

– I regret very much that another place has not seen fit to comply with our request as to gas meters. They have had the matter under consideration on two occasions, and, as they have twice refused to make the requested amendment, I move -

That the request be not pressed.

Senator E J RUSSELL:
VICTORIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– I find that there is one exception. Under the old Victorian Tariff this industry enjoyed a measure of protection which made it a flourishing industry-. A reduction of the protection afforded to it caused it to languish,’ but it did not cease to exist. Now we are asked to close it up altogether. This industry will absolutely cease to exist if gas meters are admitted free. We have in these matters dealt with another place most generously, and it is about time that the protectionist Government in this protectionist Chamber insisted upon retaining at least the protection which this industry previously enjoyed.

Question - That the request as to item 178, paragraph b (Gas meters) be not pressed - put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 12

NOES: 13

Majority … … 1

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Request pressed.

Item 217. Standards and Pillars of all lengths for fencing; patent Wedgers for Droppers and Standards, ad val. (General Tariff), 5 per cent. ; (United Kingdom), free.

Senate’s Request. - Make the duty (General Tariff), 171/2 per cent. ; (United Kingdom), 121/2 per cent.

House of Representatives’ Message. - Amendment not made.

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

– I do not desire to enlarge on this item. It has al-. ready been discussed very fully, and in accordance with the spirit of compromise which has actuated the Committee, I move -

That the request be not pressed.

Motion agreed to

Item 234. Oils -

In vessels exceeding one gallon -

Senate’s Request (as modified). - Insert following new paragraph : - “ (11) Linseed when denaturated as prescribed by Departmental Bylaw, free.”

House of Representatives’ Message. - Amendment not made.

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

– I move -

That the request be not pressed.

I do so for this reason : If is suggested that’ linseed oil is a raw material of the paint industry ; but I wish to point out that in the present Tariff, that industry has been most generously considered. Under the old Tariff, paints ground in liquid were dutiable at 2s., and under this Tariff the duty has been increased to 4s. and the duty on paints prepared for us has been increased from 4s. to 6s.per cwt. I want honorable senators to realize that the most generous consideration has been extendedby Parliament on other items to the paint industry. It is true that linseed oil is the painters’ raw material,but under the old Tariff they had to pay a duty of 6d. per gallon, and enjoyed infinitely less protection than they now do. I think that it is unreasonable on the part of their representatives to complain now because we want to give a reasonable protection - equal to that given in 1902 - to the linseed industry. That must be obvious when I remind honorable senatorsthat we have offered a bounty upon the production of linseed, from which, of course, oil will be duly made.

Motion agreed to; request not pressed.

Item 248. Roasting Dishes, Assay Furnaces and Crucibles,Scorifiers, and Muffles, free.

Senate’s Request (as amended). - That the item be amended to read as follows : - “ Roasting Dishes, Assay Furnaces, Plumbago Crucibles, Skittle Pots, Scorifiers, and Muffles.”

House of Representatives’ Message. - Request made, except that “ Plumbago “ has not been inserted.

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

– I regret to find that the other House has dealt with the item in this way, but, having regard to the spirit which animates the Committee, I move -

That the modification of the House of Representatives be agreed to.

Motion agreed to.

Item 284. Insecticides, Sheep Washes, and Disinfectants, n.e.i., free.

Senate’s Request (as amended). - Make the item read : “(a) Sheep Washes, and Cattle and Horse Washes, free.

Insecticides and Disinfectants, n.e.i., ad val. (General Tariff), 25 per cent. ; (United Kingdom), 15 per cent.
Pyrethrum Flowers, pure, in packages containing not less than 28 lbs., free.

House of Representatives’ Message. - Amendment not made, but item amended to read : -

Sheep Washes and Cattle and Horse Washes ; Insecticides and Disinfectants, in packages containing not less than 28 lbs. and drums containing not less than 5 gallons, free.
Insecticides and Disinfectants, n.e.i., ad val. (General Tariff), 15 per cent.; (United Kingdom), 10 per cent.

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

– It will be remembered that under this item, as it was first submitted here, insecticides, sheep washes, and disinfectants were free. It was thought desirable, however, that insecticides and disinfectants n.e.i. should be taken out of the item and subjected to protective duties of . 25 and 15 per cent. Subsequently, the Senate requested the insertion of a new paragraph, providing for the free admission of pure pyrethrum flowers in packages containing not less than 28 lbs. The other House has endeavoured to meet us by recasting the item as it appears in the printed schedule. The effect of that alteration is to allow the free introduction of bulk disinfectants and insecticides, . and to insure that the bottling and tinning - which is a very considerable industry - shall be done here. Bottled and tinned packages will, of course, be subjected to duties of 15 and 10 per cent. I move -

That the modification be agreed to.

Motion agreed to.

Item 303. Timber, viz. : -

New Zealand Pine, undressed, of all sizes, per100 super feet, 6d. on and after 6th December, 1907.

Senate’s Request (as modified). - Insert before the word”Pine” the word “White,” and after the word “Pine” the words “and Red Beech.”

House of Representatives’ Message. - Amendments not made.

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

– It will be remembered that our original request was that this item should include red beech as well as New Zealand pine, and that the duty should be increased from 6d. to is. per 100 superficial feet.’ Our request as to wording was not complied with, and then we requested- that red beech should be included in the item, and that the word “White” should be inserted before the word “ Pine,” our object being to protect the hoop pine of Queensland against the kauri pine of New Zealand.

Senator Givens:

– We have kauri pine in Queensland.

Senator BEST:

– But it comes chiefly from New Zealand.

Senator Chataway:

– We havekauri pine, not only in Queensland, but also in the Northern Territory.

Senator BEST:

– Personally, I was desirous of givingthe full advantage to Queensland in that respect. The other House, however, didnot see fit to agree to our request. In another place the timber duties have been the subject of a most vigorous debate, and its members have rigidly refused to depart from what was regarded there as a compromise. In the circumstances I move -

That the request be not pressed.

