House of Representatives
30 July 1901

1^st Parliament · 1^st Session

PETITIONS
SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT
ORDER OF BUSINESS
CUSTOMS BILL
STATE LAWS AND RECORDS
CUSTOMS BILL
POST AND TELEGRAPH BILL
- Second Reading
EXCISE ON BEER BILL
- Second Reading
DEFENCE BILL
- Second Reading
ADJOURNMENT
- Order of Business : Allowances to Civil. Servants

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

page 3156

PETITIONS

Mr. THOMSON presented a petition from the Council of Churches in New South Wales against the encouragement of racing lotteries and other forms of gambling by the transmission of postal matter through the post-office.

Petition received and read.

Mr. B. EDWARDS presented a petition from the citizens of firms and companies carrying on business in Queensland in favour of the exclusion of carriage by sea from the operation of the Inter-State Commission Bill.

Petition received and read.

Mr KNOX:
KOOYONG, VICTORIA

– I beg to present a petition from the Council of Churches in Victoria praying that clauses which prohibit the use of the post-office for the transmission of letters relating to illegal lotteries should have the support of the House. I move -

That the petition be received and read.

Mr WATSON:
Bland

– May I ask you, sir, to put the question in parts 1 I think that honorable members should have an opportunity to prevent, if possible, waste of time by the readingof petitions, the substance of which has already been read to the House. In any case it is a mere perfunctory way of getting at a knowledge of the contents of petitions to hear them read by the Clerk. If. we are going to have every petition read it will involve a waste of time, and I would like an opportunity of voting against such a course.

Mr SPEAKER:

– It will be quite competent, if the House desires it, for the questions to be put separately, and I will therefore adopt that course.

Petition received.

Question - that the petition be read - resolved in the negative.

Mr. KNOX presented a similar petition from the elders of the Presbyterian Church of Victoria,

Petition received.

Sir MALCOLM McEACHARN presented a petition from 160 manufacturers - members of the Employers’ Union of of Victoria - praying that the provisions of the Inter-State Commission Bill relating to common carriers be amended, so as to exclude all common carriers other than the State railways from the operation of the Bill.

Petition received.

page 3157

SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT

Mr KIRWAN:
KALGOORLIE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I would ask the Treasurer whether there is any truth in the statement lately published in the Melbourne press to the effect that it is likely that the Ministry will shortly propose an adjournment of Parliament for a fortnight.

Sir GEORGE TURNER:
Treasurer · BALACLAVA, VICTORIA · Protectionist

– I regret that the Prime Minister is not here to answer the question, but, as far as I know, there is no such intention.

Honorable Members. - Hear, hear.

page 3157

ORDER OF BUSINESS

Sir GEORGE TURNER:
Protectionist

– I quite agree with the honorable member for Wentworth that, as far as is possible, we should confine our attention to one Bill at a time ; but honorable members will realize that at the commencement of a session, and more especially at the commencement of the first session of a Parliament, it is sometimes difficult to carry out that practice. I will ask the leader of the Government on the adjournment of the House to make a statement as to the order of business, in order that members may be informed as to when Bills are likely to be taken, so that they maybe prepared to discuss them at the proper time. I think it will probably be proposed to complete the Customs Bill, and to proceed with the Excise on Beer Bill, as it is necessary to press on with these measures before we introduce the Tariff and deal with that important question.

Sir Edward Braddon:

– Will honorable Ministers finish these Bills before they deal with the Defence Bill again?

Sir GEORGE TURNER:

– Not necessarily ; but the second reading speeches will be made upon the Bills referred to, and if honorable members are prepared to debate the Bills at once they may do so. Usually, however, honorable members desire an adjournment for a day or two in order that they may consider a Bill in the light of the speech made by the Minister.

Sir WILLIAM McMILLAN:
WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT

– There are three important Bills on the business paper - the Inter-State Commission Bill, the Defence Bill, and the Post and Telegraph Bill - and I think we ought to be told in what order these are to be taken, so that those who desire to speak on the second readings may have an opportunity of preparing themselves to take part in the debates.

Sir GEORGE TURNER:

– I quite agree with my honorable friend.

page 3158

CUSTOMS BILL

Resolution authorizing expenditure under the Bill agreed to.

page 3158

STATE LAWS AND RECORDS

Bill read a third time.

page 3158

CUSTOMS BILL

In Committee (consideration resumed from 25th July, vide page 3,094). - Recommittal.

Clause 159a -

If the Parliament of the State of Western Australia in exercise of the power conferred by the Constitution imposes duties of customs on goods passing into that State and not originally imported from beyond the limits of the Commonwealth, then whilst such duties are so imposed drawback may be allowed in the State in which import duty has been paid and on any such goods as if exported.

Clauseverbally amended.

Mr PIESSE:
Tasmania

– I move-

That the following sub-clause be added : -

During the continuance in operation of section 05 of the Constitution Act, drawbacks of duty may be allowed to such extent and in such manner as may be prescribed, in respect to goods manufactured in the Commonwealth, in the manufacture of which materials have been used, upon which materials duty has been paid, when such goods are transported from any part of the Commonwealth to the State of Western Australia.

This new clause attempts to deal more explicitly, than I think the clause at present deals, with the question of trade between the States, in respect of goods manufactured in the States, part of which goods is composed of material that had paid, or will pay, customs duty. I consider that clause 159 a will hardly sufficiently meet the necessities of the case, and, in order to make the intention perfectly clear, I propose to add the new subclause. I wish to draw honorable members’ attention to the importance of this clause as gauged by the extent of the trade which is to some degree covered by this clause. I do not pretend to have gone into the matter thoroughly, but in a cursory glance at some figures relating to the imports into Western Australia from the other States, and these, I may say, are not the latest figures - I find that that State imports from the other States £23,124 worth out of a total import of £31,300 worth of confectionery, on which the duty is 4d. per lb. Nearly one-third of the import of boots and shoes into Western

Australia comes from the other States, namely, £30,703 worth, the duty amounting to 15 per cent. Of bottled fruit, including preserved fruit, practically all the imports into Western Australia come from the sister States, the value of the imports being £27,637, and the duty 15 per cent. In the case of dried fruits we have the same position, about £15,000 worth out of a total imports of £18, 000 worth being imported from the other States, and the duty being 2d., 3d., and 4d. per lb. Of carriages £16, 7 20 worth, out of a total importation of £21,000 worth is from the other States, while of furniture and upholstery £37,000 worth, out of a total importation of £68,000 worth, is also from the sister States. The duty on furniture and upholstery is 15 per cent. Of jams and jellies, £45,000 worth, out of a total importation of £52,000 worth, is from the other States, while the importation of sauces represents £5,638. Taken altogether there is over £200,000 worth of goods imported from the other States, all of which goods will come under the clause now before the committee. These are articles in the manufacture of which there have been used materials subject to duty in the past and very likely to be subject to duty in the future.

Sir George Turner:

– Materials imported from outside the Commonwealth?

Mr PIESSE:

– Yes.

Mr Kingston:

– And which cannot be specially taxed.

Mr PIESSE:

– Taking the first item of confectionery, the sugar may be imported from outside the Commonwealth. In . relation to boots and shoes, American leather is imported, made into superior kinds of goods, and exported from New South Wales, and, I presume, from Victoria to Western Australia. Of course, bottled fruits contain sugar, as do also, perhaps, dried fruits. Certainly the material used in the construction of some carriages comes from abroad, and the same may be said in regard to furniture and upholstery, while sugar again comes in in connexion with jams and jellies. What we want to provide for is that when the uniform Tariff comes into operation there shall be no question as to the power of the Minister to allow a drawback. That is left to the Minister’s discretion, and we do not ask him to fix the drawback now ; but there should be no question as to the power of the Minister to allow what is fair, in order to put the manufacturers of the several States on a just footing in competition with manufacturers outside the States. If this drawback is not allowed it is quite possible, taking confectionery or jams and jellies, which represent a very large item, that manufacturers in the United Kingdom will have an advantage over the manufacturers of Australia, because the latter, unless some such provision is made, will be subject to excise duty or customs duty on sugar, and will also be subject in Western Australia to the Tariff which that State will be able to levy on such goods as are manufactured in the Commonwealth. A duty of 4d. per lb. on confectionery means a considerable difference to manufacturers, if they are not allowed some compensation in the way of drawback as suggested. I have every confidence in asking the committee to favorably consider the proposal to add the new sub-clause.

Mr. G. B. EDWARDS (South Sydney).I thank the honorable member for Tasmania (Mr. Piesse) for having suggested this new sub-clause, which, in my opinion, meets the case which we have been discussing for so many hours.

Mr Page:

– Is the honorable member going to give us more jam 1

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

– I am endeavouring to assist in preventing the trade of the States, in several instances, wandering abroad. The effect of the new sub-clause will be, I believe, to remove the objection which several of us have had to the provisions of the Government for regulating drawbacks. Western Australia has been introduced into the matter, because it was felt that she should have power to keep up her revenue during a certain interval of time by taxing certain commodities imported from the other States. Otherwise the revenue would not be sufficient for her needs. While we fire all prepared and willing to accept that provision in the Constitution Act, we do not see any reason why the trade which the other States have done previously with Western Australia should be stamped out on account of a section of the Constitution which has the object of assisting that particular State. I have been twitted in committee, and outside the House, with a reversal of my fiscal opinions in contending that we ought to give this measure of protection to the manufacturers of those States which export to Western Australia. But there is no reversion of political principle or of fiscal principle. The protection I ask for is protection in the direction of free-trade. If the whole thing were free - if we had absolute free-trade with Western Australia - the point would not arise. What we are contending for is the nearest way to reach free-trade with Western Australia. Unfortunately, the circumstances under which we had to adopt the Constitution delayed the consummation of free-trade with Western Australia for a period of five years. I have contended all through the debate upon this question that it is certainly in the interests of the Commonwealth that Ministers should consent to this provision, under the operation of which our present trade with Western Australia may be saved from utter destruction. Section 93 of the Constitution provides -

During the first five years after the imposition of uniform duties of customs, and thereafter until the Parliament otherwise provides -

The duties of customs chargeable on - goods imported into a State and afterwards passing into another State for consumption, and the duties of excise paid on goods produced or manufactured in a State and afterwards passing into another State for consumption, should be taken to have been collected not in the former but in the latter State.

Mr KINGSTON:

– Clause 159 provides the general power under which we can act in respect of these goods. It is not “ on the goods “ but “ in respect to goods “ that drawback may be allowed to such amount and in such manner as may be prescribed. It will therefore be seen that the power is not blocked by this clause. The trouble so far as clause 159 is concerned is that “ transport “ to

– Would the honorable member allow the rebate of a foreign import duty when no additional duty is charged in Western Australia ?

Sir George Turner:

– The Minister says that if goods going intoWestern Australia are made of sugar which comes from Mauritius, Western Australia cannot impose a duty on that sugar, but if they are made from Australian sugar, Western Australia can impose a duty on them, and, therefore, drawback should be allowed.

Mr THOMSON:

Mr. PIESSE (Tasmania). - I am not quite clear that it would meet the case. Taking his own interpretation, the Minister thinks that the manufacturers ought to have this allowance only on stocks which they have in hand on the date of the uniform Tariff coming into force. I hope there is a clear understanding that we are going to cover all cases throughout the term of five years.

Mr. G. B. EDWARDS (South Sydney). - If it is understood that the Minister has promised to recommit the Bill for the purpose of striking out the words “ not originally imported from beyond the limits of the Commonwealth,” it will meet the whole case?

Mr Kingston:

– Yes.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 165 (What are coasting vessels).

Mr KINGSTON:

– I propose to ask the committee to make a verbal amendment to correct a slip. The words “beyond the limits of Australia “ would exclude a Tasmanian ship from being a coaster, and therefore I wish to substitute the words “ to any other port or place.”

Clause verbally amended and agreed to.

Clause 213a-

No proceeding for anything done for the protection of the revenue in relation to any Tariff or Tariff alteration proposed in Parliament shall except as mentioned in the next section be commenced before the close of the session in which such Tariff or Tariff alteration is proposed.

Mr PIESSE:
Tasmania

– It is necessary to transpose some of the clause, otherwise we certainly shall not be doing what we intend to do. Honorable members will see a reference to “ the next section,” but the clause which is really intended to be referred to is that which is now numbered 213b.

Mr KINGSTON:
Protectionist

– I propose to incorporate clause 213aa in this clause. I move -

That the words “whether against an officer or otherwise “ be inserted after the word “ proceeding.”

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 213aa negatived.

Clause 213b agreed to.

Clause 230-

Proceedings by the Customs for the recovery of penalties under this Act, or for the condemnation of ships, or goods Seized as forfeited, are herein referred to as Customs prosecutions.

Mr PIESSE:
Tasmania

– I think the words “ by the Customs “ are indefinite. I do not know exactly what is meant. I submit to the Minister that if he would leave out the words the clause would be as efficient.

Mr KINGSTON:
Protectionist

– It might be, but the words are just introductory. Proceedings by the department under the Act would be referred to as Customs prosecutions. They make the clause more complete, if the honorable member does not mind.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 231a (Defendant to have right of trial in high or State court).

Mr. PIESSE (Tasmania). - In this clause the word “ prosecution “ is used in two senses, and in one case the word “prosecutor” should be substituted for prosecution.

Clause verbally amended, and agreed to.

Clause 239 (Defendant a competent witness).

Mr KINGSTON:

– At the suggestion of the honorable member for Tasmania, Mr. Piesse, I propose to make this clause agree with clause 240, and I therefore move -

That after the word “offence,” the words “or for an offence directly punishable by imprisonment” be inserted.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 249 -

All penalties and forfeitures recovered under any Customs Act shall be applied to such purposes and in such proportions as the Minister may direct.

Clause agreed to.

Sir WILLIAM MCMILLAN (Wentworth). - Is the Minister not going to recommit clause 256, dealing with the publication of regulations ? I understood there was a general desire that notice should be given.

Mr Kingston:

Sir MALCOLM MCEACHARN:
Melbourne

– Unless we know what Acts are going’ to be-

Mr Kingston:

– This clause refers only to duties under the existing Tariffs.

Sir MALCOLM MCEACHARN:

– But it appears to me that double duties might be collected under this clause. There might be certain Acts now in existence, and the Minister might still be able to collect under this Bill. I do not see anything in the explanation the Minister has given that makes the meaning at all clear.

Sir WILLIAM MCMILLAN (Wentworth). - If I understand the matter aright, the meaning is that, supposing this Bill becomes law a fortnight before the duties are collected under the uniform Tariff or the Budget proposals, there will be an intervening space during which the Commonwealth will continue to collect under the special Tariffs of the different States which remain in existence until the uniform Tariff is imposed. Consequently there must be something put in this Bill to prevent it acting on the State Tariffs up to the time of the uniform duties.

Mr KINGSTON:

– The provision means that while duties are being collected under the State Acts, as at present, we cannot alter the mode of computation. Certain principles are laid down in regard to this, that, and the other thing, and those principles are laid down for future use in connexion with the Federal Tariff. The State Tariffs will shortly disappear, but until they do, they will continue to be collected as at present.

Sir WILLIAM MCMILLAN (Wentworth). - I suppose it is understood that under the Constitution, up to the date of the imposition of uniform duties any State can alter its duties as it likes. The power of dealing with the Tariff law, though not the power of collecting the duty, rests with the States until the moment uniform duties are imposed by the Common wealth.

New clause agreed to.

Schedule 2 -

The above scale offees shall apply to the following places only : -

Brisbane, Rookhampton, Townsville.

Sydney and Newcastle.

Melbourne.

Hobart and Launceston.

Adelaide and Port Adelaide.

Fremantle, Perth, Albany, and Geraldton.

At any other place such fees shall be charged as may be prescribed.

Mr KINGSTON:
Protectionist

– I move-

That all the words after “Schedule 2” be omitted with the view to insert, in lieu thereof, the following : -

All questions as to the number of lockers required, and the time necessary for their attendance shall be determined by the Minister.

The above scale shall apply to the following places only : -

Sydney,

Melbourne,

Brisbane,

Hobart,

Adelaide and Port Adelaide,.

Perth and Fremantle.

At any other place such fees not exceeding the above scale shall be chargedas may be prescribed.