Senator CHATAWAY:
Queensland

– I do not intend to divide the Committee on the motion. In my opinion, the Minister has gone a little out of his way in referring to a spirit of compromise. So far as I can understand, on the question of the timber industry there has been no spirit of compromise shown.

Senator Best:

– I only mentioned what was alleged elsewhere.

Senator CHATAWAY:

– It appears that there has not been a sufficient spirit of compromise shown. I very much regret that, in order to further business and settle this question, I shall be compelled to agree to the motion. At the same time I think that we have a reasonable right to ask the Committee to seriously consider later on the question as to whether we must not also make something out of our compromise as well as those who opposedour request.

Senator McGREGOR:
South Australia

– I am sorry that from the very beginning the portion of the request for which I was responsible has been so complicated with other requests that it has been lost. I feel certain that if we had not requested the insertion of the word “White” before the word “Pine,” the other House would have agreed to the inclusion of red beech in the item. I think that another attempt should be made to arrive at a compromise between the Houses, and therefore I move -

That the following words be added - “as to the insertion of the word ‘White,’ but that the request be pressed as to the insertion ‘of the words ‘and Red Beech.’”

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

AYES: 15

NOES: 11

Majority … … 4

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Amendment agreed to.

Motion, as amended, agreed to.

Item 303. Timber, viz. : -

Senate’s Request (as modified). - Insert the following foot-note -

Note. - (To come into force on and after 1st September, 1908) - For the purposes of this Division a superficial foot shall mean an area of one square foot on one surface, and being not more than one inch nor less than half an inch in thickness.

House of Representatives’ Message. - Amendment not made.

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

– The effect of our request was to reduce the standard to1/2 inch instead of the originally recognised standard of 1 inch, so that anything under1/2 inch would pay a proportion of the duty, whilst anything above1/2 inch would pay the increased duty according to thethickness. Another place has refused to insert the definition. I move -

That the request be not pressed.

Senator GIVENS:
Queensland

– This is a request that the Committee ought to press. We showed a very fair spirit of compromise before. Our original request was that all timber 1 inch or less in thickness should be counted as an inch in the calculation of a superficial foot: But when another place disagreed with that, we came down to1/2 an inch. That was going a full half-way towards meeting the desires of another place. I am credibly informed that our very moderate request was disagreed with in another place last night under somewhat of a misapprehension, and because of a mistake. I do not want to go into the matter, but I will casually observe that I understand that when the division was taken in another place, two members who were in favour of our amendment were paired with one man who was against it. We thus lost one vote.

Senator Millen:

– It was the other way about.

Senator GIVENS:

– It was not. I do not put it down to anything more than a mistake. I am willing to let it go at that. Another member voted against our request under a misapprehension. The voting was extremely close, and we ought to send the matter back for reconsideration, in view of its importance. Some honorable senators have contended that this matter concerns only the industry of cutting up and working Australian timber. It means a great deal more. A large proportion of the timber used in Australia is imported, and is cut up by the local mills. I want as much of that work” as possible to be done in Australia. If this definition is adopted, it will not increase the price of timber at all. Its effect will be to cause the timber to be imported in larger sizes and cut up in Australian mills. We should do everything possible to encourage so desirable ;t result. I shall vote against the motion of the Vice-President of the Executive Council.

–

As fully 80 pdr cent, of our hardwood is used in connexion with the softwoods for cheap buildings, it will be (if the Senate’s recommendation is accepted) the means of closing down a number of the mills in Victoria, as if the. duty on the softwoods is increased, building will become more expensive, and, naturally, the demand for our hardwoods will fall off. To give you an illustration, Baltic timbers are used almost exclusively for floorings and linings, even in the districts where the hardwood is produced. We do not know the- number of hands employed, but feel certain there are as many in Victoria as in Queensland, and why should these men not be considered.

We are not only interested in, but act also as agents for hardwood millers. If you wish to verify these statements, we are willina to allow you to inspect our invoices and order books, in fact, would be only too pleased if you would do so.

The next paragraph will interest Senator Givens, because it proves something that I said on a previous occasion -

We are also agents for a mill in Queensland, which is not in the association, and can assure you that Queensland timber does not and cannot come into competition. There is no better timber than this Queensland pine for special work. It does not split nor shrink the same as others, and if supplies could be kept up, and the demand fully supplied, there would be no need to trouble re duties. Architects have been and are afraid to specify Queensland timber, as the long delay in securing delivery simply means that the timber cannot be properly seasoned.

As we are deeply interested in hardwood milling in this State, we would ask you to use your best endeavour to prevent an injustice being done to the people in Victoria who are dependent upon hardwood milling for their living, and repeat, if the Senate’s recommendation is carried, it would practically ruin many of the hardwood mills in Victoria, -and, naturally, throw -a number of men out of employment.

I think that that evidence is clear enough. In addition, it has to be remembered that a large number of men are engaged in connexion with the hardwood trade, and that many of them would be thrown out of employment if the desire of the Queensland senators were carried out. In many of the weatherboard buildings of Western Australia and South Australia hardwood is used for the uprights and the heavy pm tions of the work, whilst the remainder of the buildings are. completed with soft wood. Soft woods like Baltic do not come into competition with any timber produced in Australia. The writer of the letter which I have quoted has a better opinion of Queensland timber than have one or two other gentlemen of my acquaintance. When I was in Adelaide last. week I called upon the foreman of a- large boot and clothing factory which does its own carpentering. He assured me that in his opinion Queensland timber was the worst possible timber for his purposes. In addition to the difficulty of getting it, he said that when it was obtained it was in such an unseasoned condition as to be practically useless. It is undoubtedly on account of the Queensland timber being sent out in an unseasoned condition that this gentleman was of opinion that Queensland hoop pine was only fit for making the bodies of drays and waggons, ( and was quite useless for shelving or shop fittings of any character ; because, he said, it shrinks in every way, even at the ends.