Some objection was taken as regards certain warehouses, and I think the difficulty was pointed out chiefly by the honorable member for Melbourne. After consultation with my officers, I have come to the conclusion that a fair thing is proposed in the new schedule now before honorable members. Asto the prescribed rates which are the highest, we only apply them to capitals and their ports. There was some talk as to whether this, that, or the other port should not be treated in a different way, and we have laid down the broad rule that the capitals shall be treated in one way, and rules prescribed as regards the other ports.

Sir MALCOLM McEACHARN:
Melbourne

– I am glad the Minister has made this improvement in the schedule, which meets many of the objections which have been raised. - I am quite sure the new schedule will be received with pleasure.

New schedule agreed to.

Bill reported with further amendments.

Motion (by Mr. Kingston) proposed -

That the standing orders be suspended to enable the Bill to be recommitted for the further consideration of clause 159a.

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

– I wish to enter my protest against the continual suspension of the standing orders.

Mr Barton:

– It is to meet the general feeling of the House.

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

– I do not care about any arrangement which may have been come to. I protest against the principle of continually suspending the standing orders.

Mr Barton:

– It is the general feeling of the House that they should be suspended.

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

– So it has been on a dozen other occasions during the present session. Ministers may affect to make light of this matter, but later on they will find that the suspension of the standing orders opens up limitless possibilities of debate in a way which they will not like. They are setting a bad example in asking the House so frequently to suspend the standing orders for purposes of their own. Later on they will find individual members of the House adopting the same course in a way which they will not relish. I protest against the practice, as one which I have never beheld in the Legislature in which I have been accustomed to sit. It can lead to nothing but ill results, if persisted in to the extent to which the Ministry seem prone to indulge in it.

Mr BARTON:
Minister . for External Affairs · Hunter · Protectionist

– Every one in the House is aware that this is a proposal to enable the House to go on with precisely the same kind of business as that in which it has been engaged. There is a distinction between the practice of continually suspending the standing orders and a desire to meet the general wish of the House upon a matter which cannot involve inconvenience to any honorable member. That is the present proposal, and I do think that the honorable member for Parramatta is fully alive to the fact that the manner in which the standing orders are used depends upon the common sense of the House. When a common-sense proposal is made for the facilitation of business, the House is not to be the slave of the standing orders, but is to be the master of those orders. The standing orders are not enacted for the purpose of making the House as a body a mere subject of those orders, and when the general feeling is one way it is a common practice to suspend them so long as it is to carry out an understanding, or to facilitate the kind of business which the House has just been transacting. That is the object for which the standing orders are now to be suspended. If honorable members objected to their suspension we should withdraw the proposal, but it is only because there is a general desire and understanding that they should be suspended that we have adopted this course.

Sir WILLIAM McMILLAN:
Wentworth

– It is only fair to the Minister to say that the course proposed has been taken at the request of honorable members on.this side of the House. I do not think the honorable member for Parramatta was fully seised of the facts when he rose to dissent. This is merely a proposal to effect an alteration in the Bill which, I think, will avoid a very great deal of misunderstanding. We are not going to deal with new business. We are not proposing to put any Bill through by any unusual method, and in fairness to the Minister who has acceded to our request, I must say that the course proposed has been taken with the assent of honorable members upon this side of the House.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

In Committee (recommittal) :

Clause 159a (Provision in case Western Australia continues intercolonial duties).

Clause (on motion of Mr. Kingston) amended to read as follows -

If the Parliament of the State of Western Australia in exercise of the’ power conferred by the Constitution imposes duties of customs on goods passing into that State, then whilst such duties are so imposed drawbackmay be allowed in the States in which import duty has been paid in respect of any such goods as if exported.

Bill reported with a further amendment.

page 3170

POST AND TELEGRAPH BILL

Second Reading

Sir PHILIP FYSH:
TASMANIA, TASMANIA · FT

Mr Barton:

– They asked a son of mine to sign a petition on that, ground, but he said he was not taking any.

Sir PHILIP FYSH:

Sir PHILIP FYSH:

– I think it ought to be some time between seven and fourteen days, but so much depends upon what may be done withother Bills, that I cannot say anything more definite than that. The Excise Bill will shortly be before us, but if honorable members are prepared to take this Bill up again next week so much the better. I can hardly believe, however, that other work will have progressed sufficiently to enable us to do so ; but I shall be prepared to meet honorable members in committee at any time.

Debate (on motion by Mr. Joseph Cook) adjourned.

page 3177

EXCISE ON BEER BILL

Second Reading

Mr KINGSTON:
South AustraliaMinister for Trade and Customs · Protectionist

– I move -

That this Bill be now read a second time.

The Bill which is now before honorable members relating to the excise on beer is another of the machinery Bills that will require to be dealt with in order to insure a satisfactory uniform treatment of matters affecting customs and excise. Beer is not altogether a very interesting subject, but there are matters of interest in connexion with the beer excise towhich honorable members might like me to refer. I do not propose to disclose what the Government policy is on the subject of the excise on beer, but I think it is well to generally acquaint honorable members with what is the present position in the various States on this subject. There is a beer excise in force in every one of the federated States - some have adopted it earlier and some later. I find that Victoria and Tasmania were among the earliest of the States to adopt the beer excise, in 1880 - 21 years ago - and the last was South Australia, my native State, where I had the honour of recommending it in 1894. The duty ranges from 2d. per gallon in Western Australia and South Australia, to 4d. per gallon in Tasmania ; 2d. is also the rate prescribed as regards beer which is made from malt and hops solely in Victoria, while on other beer 3d. per gallon is charged. Beer in which malt and hops only are used does not seem to be quite such a favorite article of consumption among the good people of Victoria as is beer which contains other ingredients, for the malt and hop beer which paid duty last year in Victoria was under 500,000 gallons, whilst the thirst of Victorians was otherwise quenched by beer differently produced to the extent of nearly 14,000,000 gallons. The total quantity of beer which paid excise duty throughout the States during last year was 41,338,533 gallons, and honorable members will form a fair idea of the importance of this question of the excise duty on beer when I tell them that the net result to the revenue was £491,823. The different States, having different rates and circumstances, yielded different results. Tasmania, which has the highest duty, consumed only 7.33 gallons per head of the population during the year, and the revenue returned was £24,726.

Mr O’Malley:

– They are a sober people.

Mr KINGSTON:

– Of course the various States have various tastes, and I am not concerned in analyzing Mr. Coghlan’s statistics except so far as they relate to the consumption of beer. It is, however, very strange to note how some States affect spirits, and some the humbler colonial article. The consumption in South Australia was8.95 gallons per head, and the revenue £26,373. New South Wales was third on the list, so far as the average consumption was concerned, with 958 gallons per head, the revenue derived amounting to £165,934. Queensland consumed 11.58 gallonsper head, and the revenue amounted to £66,344.In Victoria the consumption was 11.76 gallons per head, and the revenue derived was £176,787. As regards the consumption of beer, the accomplishments of the residents of the different States that I have mentioned, fade into actual insignificance as compared with the prowess of the people of Western Australia. Whilst Victoria is next on the list, with an average consumption of 11.76 gallons per head, I find that in Western Australia the consumption is 23.84 gallons per head - man, woman, and child - a source of revenue, which, no doubt, the Treasurer appreciates.

Mr Mahon:

– It shows we have the money to pay for it.

Mr KINGSTON:

– It shows also that the people of Western Australia do hard work, and require at the same time good substantial refreshment, and further, that they patronize the local article to a degree that is not to be found in any other State. I hope honorable members will, from the figures to which I have referred, get a genera] idea of how the matter stands in the different States, and of the importance of the question. The Bill which we are submitting for the consideration of honorable members is intended, not to fix the excise, but to provide for the collection of the excise when imposed by Federal Act. Of course, as soon as a Federal Act comes into operation, the State Acts in relation to the excise on beer will cease to operate, this Bill having special and sole reference to the excise imposed by Federal Act. To protect the revenue the scheme is simple. We require the licensing of the brewer and the brewery so that no beer can be made except in a brewery. The excise officer has a right at all times to see what is going on, and the obligation is imposed on the brewer to pay the duty before the beer leaves the brewery. The duty is paid by affixing to the vessel containing the beer a stamp equivalent to the amount of the duty, and by cancelling the stamp on the vessel before the beer is removed. These are broadly the provisions of the Bill. The brewer has to keep books and to render accounts, and every means, it seems to us, is taken for the purpose of securing the fullest information in regard to the output, and seeing that the beer produced is not put on the market before it pays every penny that is due. There are no provisions of the Bill on which I need at this moment lay any particular stress. Clause 5 gives a large definition of the meaning of v,he word “ beer,” but practically the word means all beer on which excise is imposed. Clause 7 lets in a number of the provisions in the Customs Acts in reference to procedure. Clause 8 requires licences, and there is provision for a licence fee, which is made the same in all cases. Security is taken from the brewer for his compliance with the provisions of the law. It is also declared how transfer of licences can be made, and under what circumstances they shall be cancelled, and the brewer is restrained from, among other things, making beer at any place other than in his brewery. Part 3 declares the full power, of supervision which is intended to be vested in the excise officer. Clauses 27 and 2S specify the mode of payment of the excise duty, and what is to be done in the way of stamping and cancelling stamps. Part 5 contains all the restrictions proper in connexion with ‘ removal of beer. Part 6 relates to the power of officers; and Part 7, dealing with miscellaneous matters, provides, amongst other things, for the forfeiture of beer which is not made by a licensed brewer, or which is removed from the brewery contrary to the provisions of the Bill.

Mr Higgins:

– Will there be a spirit excise as well ?

Mr KINGSTON:

– We shall require a Distillation Bill, no doubt. The idea of the Government is that in addition to the excise on beer, which in nearly every case, is properly dealt with in a separate Act, there shall be a General Excise Bill and a Distillation Bill. All these Bills are practically completed in their preparation, and will be introduced one after the other as soon as honorable- members are good enough to dispose of those measures, which, for the moment, occupy our attention. I have stated the general provisions of. the Bill. I believe our purpose will be found to be plainly expressed, but we shall be very pleased if the House shall assist the Government in getting the Bill through as fast as possible, because, the sooner we get rid of the machinery Bills the better, in order that we may direct our’ attention to the subject which so much occupies in perspective the minds of honorable members - the Federal Tariff.

Sir WILLIAM McMILLAN:
Wentworth

– After the very brilliant speech of my right honorable friend on this very elevating topic, I think we can all agree to go into committee without any very formal or long debate on the second reading. The Minister has referred to the Tariff, and I am sure it will be the desire of this side of the House, if not of the other side, that Bills of this kind should be got through as soon as possible. We have a feeling that the time has arrived when the real issue between both sides of the House should be brought into relief. I am sure that all of us are heartily sick of these machinery Bills, necessary as they may be ; and I can assure the Ministry that there will be no delay so far as we are concerned. I. do not know anything about the business of brewing, nor do I know whether there are any experts in the House at the present time, but I think that, whether there are or not, this is essentially a Bill for committee. It seems to me to be entirely regulative, in order to protect the revenue, and I am sure we all desire to do that, so long as there is no unnecessary harshness or espionage ; therefore, I shall say nothing further on the subject.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee :

Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.

Clause 3 -

This Act shall apply to any excise on beer imposed b3’ the Parliament, and to the exclusion after the imposition of such excise of the operation of all State Acts relating to the excise on beer.

Clause 4 agreed to.

– I do not think so. Of course the test is that the liquor contains not more than 2 per cent, of alcohol in respect of which an excise is payable.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 6 agreed to.

Clause 7 -

This Act is an Act relating to the Customs within the meaning of the Customs Act 1901.

Mr HIGGINS:

– May I ask what is the object of this clause? There is nothing more dangerous than to adopt a provision which incorporates another Act without knowing exactly what we are doing.

Mr KINGSTON:
Protectionist

– The administration of Acts relating to the Customs are vested in the Minister of State controlling the Customs department. This clause is introduced for the purpose of bringing that in.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 8 and 9 agreed to.

Clause 10 -

No person who is licensed to retail wine, beer, or spirits shall be licensed under this Act, and if any brewer shall be licensed to retail wine, beer, or spirits his licence under this Act shall thereupon cease.

Mr MAHON:
Coolgardie

– I should like toask whetherthisclause will not prevent small breweries, which in places like Western Australia are permitted to hold gallon licences, from retailing beer 1 I wish to ascertain whether, in the event of this clause being passed and these establishments continuing to brew beer, their licence to retail will lapse ? . It is a point of some importance to small breweries.

Mr Kingston:

– How is the licence expressed in Western Australia? Is it “ licensed to retail”?

Mr MAHON:

– Technically what I am speaking of is known as a “ gallon licence.” It is a licence which is held by storekeepers in various towns, and also by some of the smaller breweries, to retail a gallon of anything, but the drink must not be consumed upon the premises.

Mr MAUGER:
Melbourne Ports

– It would be interesting to know how this clause will affect tied houses. Nominally a number of houses in Victoria are licensed to individuals, but really those individuals are the creatures of the breweries, and the breweries are retailing their beer in various parts of the metropolis. I do not know if the provision in any way affects the brewer who is in possession of tied houses.

Mr KINGSTON:
Protectionist

– I wish to look up the point which has been raised by the honorable member for Coolgardie. Probably it may be advisable to fix some limit to “ retailing.” I move -

That after the word “spirits,” line 2, the words “in quantities of not less than one gallon” be inserted.

Mr Mauger:

– It will not affect tied houses ?

Mr KINGSTON:

– No, because the owner of the tied house is not licensed.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause further verbally amended, and agreed to.

Clause 11 -

The annual fee for a licence is £25, computing as from the 1st of January, and when by reason of the time of the granting of the licence it will not continue for a full year, the amountshall be reduced proportionately.

Sir JOHN QUICK:
Bendigo

– I should like to know whether this licence-fee of £25. involves any alteration in the existing laws of any of the States. There is no reference in the margin of the clause to the corresponding licence-fees in the different States.

Sir George Turner:

– It is £25 in Victoria.

Mr KINGSTON:
Protectionist

– I think the clause provides for the usual fee. I will look the matter up more closely before the Bill passes from this House. As regards the question as to large or small, I may say that of course this is not a licence-fee in respect of the output. Each brewer pays in accord- ance with his output by virtue of the excise. This is more in the nature of a registration fee.

Mr E SOLOMON:
FREMANTLE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · FT

– I do not think that the brewers pay any licencefee in Western Australia, but if so, it would be a very small one, because licences are issued for the consumption of all colonial wines and beers for £5 per annum. I do not think the brewers would pay anything.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 12 to 19 agreed to.

Clause 20 -

N o brewer shall -

Make beer at any place other than his licensed brewery.
Make or sell at his licensed brewery any beverage not subject to excise duty,
Sell spirits in his brewery or at any place within fifty yards thereof.

Penalty : One hundred pounds.

Mr KINGSTON:
Protectionist

– It has been pointed out to me that the provision contained in paragraph (6) is unusual and somewhat harsh, and that it might interfere to an extent not intended with existing establishments. I propose, therefore, to strike it out for the present. I may consider it further on. I move -

That the words “(b) Make or sell at his licensed brewery any beverage not subject to excise duty” be omitted.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 21 to 33 agreed to.

Clause 34 (Penalty for withdrawing beer without destroying stamp).

Mr POYNTON:
South Australia

– In looking through this Bill hurriedly it appears to me that under clause 27, which we have passed, a brewer is subject to a penalty of £1 00 if he allows beer to be removed from his premises without payment of duty. Under this particular clause an unfortunate person who procures that beer, although he has paid for it, is liable to a penalty of £50, notwithstanding that the brewer is himself the proper person to see that the barrel is stamped.

Mr Kingston:

– That is another thing.

Mr POYNTON:

– It seems to me that the penalty of £100 to which the brewer is liable, is an extremely mild one compared with that proposed to be inflicted on a person who may innocently do this thing. I do not. know whether the provision has been copied from a State Act, but it seems to me that the brewer is better protected than is the victim of his negligence.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 35 to 37 agreed to.

– The barrel has to be stamped, and he must see whether the beer has paid duty or not.