Senator Givens:

-‘- The evidence quoted by the honorable senator is very contradictory.

Senator STORY:

– I have been quoting the testimony of a practical man, who has endeavoured to use Queensland timber for various purposes, but found it to be useless. Although he contradicts the evidence of the saw-millers whose letter I have quoted, still, considerable weight must attach to that letter, because the firm, in add:tion to being interested in Victorian timber, are also agents for Queensland timber when it is possible to get it sent down to be disposed of in this State. I trust that the Committee will not press the request, the carrying of which would injure the whole of Australia, whilst it would not be of much use to Queensland.

Senator TRENWITH:
Victoria

– The debate has entered upon lines which might properly be followed if we were initiating the discussion of this question. I dp not think that the assertion that Queensland timber is difficult to get is a reason why we should not be justified in imposing a heavy duty. The fact that Queensland timber is unseasoned, also, is merely an evidence that up to the present time the industry has not had much encouragement, and that the timber is sent from the forest green. That is a disadvantage that the extension of business will cure. But after all, that is not the point with which we have, to deal. We have already emphatically expressed our opinion that there ought to be such a duty as we have proposed and pressed upon the House of Representatives. But it appears that it is not practicable at this stage to secure what we desire. That is the only consideration that weighs with me. I do not believe that the adoption of the amendment requested by the Senate would injure any industry in Victoria. . I do not believe that fewer houses would be erected. But as we have strongly endeavoured to obtain what we conceived to be the’ right thing in the interests of the Commonwealth, and as there must be some time limit to the discussion upon the Tariff, I venture to submit that it is not wise to press the request again. We have done our best, and there does not seem to be a reasonable hope of securing what we want. That is the ground upon which I say that the request should not be pressed.

Senator CHATAWAY:
Queensland

– I shall not attempt to reply to the remarks of Senator Story, who has given us one more evidence that he is what has been termed a “ geographical “ protectionist. So far as that matter is concerned - and I speak 1 think not only for myself, but for other Queenslanders- we have in dealing with this Tariff endeavoured to bear in mind that there are such places as the Northern Territory and Western Australia, and that Tasmania also is very much interested in the timber industry. But I wish to enter an emphatic protest against the manner in which the Vice-President of the Executive Council introduced his motion,, that we should not press our requested modification. I say deliberately that in the manner in which he dealt with the question he treated myself and other Queenslanders with great discourtesy. He repeated, in spite of the interjection that I made, the statement that 1 ft. x 1 ft. x 1 in. thick is the recognised standard measurement of “ superficial -foot.” Where does the honorable senator look for his recognised standard . measurement? Does he look to the Customs regulations of his own State, or does he look abroad ? It has been said., over and over again, - and has been proved “ from the Statutes and regulations of Queensland, that, in that State - which is admitted to be the great timber State of Australia - another form of definition of “ superficial foot “ has been in existence’ for a number of years, probably ever since there .was any Customs legislation in Queensland at all.

But the least that the Vice-President of the Executive Council could have done was to recognise the deliberate statement that we Queenslanders have made over and over again, and not say once more that the re-‘ cognised standard is that which he described.

Senator Best:

– Seeing that I went into this matter at length on a previous occasion, the honorable senator has no reason to complain.

Senator CHATAWAY:

– What I am doing is to enter a protest in reference to the fact that when the honorable senator submitted his motion just now, he repeated once more what I consider has been fullyreplied to, namely, that 1 ft. x 1 ft. x 1 in. thick is the recognised definition of ‘ ‘ superficial foot.”

Senator Best:

– Outside Queensland.

Senator CHATAWAY:

– That is the point to which I take exception. When I make a statement definitely on such a point, I think that I am entitled to have it accepted, and “the Minister ought not to ignore my statement later on. I have been looking for an authoritative definition, and I have discovered a copy of the Civil Engineers’’ Pocket-book, published by John Wy ley and Sons, for the year 1904. Under the heading of “ Timber Measurement,” I find this line -

A foot of timber measurement is equal to 1 foot square and 1 inch thick or to 144 cubic inches.

Consequently, we -find from that definition that the mere fact that timber is 1 inch thick, or of any other thickness, is not recognised; but it is the cubic contents that make the “superficial foi.it.” I admit that something may be said against the original proposal sent from the Senate - that is, that the duty should be charged on all timber, even if it were less than 1 inch, as if it were 1 inch thick. It is quite clear that if we wanted to get the best possible definition of “superficial foot,” we should stick to the cubic inch idea, and charge so much per 100 cubic inches. But it is perfectly well known that in Australia timber is not sold’ at so much per .100 cubic inches.

Senator Millen:

– It should be sold at so much per 144 cubic inches, according to’ the book from which the honorable senator has .quoted.

Senator CHATAWAY:

– But that is not the case so far as Queensland is concerned, and I do not believe that that statement would stand for any part of Australia.

Suppose Senator Millen were to buy at a certain price 100 feet of boards i inch thick. Does he say that he would be charged one half if the boards were £ inch thick? I do not think so.

Senator Millen:

– I should be charged one-half plus the extra cost of sawing.

Senator CHATAWAY:

– What the honorable senator says may be true, but my broad point is, that so far as the selling value of timber is. concerned, people, when they buy, do not pay half the cost or half the value for J-in. boards as for -i-in. boards. Whether the timber goes .into the country as J-in. or i-in. boards, it is proposed under the present Tariff that if a man buys too feet of J-in. boards, he shall only pay duty on 50 feet. I say that that is an unreasonable stretch of liberality on the part of Parliament towards the people who are introducing timber to this country, and it imposes an unreasonable handicap upon those engaged in the timber industry in Australia, whether as employes or as proprietors of mills. I am not much exercised about the matter of pressing our request once more. We shall be sending other requests down to the House, of Representatives, and I cannot see that any serious difficulty will arise from renewing this particular request. . If it be a desirable thing in itself, it is right that we should do it. It is quite a proper thing to reiterate requests. I shall therefore vote in that direction.

Senator ST LEDGER:
Queensland

– Two questions have to be considered in relation to this matter.. It has been said that Queensland timber is not suitable for certain purposes. I do not say anything on that point, but I was certainly under the impression from the magnificent exhibits of Queensland timber which we have had in Melbourne and elsewhere that timber for all purposes was obtainable from Queensland equal in quality to any obtainable in Australia, and in many respects to any obtainable in any part of the world. I venture to suggest, even to those who are remarkably critical, that Queensland timbers of all kinds will stand trade tests very satisfactorily. Another factor which is being considered is, that while it is admitted that Queensland timber is -suitable for the purposes for which it is required in the other States, there is such a difficulty in getting a sufficient supply- of it from Queensland .that it is suggested that by this request we are practically asking the people of the other States to pay an un reasonable price for their timber. I do not admit that statement. But even if it be true that the proposal would result in some slight increase in the cost of timber, it is my duty to point out that the Queensland Government is spending hundreds of thousands of pounds to open up the timber districts of the State by railways, and the objection raised would therefore gradually disappear.

Senator Millen:

– The honorable senator admits that the real question at issue now is one of increasing the duty ?

Senator ST LEDGER:

– I say that assuming that the effect of the proposal would be to slightly increase the price of timber, and giving all that in, the Queensland Government is now spending so much money in opening up timber districts in order to meet the demand for timber in the other States, that the difficulty referred to will gradually disappear. If there be anything in the argument for protection, the course which is being adopted in Queensland to meet the difficulty raised is one which should be encouraged. I hope that the request will be pressed.

Senator W RUSSELL:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

Senator McGregor:

– They ought to be made to do so.

Senator STORY:

– On a previous ocaSion, I pointed out that one of the objections 1 to using hardwood for the purposes for which the imported wood is used is, that when seasoned, it is so hard that it costs twice as much to work it. In addition to the increased cost of the timber, there is the increased cost of the labour used in . dressing the timber and building the house. I feel quite satisfied that if this request were agreed to by the other House, it would only mean that on ill J-inch timber there would be an increased cost of 3s. per 100 super, feet, which would make, a difference of, at any rate,, several pounds’ in the cost of the smallest house. It will be the man who most needs assistance - the man who goes into the backblocks, takes up a selection and erects a little two-roomed house until he can afford to build a substantial stone house- .whowill have to pay the piper. I urge the Committee not to press the request simply because it will not benefit any one in Australia, not even the saw-millers in Queensland.

Senator MULCAHY:
Tasmania

– There is a practical aspect of this question, which I think has not yet been stated. There is a great difference between this modified request and the original request, which I confess I did not like. Originally the idea was that any thickness less than an inch should be reckoned as an inch. That, I think, was hardly fair. . But the modification to which we agreed the other night, on the motion of Senator Givens, is that any thickness below half an inch shall be treated as an inch.

Senator Clemons:

– It is only a difference of degree.

Senator MULCAHY:

– You, sir, know that what is called1/2inch stuff does not run one half-inch thick, and that what is called3/8inch stuff is very little more than 5/16-inch thick. . Every one knows that the alteration requested by the Senate will allow most of the ceiling stuff to come in as it did before - that is without any increase of duty. The only effect which I think it will have will be to afford some protection to hardwood flooring boards. It is very rarely that any timber thicker than 1/2-inch. is used for lining houses. But there is a great deal of stuff which is imported to be used for flooring, and which, from a proper protectionist stand- point, ought not to be allowed to come in because, in nearly every State, sufficient good flooring boards could be produced to satisfy local wants. It seems to me that we might reasonably accept the modification of our request.

Question - That the request as to item 303 (Timber - Note as to measurement) be not pressed - put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 13

NOES: 11

Majority … … 2

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Request not pressed.

Item 417. Works of Art, framed or unframed, imported for public institutions or purposes under Departmental By-laws, free.

Senate’s Request. - After “By-laws” insert “also Stained Glass windows for churches or public institutions under Departmental Bylaws.”

House of Representatives’ Message. - Amendment not made. Previous requested amendment -Made, with following modifications : - After “417” the letter “a” inserted ; requested insertion of words not made, but the following inserted : - “ (d) Stained Glass Windows for churches or public institutions under Departmental By-laws - on and after 19th May, 1908, ad val. 20 per cent.”

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

– It will be remembered that the Senate declined to agree to the modification proposed by the House of Representatives, and pressed its original request that under departmental by-laws, stained glass windows for churches or public institutions should come in free. Another place by way of compromise proposed that stained glass windows should be dutiable at 20 per cent. That compromise was most reasonable. I move -

That the modifications be agreed to, and that the request be not pressed.

Senator PULSFORD:
New South Wales

– We have decided to refer only one or two items back to another place. In those cases we have asked for increases, and surely we might send this item back with a request for a decrease.

Question put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 14

NOES: 10

Majority … … 4

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Modifications agreed to; request not pressed.

Sitting suspended from 6.30 to 7.45 p.m.

Resolutions reported.

page 11608

ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATION BILL 1907-8

Federal Administration - Post and Telegraph Department - Finance : Commonwealth and States.

Debate resumed from 27th May (vide page 1 1520), on motion by Senator Best -

That this Bill be now read a first time.