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

– Here we penalize a possibly innocent receiver, who may not know that the beer has not paid duty. I can understand the brewer being severely dealt with, but in his case there is an officer appointed to see that the duty has been paid. We should provide that the receiver shall “knowing])-“ do this, before he is fined the £100.

Mr KINGSTON:

– The penalty is on persons who receive the beer from the brewer, and upon those who remove it from the brewery. The nature of the case is such that the offender must know whether the duty has been paid or not. Unless we have a severe penalty, we may find ourselves lacking, in requirements for properly enforcing the Act.

Sir WILLIAM McMILLAN:
Wentworth

– The revenue must be protected. A certain amount of latitude should no doubt be given, but when smuggling is carried on it is frequently done in this way. The people who receive smuggled goods are as much offenders as those who smuggle1 them, and the penalty must be made as great a deterrent on the receiver as on the person who removes.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 40 to 45 agreed to.

– The provisions of the Distillation Act are most elaborate.

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

– I think we might apply them here in a simpler form. All the Commonwealth wants to get at is whether these people have had more material in their brewery than has been sufficient to produce their output of beer, showing that theremay be a leakage or a fraud in some way. If the clause were so drafted as to give the officers access to the books which showed the quantity of sugar, malt, or other alcohol-producing materials consumed in a brewery, it would be quite sufficient to give the necessary check on the revenue. But if we give them access to all other particulars, as has been pointed out by two other honorable members, the secret processes of these people may be revealed. Although the Minister says he sympathizes with the object for which an alteration has been suggested, I do not think that is sufficient to meet the case. These people ought to be properly protected. Among other tilings in connexion with breweries, I know that a great deal depends upon the various temperatures worked at, and the point at which they arrest fermentation. These are secrets which are guarded closely and jealously by brewers. If the officials are allowed full access to all these matters, they will be in the position of holding secrets which I have no hesitation in saying could be sold for thousands of pounds in some cases. Although these officers, as the Minister says, can be punished by the executive for any revelation of these secrets, we know that as a matter of fact, in some of the States, there are now great complaints about the revelation of returns under the Income Tax Act, where , there is very little inducement to reveal anything. Under a clause like this I am sure the Minister sees there will be an inducement of thousands of pounds to reveal facts known in some great brewery, by a knowledge of which opponents could hold their own much better against it. I strongly urge that the Minister should consent at any rate to the recommittal of the Bill, and after he has had time to look into the matter he may be able to so alter the clause as to protect the legitimate rights of these people to their own trade secrets.

Mr. HIGGINS (Northern Melbourne).I think there is’ a good deal in the suggestion of the honorable member for Kalgoorlie. I would remind honorable members that in the Post and Telegraph Bill, the second reading of which is now before the House, there is a provision of the kind suggested with regard to dead letters. These have to be opened with great formality and care, and officers have to make a declaration on oath that they will not reveal the contents. If. there are such precautions taken with regard to matters in which often no money is involved, but simply matters of private interest, surely we ought to take similar pains with regard to matters which may mean thousands of pounds to the persons interested.

Mr Mauger:

– The art or mystery of brewing.

Mr HIGGINS:

– Yes; the art or mystery of brewing. So long as there is brewing and trade secrets in brewing, we ought to protect the property of the brewers in those secrets as carefully as we can. I think the suggestion made is a reasonable one, and it ought to be met in the Bill and not merely in regulations.

Sir WILLIAM McMILLAN (Wentworth). - In addition to this clause, could there not be some declaratory clause, which would set out that there should be no unnecessary interference in these examinations with trade secrets or matters affecting the trade ? There might be some declaration, I think, as a safeguard. Supposing an officer really attempted to go beyond his particular duty, there might be something in this Bill of a declaratory character, that would give the brewer a legal position in dissenting from any unnecessary interference.

Mr Thomson:

– What Act is this from?

Mr KINGSTON:

– A variety of Acts, and this is the general effect of the various provisions. I have here some of the returns which have to be sent in in Victoria. The officers have, for instance, from day to day, to make entries in their books, showing the quantity of beer in gallons produced, and distinguishing between the beer made from malt and hops, and the beer made from sugar, and other ingredients. They have to specify the exact quantities of sugar, malt, and hops received into the brewery from day to day, and the exact quantities used in the brewery from day to day. I have here the various provisions of all the Acts.

Sir William McMillan:

Mr THOMSON:

– Yes. Such a knowledge would be a marketable commodity to dishonest firms, who would be prepared to give very large sums for it, because the firms which possess it now have probably given very large sums for its possession, or each has paid a man a very high salary because he possessed the knowledge. Unless the Minister has some very strong reason to the contrary, I would move the omission of the words “and every stage of process in the making of the beer.”

Mr KINGSTON:

– The honorable mem- ber has suggested that we are going a little beyond existing legislation. The regulation under the Queensland Act of 1897, which is the latest, is as follows : -

Every brewer shall provide all necessary facilities for enabling the supervising officer to have complete access to every part of his brewery during all working hours, and for enabling such officer to examine, note, and take account of any process of manufacturing or brewing beer.

Honorable members will note that again I have hardly gone any further than the existing regulations.

Mr Thomson:

– This goes a little further, but not much, certainly.

Mr KINGSTON:

– I think we ought to have a right to note the making of the beer in order to see what is going on. I am willing to omit the words “ every stage of the process,” so that we can see what is being done with the materials.

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

– The “ making of the beer “ includes every stage.

Mr KINGSTON:

– It is not quite so full as the other form in the way it points to detail, but I think the officer ought to be able to see what is being done with the beer and materials. If the honorable member for North Sydney is satisfied with an amendment of that description, I shall be prepared to move it.

Mr Thomson:

– It is a little better, but it does not get rid of the entire difficulty.

Mr KINGSTON:

– I do not see how we can dispense with our right to look at the making of the beer, and see what is being done with the materials. I move -

That the words, “every stage of process in” be omitted.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 47 -

Any officer may, at any time between sunrise and sunset, enter and search the premises of any person licensed to sell beer by retail, or any premises where he has reasonable cause to suspect that any beer is made, or any beer upon which duty has not been paid is kept or stored.

Mr MAHON:
Coolgardie

– It might be construed, unless we are very careful in regard to it, that the clause contained in the Customs Act, having reference only to the seizure of goods which are forfeited on account of a breach of the Customs Act, would hot apply to breaches of the Excise Act, which we have now under consideration. I think it is absolutely necessary that we should have this provision, and I think, moreover, that it fits in with a similar provision in the Customs Bill.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 49 to 59 agreed to.

Clause 60 (Attempted offences).

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

-Will the Minister tell us where this clause is taken from?

Mr Kingston:

– It is the usual clausean attempt to commit an offence is often as bad as the commission of the offence itself ;

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

– I know that that is in accordance with the philosophy of the Christian religion, but it seems very wrong in its present application. Anything might be considered as an attempt to defraud the Customs, and it might be very difficult to disprove a charge of that kind.

However, as the Minister states that it is . the usual clause, I suppose we must let it go, although it seems to me to be an extraordinary provision.

Mr Kingston:

– It is in every one of the Acts.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 61 to 67 agreed to.

Schedules I. to III. agreed to.

Bill reported with amendments.

page 3186

DEFENCE BILL

Second Reading

Debate resumed (from 25th July, vide page 3107) on motion by Mr. Kingston -

Mr Page:

– Does it include horsemen as well ?

Mr WATSON:

– Yes j horsemen get the same pay as infantry. The volunteers in

New South Wales number 3,200, and cost on an average £8 10s. per man, inclusive of ammunition. I was not able to include the cost of ammunition in the case of the militia, because it was not specified in the estimates that were available. Tn Victoria the cost of the militia is £11 14s. 8d. per man ; and in Queensland £13 19s., or in round figures, £14 per man. I was not able to get the cost in South Australia, because in the appropriation for last year the number of men to be provided for was not stated, and I could not analyze the figures given.

– Not for his personal expenditure, but I believe in the capitation fee. I want to draw attention preliminarily to the fact that at least in New Zealand, and in a modified degree in New South Wales, the cost of the volunteers is not more than half that of the militiamen, with the result that if we assume that we can get the people to join the volunteers corps, for the same expenditure in instruction, in provision of rifles and other arms and uniforms, we can get double the number of men under arms under the volunteer system that we can get under the militia system. With regard to the probability of getting men to volunteer we have the fact that in New Zealand, where the population is about 700,000, they have an enrolment which is 3,000 greater than all the branches of the military service in New South Wales. Although there is double the population in

Mr WATSON:

– I would, most certainly.