Senator STEWART:
Queensland

– We have listened to a number of more or less interesting speeches on the first reading of this measure. One was extremely interesting from an antiquarian point of view. I refer to that delivered by Senator Pulsford. He appears to be the “ Rip Van Winkle “ of politics. After falling asleep for. about half a century, he suddenly wakes up and finds that everything is out of gear. He is dissatisfied because the Federation has sent away the kanakas. He is displeased because Japanese and other Asiatics are not permitted to invade our territory and destroy our racial and industrial system. Nothing that Australia has done in the past, is doing now, or is likely to do in the future, meets with his approbation. He looks upon Australia as the Ishmael of the nations, with its hand against every other country and every other country’s hand against it. I had hoped that his visit to England would give him a clearer impression of the beauties and glories of Australia, and that, coming fresh from the leaden skies of Great Britain to the sunny atmosphere of this southern Commonwealth, he would have a keener appreciation of the many advantages, climatic, social, political, and industrial, that we enjoy. But he appears to persist in plaving the role of the Knight of the Rueful Countenance. ‘ Nothing that is being done pleases him; nothing that is likely to be done in the future will please him. Everything has gone wrong, and apparently he has given up all hope of setting it right. I think Australia has gained a great deal fromFederation, notwithstanding what the honorable senator said. She has dealt with the Asiatic question, given every man and woman in the continent the franchise, and is now laying the foundation of an industrial and social system which will, 1 hope, exceed in its fairness to the great masses of her people any that is in operation inany other country. Indeed. I look upon Australia as the flower of the nations. Myonlyhope is that she will continue! in the path which she has outlined for herself and take no heed of Jeremiahs like Senator

Pulsford. The honorable senator was anxious that our Defence system should be put into proper shape. We have been a nation for only seven years. We have had a great deal of preliminary work to do, and, up to date, Defence has not been an exceedingly pressing matter. But we are now preparing to set our house in order from a Defence, point of view, and I trust that Senator Pulsford will give the Federal Parliament the benefit of his research in that direction. The honorable senator was also dissatisfied with our postal service. He stated that the Post and Telegraph Department is in a much more disorganized condition than ever it was under the States. I doubt that very much. I notice - and I have made some inquiries on the subject - that Australia has absolutely the best post and telegraph system on the face of the globe. There is no other country that I know of or have read about or heard of that provides such facilities for a spars; population scattered over vast distances as Australia does in connexion with its post and telegraph service.

Senator Millen:

– There have beena great many complaints since Federation.

– That I think would be a sound and wise principle to adopt with regard to our finances. A man should contribute to the revenue of the country in proportion to the benefits which he enjoys under the Government of the country. If one man has , £10.000 he should pay a very much larger contribution to the revenue than one who has only £100, and the man who has£100 should pay more than the man who has nothing but his bare hands. But what is the system in operation at the present moment ? It takes no heed whatever of a man’s possessions. It simply says : “ If you smoke tobacco, you must contribute to the cost of government.” Why should the man who smokes tobacco contribute more to the revenue than the man who does not. The man who does not smoke is protected equally by Government with the man who does, and enjoys the benefits which flow from good government as much as the man who does smoke. Suppose our people stopped smoking, what would become of the revenue? Where would our sound finance come in then ? It would disappear utterly. Then, again, we have taxation of stimulants andrevenue duties- hundreds of them. So that men donot, under our present sytem, contribute to the cost of government according to their means, but in proportion asthey eat, drink, wear, or in some other fashion consume goods on which revenue duties have been imposed. So that the man to whom Senator W. Russell referred a. moment ago, the poor man with the large family, and the small wages, pays proportionately very much more in taxation than any other man in the community. Instead of being rewarded as he should be for being a good citizen, replenishing the earth, adding to the population of the Commonwealth, and doing away with the necessity for expenditure on immigration, he is by our vicious system of taxation actually penalized. I claim that an intelligentpeople, represented by an intelligent Parliament, wouldatthe veryearliestopportunity,layvoilent hands on this foolish system of taxation, and substitute for itsomething sound and wise. There is another aspect of the question which should be considered. We hear a great deal about our States debt’s. Senator Pulsford last night referred to the fact that the total debts of the fifty members of the United States Confederation were only£50,000,000, whereas ours are £250,000,000. A population of 80,000,000 is in debt to the tune of£50,000,000, and our population of 4,000,000 is up to its neck in debt to the tune of £250,000,000.But Senator Pulsford did not tell us what we know, and what he knows, and should have stated, that the money, or a very large proportion of it which has been borrowed by Australia has been used for development purposes, and that, so far as that matter is concerned, Australia to-day, stands in a position that is unparalleled on the face of the earth.

– No, I would let him dig his own ground, and make him raise something from it instead of holding it back for the community-created increment. . I emphasize this point : that until we have a sound system of taxation, until we attack, and very largely destroy, the system of raising revenue by means of Customs, duties, and so become enabled to substitute for it direct land value taxation, Australia will not make any progress worth talking about. I do not wish to say any more on that head. I believe that the great political battle of the future will be fought on this question of land monopoly, and I ask every one who has faith in Australia - every one who desires to see her prosper, and to lift her out of the rut - to rally round the banner of anti-land monopoly.

Now, a number of the financial experts have dealt at great length with the position as between the Commonwealth and the States. Without posing for a moment as one who has an expert knowledge of finance, I, as a member of this Parliament, claim the right to make a few remarks on what is, no doubt, one of the most important subjects - after the oneI have just been attempting to deal with -which can occupy the minds of our people. The Federal Treasurer has outlined a scheme, and I ask honorable senators to consider for a few moments what it is like. His proposal is to pay the States a fixed sum of £6, 000,000 per annum for five years, and then, for a period of thirty years, an additional sum, so that at the end of thirtyfive years the whole of the present State debts will have been wiped out. Thirtyfiveyears from the date when this system of Sir William Lyne begins to operate, if it ever does, the Commonwealth will have to find nearly , £9.000,000 per annum for the States, in addition to sufficient money to carry on its own business. That is exactly the position which the Commonwealth will find itself in if it adopts his policy. With regard to the fixed sum’, at present the arrangement between the Commonwealth and the States is that we hand over to them three-fourths of whatever sum we collect from Customs and Excise duties, less the cost of collection. It does not matter whether that sum is £1, 000,000 or £10, 000, 000, the States claim threefourths of it, and can claim no more. That is the utmost of our liability so far as the States are concerned. But if we agree to hand over to them a fixed sum, no matter what it may be, we shall alter the situation completely ; we shall tie our hands, so to speak, financially ; we shall bind ourselves to raise a certain sum every year for the States in addition to what we need for our own purposes. We are not bound, at the present moment, to raise a farthing for the States. Under the Braddon section, as it exists now, this Parliament can sweep away the Customs duties entirely.

Senator Needham:

– At the end of 1910.

Senator STEWART:

– No, now.We could go in for an absolutely free-trade policy, which would mean no revenue from the Customs House. Of course, we would collect nothing, and the States would get three-fourths of it. I do not know how much that would be; but if Senator Pulsford were here, probably he. would tell us.

– We must, as the honorable senator interjects, take over the lighthouses, and a number of other Departments. There is some talk of establishing a Commonwealth Agricultural Bureau. We are almost bound to take over the Northern Territory, which will cost us anything from £150,000 to £200,000 a year. I am sure our friends from Western Australia live in hope that their railway will be built, and, as Sir William Lyne pointed out, there will inevitably be a deficiency on that line for a number of years of, say, £50,000 per annum. There will also be the deficiency on the railway through the heart of Australia between Oodnadatta and

Pine Creek; ,£210,000 is the sum estimated by the financial experts of the Government on that, undertaking, with £93,000 for interest and sinking fund. There is £450,000 for interest and sinking fund on the cost of transferred properties, £50,000 for advertising and immigration, and. £50,000 for miscellaneous, or a still further addition to our expenditure of £1,060,000; making the expenditure of the ‘Commonwealth in 1910-11, by the time the “ Braddon blot” expires, £9,700,000, or approximately £^10,000,000, as against j£6, 1 15,000 in 1907-8. If Sir William Lyne’s proposal is adopted, our revenue in 191 1, to meet that expenditure, should be £16,000,000. What is the estimate of the experts in that . regard ? This year, our revenue from the Customs is over £12,000,000 ; but the experts calculate, and I believe they are right, especially if the Tariff works as it is intended to work, by having a protective incidence, that our revenue from that source, instead of becoming greater, will inevitably become less. The experts estimate the total revenue for 191 1 at £13,625,000, to meet an expenditure, taking the Government’s own figures, of £16,000,000, showing a deficit of £2,375,000. We know that these estimates always err on the wrong side. The expenditure is usually “very much larger than was expected, and the revenue is often much less. There is another .aspect of this question which ought to be considered. Not only will the Tariff, if its incidence is protective, yield much less in 1911 than during the current or next year, but our revenue from other sources cannot continue at its present level. Australia for the past few years has been riding on the crest of a wave of prosperity. There never has been a’ time in the history of Australia when such prosperity reigned. During the past few years, the prices of metals, such as copper, tin, and silver, have been at boom figures, wool ditto, butter ditto. In every department of industry during the past few years, the greatest prosperity has existed; but that boom time has passed, or is rapidly passing. The price of metals has fallen by 50 per cent., and there is very little hope of recovery. There is a drought in Victoria and several other portions of the Commonwealth. The probability is that before long we shall have a renewal - I hope only a partial one - of the state of drought which unfortunately existed in other parts of Australia until a very recent date. I hope we shall never have a drought like the last one. But we can never tell. The normal course of things in Australia is a succession of good seasons and then a succession of bad ones. The same applies with regard to prices. .Wheat is at a good price now, ‘but very probably within a year or two the price will fall just as the price of wool has gone down. Our prosperity depends very largely upon the seasons, and a number of other considerations into which I need not enter. Now, every one of these circumstances tends to this conclusion - that we cannot expect during the next few years to have the overflowing revenue with which we have recently been favoured. Let me revert for a moment to our protectionist Tariff. At the present time, I think we get about £2 6s. per head of the population from Customs and Excise. In the United States, the Tariff is what is known as a highly scientific protectionist one, and yields only about £1 4s. or £1 5s. per head per annum of the population. Now that, I think, is the point to which we are gradually coming in Australia. The more protective we make our Tariff, the less revenue shall we derive from it. So that in the very near future, I hops our revenue from that source will be, comparatively speaking, very much less per . head of the population than it is at present. I do not know how the Government propose to make up the deficit which I have outlined, and of which I an sure the members ‘of the Ministry are at least as cognisant as I am. But I know that on one occasion the present Government itself proposed to ask the people of Australia whether they would consent to the imposition of special Customs goods. I read recently, in one of the most powerful newspaper organs in the Commonwealth, a suggestion that it would be an easy matter to make up . this deficit of over £2,000,000 by imposing special duties on such articles as tea, kerosene, and other commodities used by the poorest people in the country. There was not a word about taxing the rich land monopolist. I hope that the Labour Party will say, “Not another sixpence shall you extort from the poor people of this Commonwealth. No taxation upon tea ! No taxation upon the necessaries of life for revenue purposes ! “ So far as 1 am concerned, the Tariff has only one use, and that is to assist in creating industries. I do not look upon the Tariff as a revenueproducing machine at all, except with re- gard to narcotics and spirits. No doubt I have made mistakes, just as other honorable senators have, and very probably during the recent Tariff discussions I have voted for revenue duties. But if so, I so voted in the hope that they would have a protective incidence, and be the means of creating industries within the Commonwealth. I should like the Government, in addition to giving us this forecast of our financial position some years hence, also to tell us how they propose to make up the deficiency which will inevitably arise if the scheme outlined by Sir William Lyne is carried out. There is one other thing which I desire to say before sitting down. I conceive it to be the duty of every Parliament to provide for its own expenditure out of its own revenue. It is not the dutv of any Parliament to provide for the expenditure of some other public body. If it does so, it should only do it as a secondary consideration. I am quite well aware of the fact that whatever arrangement is made between the States and the Commonwealth, the people of the Commonwealth will have to pay. It does not matter very much, when all is said and done, whether they pay through the Commonwealth or through the States Parliaments. It is desirable, no doubt, that the Commonwealth should know exactly how far togo, and that the States’ should be placed in the same position. But, when all.’is said and done, the people of the Commonwealth will have to pay the piper. There appears to be a contest between the States of the Commonwealth as to which of them shall shoulder upon the other the responsibility of levying direct taxation. To that end, I think we are rapidly drifting. The sooner we arrive there, the better it will be for the people of Australia. Their continent will then have an opportunity of developing, which has hitherto been denied to it ; the land monopoly will be broken up ; and, withthe protectionist policy that is now being launched, and with the new protection, we may expect an industrial era so prosperous and so happy as to be almost without parallel in the history of any other country.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a first time.