– How much better would these men be than the men sent to South Africa after a few weeks’ training ?

Mr McCAY:

– That is another matter. A whole year’s training here only amounts to the equivalent of about three weeks continuous training.

An Honorable Member. - Twelve days training.

Mr McCAY:

– -The training is longer than that, there being five whole days, fifteen half-days, and 25 night drills. I see, however, that it is not much more than twelve or eighteen days. If we could get men out for three weeks’ continuous training, we could put more into them than we could with the scattered drills throughout the year. But, unfortunately, men cannot get away from work for three weeks.

Mr Fowler:

– That is the militia system in Great Britain.

Mr McCAY:

Mr McCAY:

– They will get a certain amount of drill- at school, which -will be of service to them subsequently. In Victoria, however, I do not suppose that 10 per cent, of the youths who join our military forces have belonged to cadet corps. I will take the case of the town in which I live as an example. There they have a cadet corps in connexion with the public school. The boys leave school at the age of thirteen or fourteen years. They cannot join the infantry corps established in that town until they are eighteen years of age. There is no corps that they may join while between the ages of fourteen and eighteen years, and therefore they lose their interest in the matter and drop out. The result is that by the time they reach an age at which they are able to join the militia the impulse has passed. Iri order to get over this difficulty the senior cadet movement is necessary. Of course, we cannot have a senior cadet corps for 20 or 30 or 40 youths. That is the difficulty. In Victoria

Ave have only one senior cadet battalion, and that is in Melbourne. The Government should provide means by which the boys could belong to the senior cadet corps as an auxiliary force, doing their work with the adult forces, and controlled by the officers of the citizen troops, so that from first to last they could be kept in touch With our system of defence. In this way the difficulty would be overcome. There is nearly always a force, either of the militia or the volunteers, available within a reasonable distance, to which these boys could be attached during the intermediate years when they are too old for the junior cadet corps and top young for the regular forces. The adoption of such a system would mean practically no increased expense while it would keep these lads in. touch with the system, and enable us to capture, instead of 10 per- cent., something like 90 per cent, of them for the adult forces. I will admit that in Victoria, as I dare say in other States, we have seen, class prejudice coming up in connexion with the appointment of officers. I will say, however, that so far as my observation goes in Victoria that feeling has been dying out very rapidly during the last few years. In the battalion to which I belong, and taking the names of the officers as they occur to me, I find that out of fourteen, seven are engaged in professional or semi-professional work, and seven are engaged as employes in places of business or as artisans, so that there is not much sign of class prejudice there. I have only instanced this case as relating to a corps that 1 know best. I believe, however, that this change is taking place in connexion with most of our corps, and properly so, because I could never see the connexion between social position and rank in corps in a country like ours. We are supposed to give equality to all. Of course, one may find cases of it here and there, but on the whole it is dying out. Further than that, in my experience of the last fifteen years, I have found throughout the forces that there is a tendency to diminish the cost which officers incur in joining. As I said the other day, and as I said truly, although I was pulled up about it, an officer on joining the forces is able to get his necessary outfit for about £1.5, which is not an unreasonable amount. Of course, I was referring at the time to the bulk of our officers. I was not alluding to the officers of the permanent forces. When an officer joins he gets his working kit, his khakee - that is the uniform I believe in - and he does not need any other. He might also get his full dress, his mess dress, and this and that and the other thing, and the moment you begin changing guineas into gold lace, £50 does not take you far. I can point to dozens of officers who have been for years in the forces, and who have not spent more than £15 or £20 on their preliminary kits. Their subsequent expenses have been in the renewal of those articles. The only tiring a man loses by not having scarlet tunics and gold braid - they are pretty, but they are unnecessary, although in the permanent forces I understand they must have these things because they have to attend a large number of parades where they are required - is that he cannot attend certain functions. A man in the citizen forces loses attendance at levees and presence at balls if he has not got these things, but attendance at such functions is no part of his training, nor is it part of the work for which he is paid.

Mr WILKINSON:
Moreton

– I do not propose to occupy the time of the House at any great length to-night, but I can hardly allow the second reading of this Bill to go without raising my voice in favour of some of its provisions and against others. To my mind, it is a measure in connexion with which, unless we are very guarded, the Commonwealth may be plunged into very great expense - far greater than we can possibly afford at the present juncture. I do not profess to bring any expert military knowledge to bear on the question, but I have had some experience in one of the arms of the force proposed to be constituted under this Bill, and it is to that branch that I propose to confine my remarks. I should like to premise that I am in accordance with the sentiment that seems to prevail largelyintheHouse,that the defence force of Australia should be purely a defence force, and that it should be as purely as possible a citizen force. I recognise that in these days, when war is more of a science than it was in the days of old, we must keep a number of trained experts. War does not now depend so much on courage as on skill. We want, as well as the qualified tactician, the skilled marksman, the skilled mechanic, the skilled artillerist, and the engineer, men who have had the training of years in all branches, who will act as instructors to those who will form the great bulk of the citizen army of Australia. There has been a great deal of talk in this debate about the first line of defence, and I quite agree with the honorable member for Bland. He pointed out that it costs from £1,000,000 to £1,500,000 to construct one battleship. It appears to me that there is a truer first line of defence than that which has been culled our first line of defence - namely, the navy. To my mind, our truest first line of defence would be a happy and contented population settled upon our soil. If, instead of spending millions upon the construction of battleships and arming them, to defend a coast line which the navy of Great Britain would scarcely be sufficient to defend, we spent those millions in settling people in homes which they would love and fight for ; and if we trained them in the knowledge and use of arms by forming them into rifle clubs and volunteer forces, the nations, however powerful they might be, would hesitate before they attempted to assail our shores. That would, in my opinion, constitute a truer and better first line of defence than all the navies we are likely to be able to construct for the next half century at least. With regard to the provision that is made in the Bill for allowing the Governor-General to permit the defence force of Australia to go beyond the seas, without speaking in any dogmatic manner upon that point, I say that if any Australian force is to be sent beyond the seas of Australia, it should be for purely Australian defence purposes. I can imagine a case where it would, per- I haps, be wise to send a force beyond our shores. One honorable member, in the course of his speech, instanced Netherlands India, where there is a comparatively large force composed partly of trained European soldiers and partly of natives trained by European officers. We know also that there are other European possessions not far from our coasts, and we can imagine the concentration of a hostile force in any of those places. lt might then be wise to send a force from Australia to burst up their operations rather than allow the war to reach our own territories. In such a case that provision would be wisely exercised, but I hope it will not be used in any other way. Here I would say that it appears to me that not only in this Bill, but in other measures which have been before the House, there is rather too much of government by regulation. I have seen a good deal of the evil of thus placing power in the hands of the Governor in Council and other officers to make regulations under Acts of Parliament, and I have seen such regulations made as have been certainly in accordance with the letter of the Act, but decidedly not :in some cases in accordance with the spirit of it or in accordance with the intentions of the Legislature. Under this Bill many matters are to be left to regulations framed by the Governor in Council, which matters, in my opinion, should find a place in the measure itself. I have said that I believe that a small permanent force will be necessary. I believe that force should bear about the same proportion to the defence forces of Australia as the teachers bear to the pupils in our State schools, and that it should perform a similar function, supplying the teachers and trainers of those who are to be the defenders of Australia. The honorable member for Corinella said just now that if we had to choose between musketry instruction and drill, it would be better to take the former. I am in accord with that view, because we have the opinions of the experts of the world to-day to the effectthat it largely depends on the weapon and skill of those who use it on which side victory shall lay. The honorable member for South Sydney in the course of his remarks the other night lay stress on the same fact. He said that victory depended on superiority of weapon. He I instanced the use of the long-bow in the time of Edward III. and Henry V., at Agincourt and Crecy. We find that the same was the case in the war between Japan and China, and in other wars. To-day the Boers are able to offer a very stern and strong resistance to, I suppose, some of the best soldiers the world has ever seen, because they have been trained to use a weapon which, I believe, is superior to the weapons with which the British forces were armed. Lord Roberts has given his opinion, which, briefly summarized is, that -

High courage, sound health, power of endurance, discipline, organization, and leading, under the existing conditions of war, all become more or less subservient to marksmanship at the supreme moment of actual conflict with the enemy.