Motion (by Senator Best) agreed to -

That this Bill be now read a second time.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee :

Clauses 1 to 3 agreed to.

Schedule.

Commonwealth London Offices - Repatriation of Distressed Australians - Electoral Rolls - Gratuities - Compensation - Explosion at Thursday Island - Post and Telegraph Department : DefalcationsSavings Bank Advance - Union Steamship Company : Refund of Fine.

– I . do not know whether I ought to ask the question when we are defiling with the items for the Queensland Military Forces,but I desire to know whether any report is vet available as to the explosion which took place at Thursday Island. It was a very serious occurrence.

Senator Best:

– I understand that reports have been asked for, but are not yet complete.

Senator STEWART:
Queensland

– Under the head of New South Wales, in connexion with the PostmasterGeneral’s Department, we are asked to vote £20 to cover defalcations of an assistant at the Bourke Post-office, and£100 to cover defalcations of an assistant at the Gilgandra Post-office. Are not those sums covered by the Fidelity Guarantee Fund ?

Senator Best:

– In each case the embezzlement was in excess of the guarantee.

Senator MILLEN:
New South Wales

Senator MILLEN:

– It occurred to me that there might have been several occasions on which a fine had been inflicted, and that on each occasion a too lenient Postmaster-General had let off the company. I understand now that it is only one fine.

Senator Keating:

– Yes, it appears under the “ transferred “ column.

Schedule agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported without request; report adopted.

Bill read a third time.

page 11621

ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATION (WORKS AND BUILDINGS) BILL 1907-8

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Motion (by Senator Best) proposed -

That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the Bill being at once considered and all consequent action taken.

Senator MILLEN:
New South Wales

– The Standing Orders are suspended only when it is imperatively necessary to proceed without the ordinary precaution of allowing honorable senators opportunities to look into a Bill. Does that urgency exist to-night? Is it necessary, at a quarter to 10, to suspend the Standing Orders in order to pass through another Bill for the appropriation of a large sum? If the Minister can assure us that there is ample work for the Senate to do tomorrow, it may be advisable to adopt the motion, but we ought not to get into a habit of too lightly suspending the Standing Orders - a habit likely to grow, perhaps with evil consequences. If the course proposed by the Minister will expedite the business of the session, and is. necessary, I shall not utter a word of protest, but I am unable, on looking at the business-paper, to see the slightest justification for suspending the Standing Orders at’ this time of night to take up a fresh Bill. I ask the Senate to agree with me that there is no justification for the course now proposed..

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

– I am surprised at the honorable senator taking exception to the motion. This Bill, and the last, have been divided for mere constitutional purposes. They are, to all intents and purposes, one Bill. I referred to them together yesterday, and they have been discussed together. They cover the votes known as the Additional Estimates. This is practically the works and buildings portion of the Additional Appropriation Bill.

Senator Millen:

– It has only just been presented to us.

Senator BEST:

– No; it has been distributed for weeks past in the form of Additional Estimates.

Senator Millen:

– When was it passed in another place?

Senator BEST:

– On Friday last. The honorable senator has not been taken by surprise. As we had gone through one portion of what is practically the same Bill, I took it as a matter of course that the Senate would be prepared to deal with the ‘other portion. However, if honorable senators desire it, I will not take the second reading until to-morrow.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Motion (by Senator Best) proposed -

That this Bill be now read a first time.

Senator MULCAHY:
Tasmania

– Is it intended to submit the item of £250,000 for special defence as portion of this Bill ? .

The PRESIDENT:

– There can be no discussion of the details of the Bill at this stage.

Senator Best:

– The Bill is for only £161,282. The £250,000 is not included.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a first time.

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

– In moving

That this Bill be now read a second time.

I would point out that, according to the document originally circulated, there appeared, in regard to works and buildings, provision for a sum of £411,282. It was subsequently arranged that the proposed vote of £250,000 for special defence purposes should be dealt with in a separate Bill. That leaves a sum of £161,282 to be provided by the Bill now before the Senate. As I dealt somewhat fully with the figures yesterday, it is not necessary that I should go into the matter further.

Senator Pearce:

– The item of £250,00.0 still appears in the Bill.

Senator BEST:

– The honorable senator must have an old copy.

Senator Sayers:

– It is also in this Bill, which has just been distributed.

The PRESIDENT:

– The Bill received from another place does not contain the provision referred to by the honorable senator. It is a Bill to provide for the issue and application of a sum of £161,282. It therefore appears that honorable senators have had a wrong copy of the Bill placed in their hands. The Bill which has been placed in my hands also provides for the appropriation of £411,282, but that is not the Bill that came, from the other Chamber.

Senator Millen:

– This is the Bill which the Minister said was distributed months ago!

Senator BEST:

– I said that the document giving the whole of these particulars was distributed weeks ago, as additional estimates of expenditure. The Bill now before the Chamber provides for the. expenditure of £161,282. Unfortunately a wrong copy of the Bill has got into honorable senators’ hands. If honorable senators are desirous of looking further into the matter, I have no objection to the adjournment of the debate until to-morrow. In the meantime honorable senators will, I think, find the item quite satisfactory.

Senator Givens:

– On a point of order have we not read the wrong Bill a first time?

The PRESIDENT:

– No. The Bill received from the other House provides for the expenditure of £161,282. The mere fact that a wrong copy has been placed in honorable senators hands in no wise affects the position. We have read the Billthat came from another place a first time. That Bill does not contain the special defence provision of £250,000.

Debate (on motion by Senator Millen) adjourned.

page 11622

QUESTION

ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATION 1905-6 AND 1906-7

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

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

– I think I am justified in saying that this is a formal measure. The Bill appropriates, according to law, the expenditure of the

Treasurer’s advances for the years 1906-7. Honorable senators will be aware that the Treasurer obtains an advance of something like , £200,000 per annum. He applies that money to various purposes, and after the year has expired an appropriation by law takes place in the ordinary form of an Act of Parliament.’ This Bill appropriates money up to the 30th June, 1906, and up to the same date of 1907. The money has all been spent. Honorable senators with parliamentary experience know that such measures are usually formal. Under the circumstances, I think that I am justified in moving, as I now do-

That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the Bill being at once considered and all consequent action taken.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Motion (by Senator Best) proposed -

That this Bill be now read a first time.

Senator MILLEN:

– When we get into Committee upon the Bill I shall ask for particulars.I always understood that the . Treasurer’s advance was intended to meet emergencies or provide money for exceptional occurrences for which. Parliament had not made provision.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill readafirst time.

Motion (by Senator Best) proposed -

That this Bill be now read a second time.

Senator Millen:

– I presume that the Minister does not desire to proceed with the Bill to-night?

Senator Best:

– Not if there is any objection.

Debate (on motion by Senator Millen) adjourned.

page 11623

ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATION . (WORKS AND BUILDINGS) BILL 1905-6 AND 1906-7

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Motion (by Senator Best) agreedto-

That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the Bill being at once considered and all consequent action taken.

Motion (by Senator Best) proposed -

That this Bill be now read a first time.

That this Bill be now read a second time.

I hope that there is no confusion, in the minds of honorable senators in regard to these Appropriation Bills. There is no reason why there should be. Yesterday, I was very careful to intimate that a portion of the total amount to be voted represented ordinary services, and that another portion represented additions, works, and buildings. I pointed out that there were two of these Bills. One Bill appropriates the Treasurer’s advance for ordinary services for the year ending 30th June, 1906, and the year ending 30th June,1907. Now I am dealing with the complement of that Bill. It is a measure providing for additional works and buildings. TheBill with which we last dealt, and the second reading of which will be considered tomorrow, represented the ordinary services for the years 1906-7. The present Bill is for additions, new works, and buildings for the same years. I point out, once more, that the money has alreadv been spent, and that both Bills are really formal, and specify the items in connexion with which the Treasurer’s advance has been expended.

Debateon motion by Senator Millen) adjourned.

Senate adjourned at 10. 11 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 28 May 1908, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1908/19080528_senate_3_46/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant

Senate28 May 1908

ORDER OF BUSINESS

Close of Session

Senator MILLEN:NEW SOUTH WALES

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

Senator Millen:

Senator BEST:

Senator Gray:

Senator BEST:

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:

Senator BEST:

Senator GRAY:

Senator BEST:

Senator GRAY:

Senator BEST:

QUESTION

POST AND TELEGRAPH DEPARTMENT

Senator VARDON:SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Senator BEST:Protectionist

QUESTION

CADETS UNIFORMS

Senator NEEDHAM:WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator KEATING:Minister for Home Affairs · TASMANIA · Protectionist

QUESTION

TORPEDO BOATS

Senator NEEDHAM:

Senator KEATING:Protectionist

Senator NEEDHAM:

Senator KEATING:

Senator NEEDHAM:

Senator KEATING:

QUESTION

VISIT OF AMERICAN FLEET

Senator MILLEN:for Senator Mulcahy

Senator BEST:Protectionist

QUESTION

CUSTOMS OFFICERS’ SALARIES

Senator CHATAWAY:QUEENSLAND

Senator BEST:Protectionist

QUESTION

CUSTOMS AND EXCISE REVENUE

Senator BEST:Protectionist

SEAMEN’S COMPENSATION BILL

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

CUSTOMS TARIFF BILL

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

Senator Colonel Neild:

Senator BEST:

Senator MILLEN:New South Wales

Senator Sir Josiah Symon:

Senator MILLEN:

Senator Best:

Senator Trenwith:

Senator MILLEN:

The PRESIDENT:

Senator MILLEN:

Senator Lynch:

Senator MILLEN:

Senator Trenwith:

Senator MILLEN:

Senator W RUSSELL:SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:

Senator Trenwith:

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:

Senator Trenwith:

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:

Senator St Ledger:

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:

Senator TRENWITH:Victoria

Senator Sir Josiah Symon:

Senator TRENWITH:

Senator Sir Josiah Symon:

Senator TRENWITH:

Senator Sir Josiah Symon:

Senator TRENWITH:

Senator Sir Josiah Symon:

Senator TRENWITH:

Senator Guthrie:

Senator TRENWITH:

Senator Sir Josiah Symon:

Senate
28 May 1908

Senator MILLEN:
NEW SOUTH WALES

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

Senator VARDON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Senator BEST:
Protectionist

Senator NEEDHAM:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator KEATING:
Minister for Home Affairs · TASMANIA · Protectionist

Senator KEATING:
Protectionist

Senator MILLEN:
for Senator Mulcahy

Senator BEST:
Protectionist

Senator CHATAWAY:
QUEENSLAND

Senator BEST:
Protectionist

Senator BEST:
Protectionist

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

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

Senator MILLEN:
New South Wales

Senator W RUSSELL:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

Senator TRENWITH:
Victoria

Senator BEST:
VicePresiof the Executive Council · Victoria · Protectionist

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

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

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

Senator LYNCH:
Western Australia

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

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

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

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

Senator LYNCH:
Western Australia

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

Senator MILLEN:
New South Wales

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

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

Senator GIVENS:
Queensland