Another authority has given it as his opinion that -

Unless men learn to shoot the weapons in their hands with accuracy, they might as well be armed with inferior weapons.

I take that position, and that is why I say we should have a small force of permanent men to act as instructors, not only in the use of the rifle, but in the use of the larger guns as well. That branch of the defence force in all the States seems to have been neglected. I freely admit that a certain amount of drill will be necessary even in rifle clubs, and Queensland has in my opinion set a wise example in that respect. Do we find that there is an)’ lack of enthusiasm in the rifle clubs or volunteer forces? I do not think so. We have here in Victoria 20,000 members of rifle clubs according to returns I saw lately, and from the estimate of the expense of keeping up these rifle clubs, recently submitted by Colonel Templeton, we find., that these 20,000 men, trained to the use of the rifle, cost no more than 700 men in the permanent force. There will be few who will say that these 20,000 men will not be able to give a better account of themselves in Australia’s time of need than 700 men, however highly trained in drill and other manoeuvres they may be. I venture to say further, that man for man, the 20,000 are better marksmen than the 700 of the permanent force.

Mr Crouch:

– The honorable member is mistaken there.

Mr WILKINSON:

– If we take the men in the permanent force we will find that the crack shots amongst them are members of the rifle clubs as well, and men who have largely got their shooting practice as members of rifle clubs, and not as members of the militia or permanent forces. If we look at the results of the rifle association meetings in this and in the other States we will find that members of rifle clubs are generally at the top in all competitions. In Queensland the rifle club movement has not taken the same hold on the people as it has done here, but that is not due to ali)’ want of enthusiasm there, and when we consider the conditions under which members of rifle clubs work there, we will find that the force is as efficient and its competent to take the field to-morrow as a good many of those who are enrolled and attend their drills regularly, but who when they get a rifle in their hands hardly know how to use it, except to shoulder it or present arms with it. Tn Queensland the members of the rifle clubs - and I am speaking of something of which I have some little knowledge, as for thirteen or fourteen years I have been a member of a rifle club - are expected to provide their own uniform ; they are expected to attend a certain number of squad drills, and to undergo a certain course of musketry instruction. They certainly get their ammunition at a little below cost price. They pay fid. per packet of ten rounds for it, but I do not know exactly what the State pays for it.

Mr Crouch:

– 9£d.

Mr WILKINSON:

– In return for thenservices what do they get 1 The)- get free passes over the railways when they go to compete in matches ; they get 60 rounds of ammunition a year free, and they get a 10s. capitation grant when they are returned as efficient. But the 60 rounds of ammunition and the capitation grant do not go to the individual. They go to the club, and the value is divided up into prizes to encourage markmanship again. So there is no personal gain to members of the club except in so far as they can qualify themselves to win some prizes offered by the club or by citizens who desire to encourage rifle shooting. What I want to say is that, in connexion with this particular department, which has been taken over by the Commonwealth, I believe economy can be studied more, perhaps, than in connexion with any other. The expenditure in the State from which I come has run up enormously of late, and I believe we can have a very much larger and more efficient force than we have in that State for far less money than we have been paying - men who will be able to give a good account of themselves should the need ever arise, and men who will give their services willingly. I believe also that every man, whether he be in the volunteer force or the permanent force, should have an opportunity of rising from the ranks to the highest office in the defence force. 1 hold the opinion that the leaders of men are not made, but that they are born, and that we are just as apt to find them in the ranks as amongst the commissioned officers. Men who have qualifications of that kind, and who have risen in that way, will be followed far more readily than some jackinoffice, who is most ignorant of what it is most essential he should know. If we had some such force as this, with some skilled men to train them, I believe Australia would be found by outside nations of the world to possess a defence force ready to rise and repel any invader, and of sufficient strength and sufficient power to preclude any attempt being made to raid her shores. It may be said unless we have a navy, our centres of population, being near the coast, will be liable to suffer incalculable damage, because we will not be able to protect them. But if we had a navy such as we would be able to institute at the present time, we would be still liable to that, even though we were protected by such a force of the British navy as the Imperial Government could afford to send for the protection of Australian shores. A marauding squadron may at any time bombard some coastal settlement of Australia, and we will be liable to that for many years to come. What we want to impress upon the nations of the earth is that, should at any time an attempt be made to effect a landing in Australia, there will be a force here able to give the invaders a very warm reception, and make it little worth their while. I have every faith in the patriotism of the Australian citizen. I believe that whether he is trained or not, if he is living in a country such as I have tried to picture in the course of my remarks, in a home worth living and dying for, he will be found ready in the time of need. I believe, with Henry Lawson, that -

There are boys out there by the western creeks, Who hurry away from school

To climb the sides of the breezy peaks, Or dive in the shaded pool ;

Who will stand to their guns when the mountains quake

To the tread of a mighty war,

And fight for right - or a grand mistake -

As men never fought before.

We have seen that they were capable of doing this.We have seen that they did it on the fields of South Africa. And if that was done for the honour of the Empire, if it was done for the honour of the flag that floats over us, are we not justified in relying upon the more than willingness of our people to do it for their own native land ? The proportion of the native born is largely increasing here in Australia, and I venture to assert that there is as much patriotism in the Australian native as there is in the native of any other land. There will be no need for conscription, and no need for pressing men into the defence force to defend Australia when her needs arise. Let us have a small force to instruct these men in the use of arms and in the few simple manoeuvres now shown to be necessary, and we shall have done all that need be done in providing for the defence of Australia. We do not want to wage an aggressive war. If we did, then we might go in for mercenary troops. In the early history of the nations of the world every man was expected to defend his home and his country, just as we propose that men here shall be expected to defend Australia. But when the war was over the farmer returned to his fields, and the shepherd to his flocks, and the army was disbanded until it was needed to repel aggression again. By-and-by the mercenary spirit crept in, not for home defence, but for wars of aggression, and the States that espoused it never prospered long. I hope the time is far distant when Australia will ever attempt an aggressive war. Let it be purely defence, and we shall never lack men when the hour of need comes, nor shall we lack means either. I must apologize for having trespassed upon the time of the House a little longer than 1 had intended, but 1 think it is necessary, on this occasion at any rate, where a little seeming extravagance in the beginning might lead in the end to very great expenditure, that we should be very cautious in the way in which we move.I hope that the Bill will emerge from the two Houses insuch a form that we shall have a purely citizen soldiery, and a purely Australian defence force.

Debate (on motion by Mr. Hughes)adjourned.

page 3214

ADJOURNMENT

Order of Business : Allowances to Civil. Servants

Mr BARTON:
Protectionist

– (Hunter- Minister for External Affairs). - move -

That the House do now adjourn.

The early orders of the day for to-morrow are formal ones. There will be the consideration of a message as a formal matter ; the report on the Customs Bill, and the report on the Excise on Beer Bill. After that the debate on the Defence Bill will be continued, and the next measure to engage attention will be the Service and Execution of Process Bill, which will be followed in due course, if it can be reached this week, by the Immigration Restriction Bill. If that Bill is not reached this week I propose to goon with the Post and Telegraph Bill as one of those machinery Bills which ought to be brought into operation as soon as possible. I understand that a question was asked this afternoon about a fortnight’s adjournment. The Government have made no such proposal, nor has it engaged their attention.

Mr FULLER:
Illawarra

– A good many appointments have been made by the Administration, both of a new character and also by transfer from other States. We were told by the Prime Minister that the strictest economy would be exercised in regard to the salaries, but I should like to draw his attention to a statement in one of this morning’s newspapers. It is said that a number of transferred officers from other States, in addition to their salaries, which most of’ us consider very high, are also drawing a sum varying from 10s. to two guineas a week according to the grade which they occupy. If that is so it appears to me to be a great departure from the system of economy which was promised to us by the Prime Minister. I do not know whether it is a fact or not, but I would like to know whether there are any expenses allowed to any of the officers who have been transferred from various departments in the States. There is also a further statement made, and that is that these extra payments are to be continued up to the time of the establishement of the federal capital. If that is so it appears to me to be a very long time during which these extra payments will be made, lt is also stated that it is the intention of all the Ministers, with the exception of the Attorney-General and the Treasurer, to remove themselves and their staffs to Sydney when Parliament goes into recess. I should like to know whether, if that is to be done, all those transferred officers will get the same allowance according to grade, as is now it is said being paid. If all the staffs which are engaged in the different departments are transferred in that way, a very large amount of money indeed will be paid in allowances to officers receiving high salaries. There is also a further statement made, which appears to me to call for attention at the hands of the Cabinet, and that is in connexion with the purchase of a large number of Inter-State tickets for conveying by railway under -secretaries, secretaries, and other officials, between the different States, from Friday to Tuesday morning. I was under the impression that these gentlemen were suffering from overwork. If they are able to travel from Friday to Tuesday morning, and it has been necessary to purchase these Inter-State tickets for their convenience, they cannot be sis much overworked as we were led to believe. I should be very glad to have from the Prime Minister an answer in regard to the various matters which I have brought forward.

Mr WATSON:
Bland

– Most of us were rather surprised to see the statements that appeared in the newspaper this morning - it was the first I saw of it, anyhow - as to the allowances which have been made to a number of officers in Melbourne. I understood that the salary to be paid to each officer was to be the total amount which he was to receive. I for one object to the expense of the civil service being loaded in the way which the paragraph referred to would appear to indicate, lt will be, I presume, for the Prime Minister to say what the real state of affairs is, but I should hope, anyhow, that some misinformation has got abroad so far as these allowances are concerned. It would seem from the paragraph that these allowances are to be continued even in the event of the officers going back’ to Sydney.

Mr Barton:

– No. From all I have heard of that part of the paragraph there is a vast deal in it that is incorrect. I have not read it.

Mr WATSON:

– I think most honorable members will agree that where a mau receives a fair salary he ought to be prepared to bring his family, if he has one, down to the place where Parliament is sitting, because it is certain that we shall be here until Christmas at the earliest. The expense of removal should not amount to a very great deal. The salaries are fairly liberal on the whole, so far as I can see, and there should not be any objection to a man bringing his family here or coming here himself for the whole term of the session.

– I am not now dealing with that portion of the paragraph. I have already disposed of that, and I am now referring to the comparison of salaries paid.

Mr.V. L. Solomon. - That is not what was complained of.

Mr BARTON:

-I beg the honorable member’s pardon. 1 know what was complained of, because the representatives of the press have drawn my attention to the matter. I think that I have the right to say that the true basis of comparison for officers who have entered the Commonwealth services, is what is being paid for similar services in the States, assuming that in the States the salaries paid are not excessive. I venture to say this, that if honorable members will take the salaries they have voted for the Commonwealth officers, and compare them with salaries, attached tosimilar positions in New South Wales and Victoria, they will see that the amount voted, in nearly every case, for the Commonwealth offices,has been less than the amounts voted in the States mentioned.. That is of itself a sufficient answer to the charge that we ore paying extravagantly high salaries. I can assure honorable members that, although they may find isolated instances which go the other way, and which are inevitable in organizing a new service, the merest comparison between the rates paid in Victoria and New South Wales - the two principal State - and in the Commonwealth, which includes the whole of the States, will show that the Commonwealth is more reasonable in the allotment of salaries, that is in the. way of economy, than the principal States of the Commonwealth.

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

– What is the good of economy when other allowances are made ?

Mr BARTON:

– Let it be pointed out also that in the way of railway privileges the principal officers of those States have open railway passes, while the principal officers of the Commonwealth have not. . That is a strong fact to be taken into consideration when anybody wishes to form an , opinion as to whether Commonwealth officers on occasion should be allowed, especially in attendance on a Minister, to. travel when a Minister finds himself obliged to travel. I hope honorable members now will suspend their consideration of this matter until the questions which they have raised have been considered by the Govern- . ment. I can assure them that there is no tendency to extravagance on the part of the Government. The Estimates of the: Government are, and have been, swelled, as. the Treasurer has already explained, by two causes, one of which is the extraordinary expenditure - expenditure out of the com- mon rut - which was forced on the

Government by the initiation of a new system, and the other of whichis the large advance which hastaken placesince the estimate of the expenditure of the Commonwealth was made four years ago at Adelaide in the expenditure of the transferred departments, that increased expenditure having become the ordinary annual expenditure of those departments long before they weretransferred to the Commonwealth.

House adjourned at 10.53 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 30 July 1901, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1901/19010730_reps_1_3/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant

House of Representatives30 July 1901

PETITIONS

Mr KNOX:KOOYONG, VICTORIA

Mr WATSON:Bland

Mr SPEAKER:

SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT

Mr KIRWAN:KALGOORLIE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Sir GEORGE TURNER:Treasurer · BALACLAVA, VICTORIA · Protectionist

ORDER OF BUSINESS

Sir GEORGE TURNER:Protectionist

Sir Edward Braddon:

Sir GEORGE TURNER:

Sir WILLIAM McMILLAN:WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT

Sir GEORGE TURNER:

CUSTOMS BILL

STATE LAWS AND RECORDS

CUSTOMS BILL

Mr PIESSE:Tasmania

Sir George Turner:

Mr PIESSE:

Mr Kingston:

Mr PIESSE:

Mr Page:

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

Mr PIESSE:TASMANIA, TASMANIA · FT

Mr KINGSTON:Protectionist

Mr Piesse:

Mr KINGSTON:

Mr Piesse:

Mr KINGSTON:

Mr Piesse:

Mr KINGSTON:

Sir Malcolm McEacharn:

Mr KINGSTON:

Sir Malcolm McEacharn:

Mr KINGSTON:

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

Mr KINGSTON:

Mr A McLEAN:GIPPSLAND, VICTORIA · PROT

Mr KINGSTON:

Mr A McLEAN:GIPPSLAND, VICTORIA · PROT

Mr KINGSTON:

Mr A McLEAN:GIPPSLAND, VICTORIA · PROT

Sir Malcolm McEacharn:

Mr KINGSTON:

Mr Thomson:

Mr KINGSTON:

Mr THOMSON:North Sydney

Mr Piesse:

Mr THOMSON:

Sir George Turner:

Mr THOMSON:

Mr Watson:

Mr THOMSON:

Mr Kingston:

Mr THOMSON:

Mr Kingston:

Sir George Turner:

Mr THOMSON:

Mr Kingston:

Mr THOMSON:

Sir George Turner:

Mr THOMSON:

Sir George Turner:

Mr THOMSON:

Mr Watson:

Mr THOMSON:

Mr Mauger:

Mr THOMSON:

Mr Kingston:

Mr Mauger:

Mr THOMSON:

Mr Kingston:

Mr THOMSON:

Mr Kingston:

Mr THOMSON:

Mr Kingston:

Sir George Turner:

Mr THOMSON:

Mr THOMSON:

House of Representatives
30 July 1901

Mr KNOX:
KOOYONG, VICTORIA

Mr WATSON:
Bland

Mr KIRWAN:
KALGOORLIE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Sir GEORGE TURNER:
Treasurer · BALACLAVA, VICTORIA · Protectionist

Sir GEORGE TURNER:
Protectionist

Sir WILLIAM McMILLAN:
WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT

Mr PIESSE:
Tasmania

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

Mr PIESSE:
TASMANIA, TASMANIA · FT

Mr KINGSTON:
Protectionist

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

Mr A McLEAN:
GIPPSLAND, VICTORIA · PROT

Mr A McLEAN:
GIPPSLAND, VICTORIA · PROT

Mr A McLEAN:
GIPPSLAND, VICTORIA · PROT

Mr THOMSON:
North Sydney

Sir WILLIAM McMILLAN:
Wentworth

Mr A McLEAN:
GIPPSLAND, VICTORIA · PROT

Mr A McLEAN:
GIPPSLAND, VICTORIA · PROT

Mr PIESSE:
Tasmania

Mr KINGSTON:
Protectionist

Mr PIESSE:
Tasmania

Mr KINGSTON:
Protectionist

Mr PIESSE:
Tasmania

Sir WILLIAM MCMILLAN:
Wentworth

Mr KINGSTON:
Protectionist